United States Department of Agriculture

Twelve Mile Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Pisgah National Forest Appalachian Ranger District July, 2019 For More Information Contact:

Jason Herron Environmental Coordinator 632 Manor Drive Mars Hill, NC 28754 (828) 689-9694

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment

Contents

Purpose and Need ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 2 Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction ...... 4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 6 Issues and Alternatives ...... 11 Public Involvement ...... 11 Issues ...... 11 Range of Alternatives ...... 12 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 12 Alternative A – No Action ...... 12 Alternative B – Action Alternative ...... 12 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 12 Action Alternative ...... 13 Summary of Action Alternative ...... 30 Descriptions of Proposed Actions ...... 30 Transportation Management ...... 34 Project Design Criteria and Mitigation ...... 41 Monitoring ...... 44 Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 45 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat ...... 46 Scale of Analysis ...... 46 Effects Analysis ...... 50 Determination of Effect ...... 61 Soil/Geology Resources ...... 63 Scope of the Analysis ...... 63 Existing Conditions ...... 63 Hydric Soils Listing ...... 64 Prime Farmland Soils Listing ...... 64 Desired Condition of the Soils ...... 65 Direct & Indirect Effects Analysis ...... 65 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 76 Wildlife ...... 78 Introduction ...... 78 Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods ...... 78 Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition ...... 79 Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources ...... 83 Effects to TES and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species ...... 87 Summary of Effects ...... 96 Botanical ...... 100 Introduction ...... 100 Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods ...... 100 Existing Botanical Condition ...... 102 Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species ...... 111 Effects of Non-Native Invasive Plant Species within the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 120 Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas ...... 122 Summary of Effects ...... 123 Cultural Resources ...... 124

iii Environmental Assessment

Existing Condition ...... 124 Protection and Conservation Mitigations ...... 124 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 125 Recreation ...... 126 Existing Condition ...... 126 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 126 Cumulative Effects ...... 129 Air Quality ...... 130 Scope of Analysis ...... 130 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 130 Scenery ...... 133 Scope of Analysis ...... 133 Existing Condition ...... 133 Forest Plan Direction ...... 133 Analysis...... 134 Effects by Alternative ...... 135 Cumulative Effects ...... 146 Forest Landscape and Ecozones ...... 147 Scope of Analysis ...... 147 Existing Condition ...... 147 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 155 Cumulative Effects ...... 169 Limitations of the Analysis ...... 170 Economics ...... 173 Climate Change...... 174 Scope of Analysis ...... 174 Existing Condition ...... 174 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 174 Cumulative Effects ...... 176 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 177 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 177 Tribal Governments, Government Agencies, and Collaborative Groups Contacted ...... 177 Others Contacted ...... 178 Bibliography ...... 179 Appendix A – 0-10 Year Age Class Analysis ...... 184 Appendix B –Project Area Ecological Departure Analysis ...... 186 Appendix C –Details of Proposed Watershed Improvement Projects ...... 188 Appendix D – Aquatic Rare Species List for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests ...... 193 Appendix E – Wildlife Rare Species List for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests ...... 198 Appendix F – Haywood County TES Plants List ...... 206 Appendix G – NC Watchlist Plants List ...... 214 Appendix H – Map Corrections ...... 215

iv Environmental Assessment

List of Tables

Table 1. Project area acreage by ownership and Forest Plan management areas ...... 4 Table 2. Compartment level 0-10 year age class needs analysis ...... 6 Table 3. Small patch old growth analysis ...... 7 Table 4. Permanent wildlife opening analysis ...... 8 Table 5. Condition class departure analysis by ecological zone ...... 9 Table 6. Proposed actions and locations, size descriptions, access, management area, and associated need(s) ...... 14 Table 7. Summary of Proposed Actions...... 30 Table 8. Proposed road construction and National Forest System Road (NFSR) additions needed to access proposed management actions...... 36 Table 9. Proposed management changes to existing National Forest System Roads (NFSR) and existing non NFSR...... 37 Table 10. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Twelve Mile Project Analysis Area ...... 45 Table 11. Seven Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Projects and eight culverts (in streams) associated with access to this project area ...... 52 Table 12. New road construction mileage ...... 53 Table 13. Effects on forest-wide aquatic habitat ...... 58 Table 14. Threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and forest concern species in Haywood County, Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area ...... 60 Table 15. Activity areas potentially impacting the soil resource for the action alternative, Twelve Mile AA Project ...... 63 Table 16. Primary soils (> 10 acres) in proposed activity areas ...... 64 Table 17. Summary of prime farmlands in the activity area ...... 65 Table 18. Estimated short- and long-term effects to soil productivity for Alternative B. (Activities in Bold Font are assessed in Table 5 while the others are assessed separately ...... 67 Table 19. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by the Alternative B ...... 68 Table 20. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Interpretation of hazard of soil loss from areas off-roads and off-trails for Alternative B ...... 73 Table 21. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Interpretation of hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails for Alternative B...... 74 Table 22. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Harvest Equipment Operability ...... 76 Table 23. Cumulative effects to long-term soil productivity by alternative for the project area ...... 77 Table 24. Estimated quantity of communities within terrestrial wildlife analysis area, Forest Service Lands ...... 79 Table 25. Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Regional Forester's Sensitive (S) Species and Forest Concern (FC) terrestrial animal species considered to occur within the twelve Mile Analysis Area ...... 80 Table 26. Management indicator species and associated habitat effects ...... 97 Table 27. Summary of effects to TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species known in the AA ...... 97 Table 28. Known TES plant species in the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 103 Table 29. Known forest concern plant species within the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 104 Table 30. NC Significant Natural Heritage Ares in the Twelve Mile Analysis Area ...... 107 Table 31. Non-native invasive plant species in the Twelve Mile Project Area ...... 109 Table 32. Impact determination for Region 8 sensitive botanical species...... 114 Table 33. Impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. .. 120 Table 34. Relative risk of spread of NNIP to adjacent areas based on proposed action type (USDA, 2009)...... 121 Table 35. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and forest concern plant species by alternative ...... 123

v Environmental Assessment

Table 36. Visual Quality Objectives for each Management Area, Distance Zone, and Visual Sensitivity Level Combination ...... 134 Table 37. Visual design features that will be used to meet Visual Quality Objectives on the Twelve Mile Project; listed are the design features, potential applicability, and a description ...... 139 Table 38. Visual design features for Proposed Actions...... 141 Table 39. Visual design features for each Proposed Road Activity ...... 145 Table 40. Ecological zone and proposed treatment acres for the Twelve Mile Project Area ...... 147 Table 41. Current departure for each seral stage and ecological zone in the Twelve Mile Project Area. Desired ranges represent natural range of variation ...... 148 Table 42. Projected departure under the proposed action for each seral stage and ecological zone in the Twelve Mile Project Area ...... 157 Table 43. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the pine-oak heath ecozone ...... 158 Table 44. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the shortleaf pine ecozone ...... 159 Table 45. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the rich cove ecozone ...... 160 Table 46. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the mesic oak ecozone ...... 162 Table 47. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the dry oak ecozone ...... 163 Table 48. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the dry-mesic oak ecozone ...... 164 Table 49. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the acidic cove ecozone ...... 166 Table 50. The planned and allowed acres of 0 to 10 age class for each compartment by Management Area ...... 168 Table 51. Powerline right-of-way (ROT) expansion and hazard tree acres for each ecozone ...... 170 Table 52. Percent accuracy of the ecological zones on the Pisgah National Forest ...... 171 Table 53. Estimated volume removed and net value for each species group. Numbers are based on the most recent TREV and FVS-SN modeled simulations of the proposed action ...... 173 Table 54. Management area (MA) and analysis area geographic area scales maximum 0-10 year age class ...... 184 Table 55. Management area (MA) and analysis area geographic scales minimum 0-10 year age class ... 184 Table 56. Compartment geographic scale maximum 0-10 year age class by management area (MA) ..... 184 Table 57. Compartment 0-10 year age class needs analysis ...... 185 Table 58. Age range, acres, and current percentages of condition classes by ecological zone ...... 186 Table 59. Condition class departure analysis by ecological zone ...... 186 Table 60. Need to meet lower ranges (NRV) of early forest conditions expressed in acres for the project area (PA) ...... 187

List of Figures Figure 1. Twelve Mile Vicinity Map ...... 1 Figure 2. Twelve Mile project area compartments and Forest Plan management areas map ...... 4 Figure 3. Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area Map; the aquatic analysis area extends beyond the project area boundary to analyze watershed systems and also includes prescribed burning proposal on GSM National Park lands...... 47 Figure 4. Image from Duke Energy monitoring locations (2016) ...... 48 Figure 5. Current age class distribution for the Twelve Mile Project Area ...... 149 Figure 6. Comparison of age class distribution in 2022, two years post-harvest ...... 157

vi Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need Introduction

The Twelve Mile Project Area (Project Area) is in Haywood County on the Appalachian Ranger District adjacent to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Long Arm Mountain and Hurricane Mountain shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Twelve Mile Vicinity Map

1 Environmental Assessment

Background

The Twelve Mile Project utilized a collaborative approach to project planning. Interested parties were engaged to form a project level collaborative group starting at the early stages of planning. Several individuals, groups, and agencies that represent a wide array of interests were heavily involved in shaping the final proposed action prior to scoping. The first collaborative engagement was a public meeting held at the North Carolina Arboretum on July 14, 2016. This meeting consisted of short presentations by Forest Service personnel followed by three sessions designed to facilitate discussions across multiple, and often conflicting, interests groups. This meeting established the project area boundary, identified potential opportunities, and reviewed data and analysis needs. After this meeting, the stand data for the project area was updated by collecting vegetation measurements (common stand exams) across approximately 75% of the project area. In the remainder of the project area, these 2016 data were imputed using data analyzer software to create a wall-to-wall data set. Forest Service employees then analyzed these data to look specifically at the opportunities and metrics identified by the collaborative group. Among the expressed needs for this project was the desire to incorporate the ecological restoration concepts that were developing in the revision of the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan, which has a focus on condition class departure within ecozones. For this project, that manifested as an analysis of ecozone departure at the project area scale. Although this provided valuable insight and priorities for this particular project, it was discovered that this method may have issues of scale and therefore should not necessarily set the precedent for future projects. In addition to the ecozone departure analysis, this landscape assessment also included age class analysis, young forest (0-10 year age class) analysis, old growth analysis, and a transportation analysis. Forest Service employees also looked at other metrics to identify opportunities such as converting white pine plantations, creating woodlands, restoring shortleaf pine, regenerating oak species, creating golden- winged warbler habitat, and several other prospects. This assessment aided in identifying priorities within each compartment. Forest Service employees also began to look at other needs such as stream restoration and transportation improvements. The second collaborative engagement was a public meeting held at the Mars Hill University on October 25, 2017. The purpose of this meeting was to review the analysis and the potential management opportunities that were starting to be developed by Forest Service employees. This meeting consisted of Forest Service personnel presenting the landscape assessment and some potential actions followed by a collaborative engagement session to foster small group discussions. This meeting identified several issues that needed further discussion and collaborative involvement. These issues fell into four basic categories: 1) forest management and wildlife habitat, 2) wildlife corridors, 3) recreation, and 4) roads. A third collaborative meeting was held on January 11, 2018 in response to conversations and concerns from the previous meeting. This meeting was an informal open house style meeting at the Appalachian Ranger District Office during which four workgroups were established to focus on the four categories of issues previously identified. Between January 11, 2018 and February 28, 2018, the four workgroups held numerous meetings and field trips to discuss issues and work towards developing a proposed action.

Notes from the collaborative meetings can be found on the Twelve Mile Project website in the Project Documents section under the Pre-Scoping tab. The project website is located at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48776.

2 Environmental Assessment

During the development of the proposed action, there was a strong desire among the collaborative group for a prescribed burn unit that spanned beyond the project area and included Great Smoky Mountains National Park lands. The National Park was supportive of this proposal and it was decided that there would be a combined environmental analysis. Therefore, those acres are included in the following National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, environmental analysis, and documentation. The National Park Service maintains authority for the final decision for actions proposed on Park Service Lands and will issue a separate Decision Notice. Likewise, there is a proposed prescribed burn unit and a proposed woodland management unit that are bisected by a thin strip of land owned by Duke Power. These actions will need to be coordinated with Duke Power and appropriate formal agreements will need to be in place before implementation if any actions are going to be considered on non-federal lands.

Partner groups and agencies actively involved in the project collaboration:

• Duke Energy • National Parks Conservation Association • The Nature Conservancy • Evergreen Packaging • Mountain True • Smoky Mountain News • Eastern Band of Cherokee • Elk Bugle Corp • The Wilderness Society • Defenders of Wildlife • Carolina Mountain Club • Southern Environmental Law Center • Back Country Horsemen of NC • Southern Off-Road Bicycle Association • NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Asheville/Knoxville) • Great Smoky Mountains National Park • Root Cause • Ruffed Grouse Society • The National Wild Turkey Federation • Haywood County • Forest Service Southern Research Station • Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation • The Jeep Crew • Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council • NC Department of Transportation • Canton Sawmill • Other various interested individuals, local • French Broad Riverkeeper land owners, and students

3 Environmental Assessment

Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction

Within forest service ownership, there are several management areas (MA) as defined by the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), Amendment 5, for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USDA, 1994). In addition, the management areas are overlaid by an estimated 2,151 acres of MA 18 (Riparian Areas). See Figure 2 for a map of the Twelve Mile Project Management Areas. Table 1 is an acreage breakdown of the management areas within the project area. Table 1. Project area acreage by ownership and Forest Plan management areas Private Forest Land Service Land MA 1B MA 2A MA 3B MA 4A MA 4C MA 4D Twelve Mile Project 5,124 18,096 3660 430 4,098 421 5,823 3,664 Area Acres

Figure 2. Twelve Mile project area compartments and Forest Plan management areas map

4 Environmental Assessment

The general directions and goals for each Forest Plan MA(s) are as follows:

MA 1B - Emphasize a sustainable supply of timber and providing motorized access into the forest for traditional forest uses such as hunting and gathering, firewood cutting, fishing, and recreational activities including ORV [off-road vehicle] use and camping. These areas have open roads, and the visitor is likely to encounter other forest users and vehicles of all types. A sustainable supply of timber is achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time. Although a regulated forest is desired, natural forest settings will be present. The visitor may encounter forest management activities in progress, including timber harvest, road building, and timber stand improvement. Wildlife compatible with or that benefit from these conditions, such as grouse, deer and songbirds are likely to be present. Timber production is permitted within this management area (USDA, 1994, pp. III-75).

MA 2A – Provides visually pleasing scenery for forest visitors. Roads are generally open with the adjacent forest land managed to provide that pleasing visual experience. Timber production is permitted, but modified to meet visual quality objectives) (USDA, 1994, pp. III-63).

MA 3B – Emphasize sustainable supply of timber, but with few open roads and limited disturbance associated with motorized vehicles. This management area also provides for the habitat needs of wildlife such as wild turkey, deer, a variety of small mammals, and other species that will benefit from a managed forest with limited motorized access. A sustainable supply of timber is achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time. Access to the forest is desired during the time timber is harvested, though most roads are closed at other times. Although a regulated forest is desired, some natural forest settings will be present. The visitor may encounter forest management activities in progress, including timber harvest, road building and timber stand improvement. Wildlife compatible with or that benefit from these conditions, such as deer, raccoon and other small mammals are likely to be present. Black bear also use these areas, though they do not provide the best black bear habitat. Recreationists use these areas for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting and other activities. The visitor may encounter other forest users, but not as frequently as in areas with open roads (USDA, 1994, pp. III-71).

MA 4A – Permit timber production, modified to emphasize visual quality and wildlife habitat (USDA, 1994, pp. III-77).

MA 4C – Emphasize visually pleasing scenery and habitats for wildlife requiring older forests. This land is not suitable for timber production at this time in order to meet visual quality objectives, or the lands are not cost efficient for timber production (USDA, 1994, pp. III-77).

MA 4D - Emphasize high quality habitats for wildlife requiring older forests and freedom from disturbance from motorized vehicles. Allow small widely dispersed openings throughout the management area. Close most roads to private motorized vehicles. Early successional habitat is provided in conjunction with managing suitable timber land in these areas (USDA, 1994, pp. III-78).

MA 18 - The Riparian Management Area, embedded in other management areas, consists of the aquatic ecosystem, riparian ecosystem and closely associated plant and animal communities. This area includes at a minimum: perennial streams and perennial waterbodies, wetlands, 100-year floodplains and a zone on each side of all perennial streams and lakes. The area will be actively managed to protect and enhance, where possible, the distinctive resource values and characteristics dependent on or associated with these systems. For example, timber management can only occur in this area if needed to maintain or enhance riparian habitat values (USDA, 1994, pp. III-179).

5 Environmental Assessment

Purpose and Need for Action

This project was developed for the following purposes:

1) Implement the General Direction and Standards for Forest Plan Management Areas (MA) 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, 4C, 4D, and 18 in the Forest Plan.

2) Manage for a resilient forested landscape and maintain functioning ecosystems by creating diverse condition classes and managing for a diversity of tree species considered appropriate for the ecological zones.

3) Manage for productive wildlife populations by creating a range of habitat types beneficial for a suite of species including elk that were reintroduced to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and have migrated onto adjacent Forest Service Lands.

4) Provide a sustainable output of timber products to support local economies.

5) Improve water quality, hydrologic function, and aquatic organism passage.

6) Provide adequate access for public use, management needs, and access to private lands.

Needs Identified:

The following needs were identified in conjunction with the project purposes identified above.

1) There is a need to create 0-10 year age class. Forest-wide direction, Vegetation Management, 1.b. states: The amount of 0-10 age class is regulated at 3 geographic scales: the analysis area, management area, and compartment (USDA, 1994, pp. III-29). See Appendix A – 0-10 Year Age Class Analysis for analysis area and management area analysis. The compartment needs analysis is in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Compartment level 0-10 year age class needs analysis Compartment MA Max 0-10 Analysis Max 0-10 per Compartment MA 1B MA 2A MA 3B MA 4A MA 4C MA 4D Total MA ACRES Greatest %MA % 0-10 Compartment 452 0 418 834 0 9 0 1261 3B 0.15 189 453 0 0 63 0 1045 0 1108 4C 0 0 454 0 0 57 0 782 0 839 4C 0 0 455 1 0 5 0 814 0 820 4C 0 0 456 0 0 639 0 256 0 895 3B 0.15 134 457 0 12 694 0 101 0 807 3B 0.15 121 458 0 0 962 0 0 0 962 3B 0.15 144 462 736 0 0 0 530 0 1266 1B 0.15 190 463 0 0 447 0 763 0 1210 3B 0.15 182 464 481 0 397 421 0 0 1299 1B 0.15 195 465 0 0 0 0 159 519 678 4D 0.1 68 466 0 0 0 0 322 965 1287 4D 0.1 129 467 0 0 0 0 145 880 1025 4D 0.1 103 468 1077 0 0 0 0 0 1077 1B 0.15 162 469 759 0 0 0 663 0 1422 1B 0.15 213 475 606 0 0 0 235 0 841 1B 0.15 126 476 0 0 0 0 0 633 633 4D 0.1 63 477 0 0 0 0 0 668 668 4D 0.1 67

6 Environmental Assessment

2) There is a need to commercially thin overstocked units. Currently there are stands in the Project Area that are overstocked and structurally simple. MA 1B – Thin on a schedule that maintains optimum growth and desired mix of tree species for sawtimber production (USDA, 1994, pp. III-61). MA 2A - Thin to maintain or improve wildlife habitat, visual conditions, or desired number and mix of tree species (USDA, 1994, pp. III-69). MA 3B – Thin on a schedule that maintains optimum growth and desired mix of tree species for sawtimber production (USDA, 1994, pp. III-75). MA 4A and 4D – Thin to maintain or improve wildlife habitat, visual conditions, or desired number and mix of tree species (USDA, 1994, pp. III-86).

3) There is a need for non-commercial stand improvement to reduce stocking, improve growth, and promote desired species. Currently there are previously harvested stands in the project area that are overstocked and/or have an overabundance of oriental bittersweet and grapevine. Use the following characteristics to select stands for timber stand improvement in management areas where timber production is permitted: overstocked as determined by stocking survey and when the treatment will produce positive [present net value] PNV based on economic analysis (USDA, 1994, pp. III-36).

4) There is a need to designate small patch old growth. Select the small patches prior to the first ground disturbing project of at least 5 acres proposed in the compartment. Select a contiguous area at least 5% the size of the national forest land in the compartment or at least 50 acres, whichever is greater (USDA, 1994, pp. III-27). Table 3 shows the need for small patch old growth designation and known existing designations:

Table 3. Small patch old growth analysis Required Small Patch Old Growth Existing Compartment ACRES 5% Designation Designation 452 1261 63 63 Yes 453 1108 55 55 No 454 839 42 50 No 455 820 41 50 No 456 895 45 50 No 457 807 40 50 No 458 962 48 50 No 462 1266 63 63 Yes 463 1210 61 61 No 464 1299 65 65 No 465 678 34 50 No 466 1287 64 64 Yes 467 1025 51 51 Yes 468 1077 54 54 Yes 469 1422 71 71 Yes 475 841 42 50 No 476 633 32 50 No 477 668 33 50 Yes

7 Environmental Assessment

5) There is a need to create, maintain, and improve semi-permanent wildlife openings in MA 3B, 4A, 4C, and 4D1. Use a desired density of 3% for permanent grass and forb openings (USDA, 1994, pp. III-74 & III-84). See Table 4 for permanent wildlife opening needs analysis for these MA(s). To maintain and improve existing wildlife openings, there is also a need to increase sunlight to the grass forb area and create a brushy interface between the opening and the forest.

Table 4. Permanent wildlife opening analysis Current Total Current Linear Current 3% Openings – Wildlife Permanent MA Acres Acres Fields Openings Openings Need 3B 4098 123 5.32 12.1 17.4 105.6 4A 421 13 4.11 2.6 6.7 6.3 4C 5823 175 8.52 12.79 21.3 153.7 4D 3664 110 0 5.52 5.5 104.5

6) There is a need to increase shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) and other yellow pine species within the shortleaf pine and pine/oak heath ecological zones. There is a limited amount of shortleaf pine and pine/oak heath ecological zones within this project area. Where it does exist, there is often very little to no southern yellow pine species component due to past beetle epidemics (Schweitzer, Clatterbuck, & Oswalt, 2016) and lack of fire disturbance. Additionally, Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data suggest a 53% decline in short leaf pine across the entire range since the 1980s (Oswalt).

7) There is a need to manage white pine (Pinus strobus) dominated stands towards species that are more appropriate for the ecological zone. In the 70s and 80s, it was common for poor sites to be planted with white pine after harvest, or other stand disturbance, in an effort to gain higher production on these grounds. To restore wildlife habitat and ecological function, it is desired to return these stands to a species mix that should exist within the ecological zone.

8) There is a need to promote the regeneration of oak species (Quercus spp.) within the appropriate ecological zones. Oak decline is prevalent in the eastern United Stated as a result of multiple abiotic and biotic factors (Moorehead & Douce, 2015). Although this decline is thought to be a function of the ecosystem, it is compounded with problematic regeneration resulting in less oak species on the landscape. Oaks are desirable for many reasons including wildlife habitat, hard mast production, valuable timber products, and because of their aesthetic value. Due to the difficulty of regenerating oak species following harvest or natural stand disturbance, it is important to manage for advanced oak regeneration where appropriate and take advantage of the advance oak regeneration that currently exists.

9) There is a need to move the condition classes within ecological zones towards the natural range of variation (NRV). Each ecological zone has been modeled to determine a natural range of each of the following condition classes: early, mid open canopy, mid closed canopy, late open canopy, late closed canopy, old growth open canopy, and old growth closed canopy (USDA,

1 MA 1B emphasizes temporary wildlife habitat within the context of timber management but does not preclude creating permanent wildlife habitat.

8 Environmental Assessment

2017). A departure analysis of the project area compares the current conditions with the desired conditions (NRV). Table 5 below displays the departure analysis by ecological zone. Table 5. Condition class departure analysis by ecological zone Early Mid Closed Mid Open Late Closed Late Open Old Growth Closed Old Growth Open Ecological Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Zones Current Current Current Current Current Current Current Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Northern 0% 17-23% 0% 1.5-2.5% 0% 11-14% 100% 2-3% 0% 40-50% 0% Hardwoods 5-7% 11-14% 0% Acidic Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 89% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 8% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 2% 0% 0% Rich Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 79% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 20% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 1% 0% 0% Flood Plain 6-8% 0% 30-36% 90% 9-14%% 0% 8-9% 6% 3-4% 0% 22-30% 3% 9-13% 0% Mesic Oak 4-5.5% 0% 12-15% 33% 12-16% 0% 8-10% 61% 5-7% 0% 27-34% 6% 20-25% 0% Dry Oak 9-22% 0% 2-7% 18% 12-19% 0% 1-3% 53% 6-9% 0% 5-16% 29% 40-57% 0% Dry Mesic 0% 7-9% 25% 13-17% 0% 7-8% 73% 7-9% 0% 22-28% 1% Oak 5-7% 28-33% 0% Shortleaf 0% .5-4% 37% 34-42% 0% .5-4% 53% 22-26% 0% .5-4% 11% Pine 8-13% 16-29% 0% Pine-Oak 0% .5-5% 26% 34-42% 0% .5-5% 69% 20-27% 0% .5-3% 6% Heath 11-19% 11-26% 0%

This departure analysis shows a deficiency (green) in early forest in all ecological zones, a deficiency in open forest condition in most ecological zones and age classes, and deficiency of old growth in several ecological zones. This analysis also shows an overabundance (red) in the mid closed and late closed conditions of most ecological zones. This suggests that mid closed and late closed condition classes could be converted to early condition class or allowed to move towards meeting old growth desired conditions in the future. Likewise, closed canopy conditions could be managed to move toward meeting desired open forest conditions. Table 5 is displayed in percentages. However, some ecological zones represent more of the project area than others. In terms of acres, priority for early forest creation should be given to rich cove, dry mesic oak, pine/oak heath, and mesic oak when possible. See Appendix B –Project Area Ecological Departure Analysis for additional analysis.

10) There is a need to create suitable habitat for golden-winged warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera). Golden-winged warblers (GWW) are a forest concern species. Populations of this species are rapidly declining due to a decline of suitable habitat (young forest with broken shrubs and edge), connectivity, and competition and hybridization with Blue-winged Warblers. During the past 45 years, the GWW has experienced one of the steepest declines of any North American songbird. In the Appalachian Mountains there has been an alarming 97.8% population loss from 1966-2010 and in North Carolina specifically, populations are dropping an estimated 10% per year (Golden-winged Warbler Working Group, 2013). Focal areas for golden-winged warbler management identified by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission overlay the project area. Within this area, there is a need to create more suitable GWW habitat in addition to other habitat goals identified in the Forest Plan in an effort to stabilize and increase GWW population size.

11) There is a need to replace undersized or failing culverts and improve fords to protect water quality. This project and analysis includes culvert replacement wherein significant changes will occur for aquatic organism passage. Additionally, 55 other culverts in the project area have been identified as needing replacement but will be replaced as is and therefore considered normal road maintenance and will not be included in this analysis.

9 Environmental Assessment

12) There is a need to restore aquatic organism passage (AOP) where old culverts or fords limit the movement of aquatic species. Where road crossings are impeding the movement of aquatic organisms, culverts or fords will be replaced or enhanced with designs that improve AOP.

13) There is a need to restore stream conditions in Cold Springs Creek and Fall Branch. The Cold Springs stream channel has been disturbed by past management in the area. This reach has evidence of historic activity including foundations of historic structures. Although the channel is largely functioning properly, there are sections of excessive streambank instability and erosion indicating that the channel has been disturbed by human activity. The most upstream section of this reach is adjacent to the picnic area where the flood area has been leveled and the channel confined. Downstream, the channel is slightly entrenched and the frequency of floodplain access has decreased, resulting in lateral channel adjustment and bank erosion. These conditions exist downstream to beaver ponds, a reach of about 0.35 miles. The current elevated rates of erosion will likely continue unless stream enhancement work is conducted. The Fall Branch stream channel has been disturbed by past management in the area. The channel is largely functioning properly, but there are sections of excessive bank and bed instability and erosion in this ~0.31 mile reach. Additionally, there is an old road crossing of timbers that has plugged and is at high risk of failure resulting in a large source of sediment to the downstream channel.

14) There is a need to create a safe and efficient transportation system to provide and improve access for public and commercial recreation, research, public land management, and private land use in the most ecological, economic, and socially sustainable manner. A transportation analysis identified multiple needs to create or improve access for land management, change system road management objectives, change seasonal restrictions, and improve signage and informational kiosks.

10 Environmental Assessment

Issues and Alternatives Public Involvement

The Twelve Mile Project was initiated with a public meeting on July 14, 2016. As detailed in the Background section, several meetings and field trips were held involving a collaborative group representing various interests and user groups. These collaborative discussions led to the development of the purpose and need and proposed actions. This project was first published in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on April 1, 2016. The proposed actions were available on the public website and interested people were contacted to begin an official scoping period between May 3 and June 6, 2018. Additionally, a public open house meeting was held on May 9, 2018 in which adjacent and nearby property owners were invited by mail. This meeting generated several discussions and one written comment was received. During the official scoping period, eleven comment letters were received electronically and one hand written comment was received. A follow up meeting was held to further discuss Haynes Road with adjacent land owners and environmental organizations on October 26, 2018.

Issues

Issues are defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about project details or environmental effects. Key issues are used to develop alternatives, modifications, mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. Responses to all comments received are included in the project record. The following key issues were identified through public scoping and interdisciplinary team discussions and were considered to create the final Action Alternative:

Key Issue #1: The creation of elk habitat was a driver for the selection of this project area and should be added to the list of project purposes. Key Issue #2: The purpose and need to increase species diversity in stands dominated by yellow poplar in the rich cove ecological zone is deficient to justify proposed actions. Key Issue #3: Landings should be maintained as permanent openings instead of “semi-permanent”. Key Issue #4: Landings could be expanded for golden winged warbler habitat improvements. Key Issue #5: Wildlife fields in golden-winged warbler focal areas should be thinned around the edges. Key Issue #6: Reconsider woodland proposal on far reaches of Brushy Ridge as limiting roads and access may be more beneficial than enhancing woodland in old growth conditions. Key Issue #7: Stand 0469-44 is part of the Mount Sterling Creek Forests Natural Area and is adjacent to Mount Sterling Creek, which is a high quality trout stream. In this area there is a high potential for rare plants. Much of the stand is steep with many rocks, boulders, and cliffs. The risk of erosion is high. Key Issue #8: The concerns that seasonal closures on Cold Springs Road will affect local residents. Key Issue #9: The seasonal closure of Haynes Road above private inholdings would create problems at the turn around area and would also create twice the traffic/use on the open portion.

11 Environmental Assessment

Range of Alternatives

The range of alternatives developed and analyzed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was driven by the purpose and need of the proposal and by the key issues identified through scoping. The only exception is the No Action Alternative, which is analyzed as a baseline alternative with which to compare effects of the action alternatives.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Two alternatives were considered in detail by the IDT; Alternative A – No Action and Alternative B – Action Alternative. The Action Alternative was developed by modifying the Proposed Action as scoped in an attempt to address the key issues. The Proposed Action was modified instead of creating a new alternative because the changes were fairly minor and would provide very limited value for alternative comparison. The modifications to the Proposed Action are presented below in the Action Alternative description.

Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative no new activities would be implemented– existing conditions would remain as is and on current trajectory. The no action alternative serves as the environmental baseline for analysis of effects.

Alternative B – Action Alternative

The action alternative is the Proposed Action that has been amended slightly in response to key issues identified during the scoping process and is detailed in the Action Alternative section below.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.14(a), the following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study: Alternative 1: Collaborative input suggested adding a system of trails for biking along closed roads in the project area. This action was considered but eliminated from detailed study for the following reasons: 1) Adding a bike trail system requires much more input from user groups and communities across the forest to determine the best placement for a new system and should be commensurate with a trails strategy and priorities. This is outside the scope of the Twelve Mile Project which is focused on forest and wildlife habitat management; 2) trails that were built as roads are difficult to maintain and for that reason adding system bike trails on existing closed roads is often less successful than creating trail systems that are purpose designed and built for the intended use; and 3) many of the closed roads in this area are being managed for wildlife benefits which would create a conflict of use. Alternative 2: Collaborative input suggested adding a new road to access the Hurricane Creek area from Cold Springs Road. This action was considered but eliminated from detailed study because it would be extremely difficult and expensive to build. An alternate route was also explored for access from the Billy Top Road but it was determined this road was not built to open road specifications for passenger cars and would require extensive reconstruction to be used for that purpose. At this time the access is still physically open at the intersection with I-40 and a seasonal closure to reduce road damage and erosion issues is being considered as part of the action alternative.

12 Environmental Assessment

Action Alternative

After reviewing scoping comments and further field review, the following changes were made to the proposed action from scoping to create the Action Alternative:

• Elk habitat was specifically added into the purpose of the project which was previously stated as “habitat improvements for a range of species”.

• The need to increase species diversity in stands dominated by yellow poplar in the rich cove ecological zone was removed.

• Maintaining landings as wildlife openings was changed from “semi-permanent” to “permanent” where adjacent to proper access. Expanding landings in the golden wing warbler focal area was also added.

• An action was added to thin forests around permanent wildlife fields in the golden winged warbler focal area.

• Seasonal closure of Cold Springs Road and associated seasonal closure of 148A was removed.

• Seasonal closure of Haynes Road was modified to include the entire road section.

• Activity unit boundaries slightly modified resulting in a reduction of acres: 0475-28/29/30, 0475- 18, 0475-32, 0477-16/22, 0466-19, 0466-8, 0462-42, 0462-20, 0452-5, and 0458-8.

• Activity unit boundaries slightly modified resulting in additional acres: 0468-2, 19, 0452-27, and 0475-25/26/27/29.

• Activity units removed: 0475-23, 0475-24, 0469-44, 0476-25, 0476-21, 0468-37, 0476-8, 0476- 14, 0477-10, 0466-10, 0467-15/16/17, and 0462-35/39.

• Activity units change in prescription: 0477-14, 0477-7, 0466-19, 0466-8, 0462-22, 0458-16, 0458-18, 0458-8, and 0458-19.

• Activity units added: 0475-35, 33, 31; 0477-15, and 0477-6.

Table 6 is a lengthy table that displays each individual action proposed to meet the purpose(s) and need(s) of this project. Maps of the Action Alternative can be found on the project website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48776, under the analysis tab. Located on the website are two 1:24,000 maps of the project, one with stand boundaries and labels and one without stand boundaries. These are large maps and large files. Optionally, there are smaller letter sized (8.5”x11”) maps of each compartment that can be downloaded individually. Maps can also be obtained from the Appalachian Ranger District Office.

A summary of the Action Alternative can be found in Table 7. Definitions and more detailed Descriptions of Proposed Actions can be found below the tables. Transportation Management proposed actions can be found in Table 8 and Table 9.

13 Environmental Assessment

Table 6. Proposed actions and locations, size descriptions, access, management area, and associated need(s) EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Trail would Add trail connect north of Cold trailhead to Cold Springs Springs Road day use area n/a 1,700 Feet n/a 4A 14 Road to National and remove Forest horse use on System Cold Springs Road

Replace Improve 8 existing 3B, FSR 3526 n/a stream culverts with n/a n/a 11, 12 4C crossings natural bottom fords FSR Improve Improve 289/Laurel n/a stream n/a n/a 1B 11, 12 existing ford Creek crossing FSR Improve Improve 289/Mount n/a stream n/a n/a 1B 11, 12 existing ford Sterling Creek crossing Improve FSR 3520/Flat Improve n/a stream n/a n/a 1B 11, 12 Branch existing ford crossing Replace Improve current FSR 3570/Fall n/a stream culvert with n/a n/a 2A 12 Branch crossing bottomless arch pipe

Replace current culvert with bottomless FSR Improve arch pipe or 3570/Little n/a stream move gate n/a n/a 2A 12 Fall Branch crossing prior to crossing and construct a natural bottom ford

14 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Replace current culvert with FSR Improve bottomless 3572/Tributary n/a stream n/a n/a 3B 12 arch pipe or to Bear Creek crossing over-sized and buried- bottom pipe

Install FSR 288 n/a informational n/a n/a n/a 4C 14 Kiosk

Existing non-system Permanent Expand road 0452-10, 12 n/a Wildlife 1.8 Acres 2A 5 existing extending Field from FSR 148

Existing Expand non-system Permanent existing field road 0452-5 n/a Wildlife and add 10 Acres 2A 5 extending Field additional from FSR small fields 148

0453-24, 25; Permanent Expand 0458-35, 32, n/a Wildlife 18 Acres FSR 3570E 4C 5 existing 37 Field Permanent Expand 0454-13 n/a Wildlife 2.5 Acres FSR 3568 4C 5 existing Field Permanent Expand 0455-11 n/a Wildlife 1.5 Acres FSR 3565 4C 5 existing Field

Existing non-system Permanent 0457-31, road n/a Wildlife New field 5.4 Acres 3B 5 0458-42 extending Field from FSR 3572

15 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs #

Existing non-system Permanent Expand road 0458-5, 6 n/a Wildlife 4 Acres 3B 5 existing extending Field from FSR 3570E

Permanent Expand 0463-19, 37 n/a Wildlife 1.4 Acres FSR 3565 4C 5 existing Field

Existing non-system Permanent Expand road 0464-17 n/a Wildlife 2.6 Acres 4A 5 existing extending Field from FSR 286

Permanent Expand 0464-19, 29 n/a Wildlife 3.3 Acres FSR 3581A 4A 5 existing Field

Existing non-system Permanent Expand road 0464-22, 25 n/a Wildlife 3 Acres 4A 5 existing extending Field from FSR 3567

Permanent Expand 0464-31, 32 n/a Wildlife 4.3 Acres FSR 3581B 4A 5 existing Field Permanent Expand 0464-32 n/a Wildlife 7 Acres FSR 3581B 4A 5 existing Field Permanent 0464-37, 45; Expand n/a Wildlife 1.7 Acres FSR 3586 3B 5 0463-18, 40 existing Field Permanent Commercial 0467-3 n/a Wildlife Timber 3.6 Acres FSR 453 4D 5 Field Harvest Permanent Expand 0467-7 n/a Wildlife 2 Acres FSR 3538 4D 5 existing Field Permanent 0467-11 n/a Wildlife New 7.7 Acres FSR 453 4D 5 Field

16 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Permanent 0467-11 n/a Wildlife New 3.8 Acres FSR 453 4D 5 Field Existing non-system Permanent Expand road 0468-45, 46 n/a Wildlife 2.1 Acres 1B 5 existing extending Field from FSR 3537 Permanent Expand 0468-48 n/a Wildlife 2 Acres FSR 3537 1B 5 existing Field

Existing non-system Permanent 0468-49; Expand road n/a Wildlife 1.8 Acres 1B 5 0467-7 existing extending Field from FSR 3537

Existing non-system Permanent road Commercial Wildlife extending 0466-22 n/a Timber 30 Acres 4D 5 Field from FSR Harvest Complex 287 and new road construction

Existing non-system Permanent Expand 0469-6, 8, 34, road n/a wildlife field existing/create 16 Acres 1B 5 37; 0475-22 extending complex new from FSR 289

Small line construction Prescribed (~100 ft.) to FSR 289, 475 A 146 Acres 1B 6, 9 burning connect north FSR 3520 tributary to FSR 3520A No new line Prescribed 475 B construction 30 Acres FSR 3521 1B 6, 9 burning needed

17 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # No new line construction Prescribed NPS Lands E needed, Unit 54 Acres SR 1397 NPS 8, 10 burning located on NPS lands

Small line construction (~300 ft.) needed at Prescribed North end of 477 F 47 Acres FSR 287 4D 8, 9 burning unit to connect FSR 287 to existing non- system road

No new line Prescribed 469 G construction 53 Acres FSR 289 1B 6, 9 burning needed ~ 500 ft. of new line construction may be Prescribed needed to 469 H 45 Acres FSR 289 1B 6, 9 burning connect FSR 289 to tributary on West boundary ~340 ft. of new line construction Prescribed 0469, 0462 I to connect 63 Acres FSR 288 1B 8, 9 burning FSR 288 to existing non- system road

~700 ft. of new line construction FSR 3537 Prescribed 469 J needed to 51 Acres and FSR 1B 8, 9 burning connect two 3538 existing non- system roads

18 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # ~690 ft. of new line construction FSR 3538 Prescribed to connect 469 K 29 Acres and FSR 1B 8, 9 burning Sutton Tower 3538 to existing non system road ~1,030 ft. of line construction needed to connect Sutton Tower to existing FSR 288 Prescribed 0469, 0462 L non-system 437 Acres and FSR 1B 8, 9 burning road; burn 3538 unit may be too large to burn unless traffic is not flowing on I- 40.

Existing No new line non-system Prescribed 0476, 0477 M construction 7 Acres FSR 287 4D 8, 9 burning needed Spur 1 and Spur 2

No new line FSR 3537, Prescribed 453 N construction 138 Acres FSR 3537- 4C 8, 9 burning needed 1, SR 1182

No new line Prescribed 467 O construction 11 Acres FSR 3537 4D 9 burning needed No new line Prescribed 462 P construction 17 Acres FSR 288 4D 8, 9 burning needed No new line construction FSR 288 C1, Prescribed 4D, 476 needed; Unit 61 Acres and SR 8, 9 C2 burning NPS C2 located on 1397 NPS lands

19 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Small line construction (~180 ft.) to connect SR FSR 288 D1, Prescribed 4D, 476 1397 to 153 Acres and SR 8, 9 D2 burning NPS Gilliland 1397 Creek; Unit D2 located on NPS lands Replace 8 2A, FSR 3526 n/a culverts with n/a n/a FSR 3526 11, 12 3B fords Small Patch Existing 0452-18, 19 n/a Old Growth 54 Acres n/a 3B 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0453-17, 18 n/a Old Growth 58 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0454-26, 28 n/a Old Growth 57 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0455-12 n/a Old Growth 54 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0456-8 n/a Old Growth 52 Acres n/a 3B 4 Designation Designation Small Patch 0457-20, 22, New n/a Old Growth 51 Acres n/a 3B 4 23 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0458-23, 24 n/a Old Growth 51 Acres n/a 3B 4 designation Designation Small Patch Existing 0462-1, 2 n/a Old Growth 91 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0463-33, 40 n/a Old Growth 68 Acres n/a 4C 4 designation Designation Small Patch New 0464-8 n/a Old Growth 67 Acres n/a 3B 4 designation Designation Small Patch New 0465-1, 20 n/a Old Growth 69 Acres n/a 4C 4 designation Designation

Small Patch Existing 0466-7, 5, 6, 3 n/a Old Growth 193 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation

20 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Small Patch Existing 0467-25, 22, 4 n/a Old Growth 134 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch Existing 0468-21, 35 n/a Old Growth 52 Acres n/a 1B 4 Designation Designation Small Patch Existing 0469-31, 32 n/a Old Growth 349 Acres n/a 4C 4 Designation Designation Small Patch New 0475-12, 27 n/a Old Growth 55 Acres n/a 4C 4 designation Designation Small Patch 0476-14, 13, New n/a Old Growth 52 Acres n/a 4D 4 15 designation Designation Small Patch 0477-19, 9, Existing n/a Old Growth 63 Acres n/a 4D 4 10,24, 8 Designation Designation Stand Non- 2A, 0452-28 9 21 Acres n/a 3 Improvement commercial 3B Stand Non- 0458-16 26 15 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0458-18 24 22 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0458-19 27 9 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0458-30 25 20 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0462-15 34 21 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0462-26 35 10 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0462-41 36 31 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0462-8 37 45 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0464-3, 16 48 26 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0464-37 47 40 Acres n/a 3B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0465-11 54 27 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial

21 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Stand Non- 0465-14 55 21 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0467-10 64 18 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0467-2 65 22 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0467-23 63 21 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial 72, 73, 0468-13, 44, 74, Stand Non- 94 Acres n/a 1B 3 45, 46, 48, 49 75, Improvement commercial 76, 77 Stand Non- 0468-15 78 32 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0468-23 79 21 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0468-37 81 6 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0468-42 80 46 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0475-10 93 13 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0475-16 94 19 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0475-36 91 16 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0475-8 92 8 Acres n/a 1B 3 Improvement commercial Stand Non- 0476-35 101 25 Acres n/a 4D 3 Improvement commercial Cold Springs Stream n/a n/a 0.35 Mile FSR 3570 4C 13 Creek Enhancement Stream Fall Branch n/a n/a 0.31 Mile FSR 3570 4C 13 Enhancement Commercial 0452-5 1 Thinning Timber 29 Acres FSR 3526 2A 2, 9 Harvest Commercial 0458-41 17 Thinning Timber 28 Acres FSR 3572 3B 2 Harvest Commercial 0464-11, 13 43 Thinning Timber 81 Acres FSR 3568 3B 2, 8 Harvest

22 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Commercial 0465-7 51 Thinning Timber 22 Acres FSR 3549 4D 2 Harvest Commercial 0468-2, 16, 66, Thinning Timber 103 Acres FSR 287 1B 2 18, 19 67 Harvest Existing non-system Commercial road 0468-24 68 Thinning Timber 42 Acres 1B 2 extending Harvest from FSR 3537 Commercial 0468-8 104 Thinning Timber 21 Acres FSR 287 1B 2 Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0452-12 7 Regeneration Timber 31 Acres FSR 3570 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Existing non-system road Two-aged Commercial extending 0452-2 4 Regeneration Timber 17 Acres 3B 1, 9, 10 between Harvest Harvest FSR 3528 and FSR 3529 Two-aged Commercial FSR 3528, 0452-2, 22 3 Regeneration Timber 24 Acres 3B 1, 9, 10 SR 1182 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial SR 1182 0452-2, 8 5 Regeneration Timber 18 Acres and FSR 3B 1, 9, 10 Harvest Harvest 3529

Existing non system road Two-aged Commercial extending 0452-27 6 Regeneration Timber 19 Acres 3B 1, 9, 10 from 3569 Harvest Harvest and new road construction

Two-aged Commercial 0452-5 2 Regeneration Timber 20 Acres FSR 3526 2A 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0452-9 8 Regeneration Timber 20 Acres FSR 3526 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest

23 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Two-aged Commercial FSR 3570E, 0453-25 13 Regeneration Timber 39 Acres 4C 9, 10 FSR 3570 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial FSR 0453-7 12 Regeneration Timber 24 Acres 3570.1, SR 4C 9, 10 Harvest Harvest 1182 Two-aged Commercial FSR 0454-33 12 Regeneration Timber 9 Acres 3571.1, SR 4C 9, 10 Harvest Harvest 1182 Two-aged Commercial 0456-2 15 Regeneration Timber 38 Acres FSR 3570E 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest New road Two-aged Commercial 0458- 20, 21, construction 21 Regeneration Timber 28 Acres 3B 1, 8, 9 22, 26 extending Harvest Harvest from 3572

Existing Two-aged Commercial non-system 0458-2 18 Regeneration Timber 24 Acres road 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest extending from 3570 Existing non system Two-aged Commercial road 0458-38 23 Regeneration Timber 13 Acres 3B 8, 9 extending Harvest harvest from FSR3570 Two-aged Commercial 0458-39 22 Regeneration Timber 8 Acres FSR 3572 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest

Existing Two-aged Commercial non-system 0458-4, 9 20 Regeneration Timber 17 Acres road 3B 1, 8, 10 Harvest Harvest extending from 3571

Two-aged Commercial 0458-8 19 Regeneration Timber 14 Acres FSR 3570 3B 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0462-11, 12, 32 Regeneration Timber 23 Acres FSR 288 1B 1, 7, 9 38 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0462-14, 42 31 Regeneration Timber 13 Acres FSR 288 1B 1, 7, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0462-20 30 Regeneration Timber 18 Acres FSR 288 1B 1, 7, 9 Harvest Harvest

24 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Two-aged Commercial 0462-22 33 Regeneration Timber 35 Acres FSR 453 1B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0462-33 38 Regeneration Timber 10 Acres FSR 3537 1B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0463-13, 14, 42 Regeneration Timber 40 Acres FSR 3566 3B 1, 9 15, 41 Harvest Harvest FSR 3581, Two-aged Commercial FSR 0464-19, 30 46 Regeneration Timber 32 Acres 4A 1, 7, 9 3581A, and Harvest Harvest FSR 3581B

New road Two-aged Commercial construction 0464-23 45 Regeneration Timber 13 Acres extending 3B 1, 7, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest from FSR 3568

Two-aged Commercial 0464-8, 38 44 Regeneration Timber 26 Acres FSR 3568 3B 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0465-19 53 Regeneration Timber 15 Acres FSR 3549 4D 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0465-8, 17 52 Regeneration Timber 19 Acres FSR 3549 4D 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0466-12 57 Regeneration Timber 34 Acres 4D 1, 8, 9 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 453 Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0466-19 58 Regeneration Timber 38 Acres 4D 1, 8, 9, extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 453 Two-aged Commercial 0466-8 56 Regeneration Timber 40 Acres FSR 454 4D 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest

25 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0467-31 60 Regeneration Timber 14 Acres 4D 1, 8, 9 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 3539 Two-aged Commercial 0467-5 61 Regeneration Timber 15 Acres FSR 453 4D 1, 7, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Two-aged Commercial 0467-8 62 Regeneration Timber 21 Acres FSR 453 4D 1, 9 Harvest Harvest Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0468-14 69 Regeneration Timber 33 Acres 1B 1, 8, 9 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 287

Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0468-17 70 Regeneration Timber 40 Acres 1B 1, 9 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 3537

Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial road 0468-30 71 Regeneration Timber 13 Acres 1B 1, 8, 9 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 3537 spur Two-aged Commercial 0469-11 83 Regeneration Timber 43 Acres FSR 289 1B 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest

Existing non system road and Two-aged Commercial 0469-4, 5, 6, new road 84 Regeneration Timber 43 Acres 1B 1, 9 41 construction Harvest Harvest extending from FSR 3521

26 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Existing non-system Two-aged Commercial 0475-25, 26, road 90 Regeneration Timber 22 Acres 1B 1, 8, 9 27, 29 extending Harvest Harvest from FSR 3520 Two-aged Commercial 0475-31, 33, 89 Regeneration Timber 23 Acres FSR 3521 1B 1, 9 35 Harvest Harvest

Existing non-system road extending Two-aged Commercial from FSR 0476-1, 2 100 Regeneration Timber 23 Acres 287 and 4D 1, 9 Harvest Harvest existing non-system FSR 287 Spur and Spur 2

FSR 287 and existing Two-aged Commercial non-system 0477-16, 22 102 Regeneration Timber 17 Acres road 4D 1, 8, 9 Harvest Harvest extending from FSR 287 Commercial Uneven-aged 2A, 0452-5, 20 10 Timber 59 Acres FSR 3526 8. 9 Harvest 3B Harvest Commercial Uneven-aged 0458-25 29 Timber 27 Acres FSR 3572 3B 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Commercial Uneven-aged 0458-5, 6, 7 28 Timber 56 Acres FSR 3570 3B 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Commercial FSR 3564, 0464-17, 22, 49, Uneven-aged Timber 156 Acres FSR 3567, 4A 7, 8, 9 26 50 Harvest Harvest and FSR Commercial Uneven-aged 0462-18, 43 39 Timber 35 Acres FSR 288 1B 8, 9 Harvest Harvest Thinning, Mastication, 0452-19; Woodland 11 Mowing, 55 Acres FSR 3569 3B 9 0453-28, 29 Management and/or Herbicide

27 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0455-11 14 Mowing, 26 Acres FSR 3565 4C 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, 0456-30; Woodland 16 Mowing, 13 Acres FSR 3570E 3B 9 0457-29 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0462-25, 44 40 Mowing, 28 Acres FSR 453 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0462-33 41 Mowing, 27 Acres FSR 3538 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide Existing Thinning, non-system Mastication, 0466-13; Woodland road 59 Mowing, 16 Acres 4D 9 0467-30 Management extending and/or from FSR Herbicide 453 Thinning, 0468-13, 25, Mastication, Woodland 26, 27, 48, 49; 82 Mowing, 77 Acres n/a 1B 9 Management 0467-7 and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0469-13 88 Mowing, 12 Acres FSR 289 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0469-16, 17 87 Mowing, 60 Acres FSR 290 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide

Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0469-19 86 Mowing, 12 Acres FSR 288 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide

28 Environmental Assessment

EA Proposed Additional Access Location Unit Size MA Need(s)* Action Information Needs # Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0469-22 85 Mowing, 45 Acres FSR 3537 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Mowing Woodland and/or 0475-18 99 23 Acres FSR 3520 1B 6, 9 Management Herbicide *include Duke Energy corridor Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0475-19, 22 95 Mowing, 10 Acres FSR 3521 1B 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, Woodland 0475-29, 30, 96 Mowing, 15 Acres FSR 3521 1B 6, 9 Management and/or Herbicide Thinning, Mastication, 97, Woodland 0475-32, 38 Mowing, 35 Acres FSR 289 1B 6, 9 98 Management and/or Herbicide Existing Thinning, non-system Mastication, 0476-2; 0477- Woodland road 105 Mowing, 7 Acres 4D 6, 9 20 Management extending and/or from FSR Herbicide 287 Thinning, Mastication, 0477-6, 7, 14, Woodland 103 Mowing, 36 Acres FSR 287 4D 9 15, 18 Management and/or Herbicide *Numbers within the Need(s) column relate to the bulleted items in the Needs section of this document.

29 Environmental Assessment

Summary of Action Alternative

Table 7 displays a summary of the proposed actions contained in the Action Alternative.

Table 7. Summary of Proposed Actions. Proposed Action Total Amount/Size Improve Stream Crossings 14 Crossings Install Kiosk 1 Kiosk Permanent Wildlife Field Complexes 136 Acres Prescribed Burning 1,342 Acres (total) Small Patch Old Growth Designation 1,570 Acres Stand Improvement 649 Acres Stream Enhancement 0.66 Miles Thinning 327 Acres Two-Aged Regeneration Harvest 1,027 Acres Uneven-Aged Management 329 Acres Woodland Management 498 Acres

Descriptions of Proposed Actions

The proposed actions in the Action Alternative are described below. Refer to Table 6 for the locations of these actions.

Prescribed Burn: To deliberately burn wildland fuels in either their natural or their modified state and under specified environmental conditions, which allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and produces the fireline intensity and rate of spread required to attain planned resource management objectives (Helms, 1998). The objectives of these proposed burns are to promote fire adapted plant species and communities and to move the landscape towards the natural range of variation (NRV) by creating and maintaining open forest (woodland) conditions within appropriate ecological zones. To meet these objectives, prescribed burning is proposed on 3-5 year rotations over the next 15-20 years at which time the effectiveness would need to be re-assessed. The prescribed burning would be conducted under the following conditions: 1) 25%-55% relative humidity, 2) air temperatures less than 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and 3) the underlying duff would be damp. Additionally, for smoke dispersal, the mixing height will be a minimum of 1,900 feet above ground level and transport winds will be greater than or equal to 9 miles per hour. The prescribed fire would strive to produce a range of fire intensities within the burn to produce a mosaic effect that mimics natural burn patterns with higher intensity at the ridge tops and lower intensities as approaching drainages and coves. Prescribed burns will be conducted between October 1st and April 30. Stands planned to be planted in this proposed action along with young stands from previously regenerated stands will be protected from the prescribed burn by ensuring a low enough intensity burn through the stand or exclusion from burning. The proposed prescribed burns will require approximately 2,470 feet of control line construction. All other lines are existing roads, old road templates, or streams.

Stand Improvement: Intermediate treatments made to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of young stands (Helms, 1998). Stand improvement may include:

30 Environmental Assessment

Stand Release: A non-commercial treatment designed to free young trees from undesirable, usually overtopping, competing vegetation (Helms, 1998). Treatment is done by cutting and felling or girdling with herbicide (hack–n-squirt method). Species appropriate for the ecological zones within stands will benefit from this treatment. Vine Control: Use of hand tools and herbicide to remove vines in younger stands that have an overabundance of vines that threatens to impede the development of the forest.

Thinning: Thinning is a treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality (Helms, 1998). Types of thinning may include: Thinning from below: The removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes (Helms, 1998). Free thinning: The removal of trees to control stand spacing and favor desired trees, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position (Helms, 1998).

Two-Aged Regeneration Harvest: Regeneration harvesting is the removal of trees intended to assist regeneration already present or to make regeneration possible. Two aged methods regenerate and maintain stands with two age classes – note the resulting stand may be two-aged or tend towards an uneven-aged condition as a consequence of both an extended period of regeneration establishment and the retention of reserve trees that may represent one or more age classes (Helms, 1998). The two aged methods that will be used: Shelterwood with reserves: A variation of the shelterwood method in which all of the shelter trees (reserve trees) are retained to attain goals other than regeneration (Helms, 1998). The number of reserve trees retained is sufficient to create a two-aged, two-storied stand until mid- rotation or longer. Goals of the reserve trees are to meet visual quality, wildlife, and high quality sawtimber objectives (Forest Plan Appendix E). Reserve trees are to be selected based on 1) species characteristic of the ecological zones within stands, 2) vigor: trees capable of living 40+ years in the co-dominant or dominant crown classes, and 3) the capability of meeting wildlife objectives such as producing hard/soft mast and providing den habitats. Individual reserve trees may be scattered or grouped depending on the target species for regeneration and the availability and distribution of suitable reserve trees. Post-harvest site preparation will occur within 1-2 years following timber harvesting and will be conducted with hand tools and herbicide to temporarily reduce competing woody vegetation, thus, allowing regenerating trees to become established. Inadequate or undesirable stocking of seedlings may require planting. An herbicide release treatment will occur 1-5 years after regeneration harvest to release species desirable for the ecological zones within the stand. An additional release may occur if needed to meet desired conditions. Sprout clumps growing from the stumps of the cut trees from the previous treatment or germinants of undesirable species will be treated. This will reduce competition for desirable tree seedlings providing them freedom to grow until crown closure (~ 10 years). Lastly, approximately 10-15 years post-harvest (stand closure stage), non-commercial stand improvement treatments will be performed to free the crowns of desirable species for the ecological zones within stands. This will include cleaning and vine control treatments. Overstory Removal: This is a follow up treatment for stands previously regenerated with the shelterwood with reserves method. In these stands, reserve trees were left in high number to meet visual quality objectives. Now that a new stand has successfully regenerated underneath, the removal of some reserve trees is necessary to release the young stand below. Not all reserve trees will be removed; some will be left to maintain the two-aged, two-storied stand structure based on the selection criteria listed above.

31 Environmental Assessment

Oak Shelterwood: This is a combination of treatments. The first entry is a commercial or non- commercial intermediate treatment to reduce the midstory component for the purpose of increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor which will aid in development of natural advanced oak regeneration. Approximately 5 years following the intermediate treatment (after adequate advanced oak regeneration is established), the stand would be commercially harvested using the Shelterwood with Reserves method described above.

Uneven-aged Harvest: Regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by removing some trees in all size classes either singly, in small groups, or in strips (Helms, 1998). The uneven-aged methods that will be used: Group Selection: A method of regenerating stands in which trees are cut and new age classes are established in small groups (Helms, 1998). The group opening size is determined by the average height of the co-dominate trees in the stand with openings being approximately 2 times the average height of the trees within the stand. The minimum group opening is 0.2 acres in size to ensure lateral crown closure of overstory trees does not take place. Group openings are to be located based on areas consisting of mature trees, damaged trees, and/or the availability of desirable advanced regeneration. Group openings in subsequent cutting cycles may be located next to previous openings to take advantage of the development of desirable advanced regeneration growing in the periphery of previous group openings. This regeneration method will produce a stand with a higher degree of structural and age diversity than Even-aged or Two-aged systems (Shelterwood with Reserves). Post-harvest site preparation within group openings will occur within 1-2 years following timber harvesting and will be conducted with hand tools and herbicide to temporarily reduce competing woody vegetation, thus, allowing regenerating trees to become established. Inadequate or undesirable stocking of seedlings may require planting. An herbicide release treatment will occur 1-3 years after regeneration harvest to release species desirable for the ecological zones within stand. Sprout clumps growing from the stumps of the trees cut during the previous treatment or germinants of undesirable species will be treated. This will reduce competition for desirable tree seedlings providing them freedom to grow until crown closure (~ 10 years). Lastly, approximately 10-15 years post-harvest, non-commercial stand improvement treatments will be performed to free the crowns of desirable species for the ecological zones within group openings. This will include cleaning and vine control treatments. Group Selection with Thinning: In conjunction with the group selection harvest described above, free thinning and a non-commercial midstory treatment (a.k.a pre-harvest oak shelterwood) will be performed between the group openings. The purpose is to open the overstory and increase spacing between stems to allow more light to reach the forest floor for the development of advanced regeneration. Trees targeted for removal will be undesirable species not appropriate for the ecological zones within the stand, suppressed or intermediate trees of low vigor, other strong competitors (including, but not limited to, exotic invasive species), and trees that are not expected to survive the 20 years between entry cycles in order to capture sprouting potential, namely red oak species and ash. Leave tree selection will follow the guidelines listed in the Shelterwood with Reserves method described above. Variable Retention or Irregular Shelterwood: A harvesting method that combines group selection, thinning, single tree selection, high retention shelterwood, and/or reserve clumps through a system of multiple cuttings with a long or indefinite regeneration period. Irregular and variable stands are unbalanced and do not contain the even distribution of age-classes common to the group selection system. This method may be used to take advantage of clumps of existing advanced regeneration, promote future advanced regeneration, and/or create an irregular diversity

32 Environmental Assessment

of forest structure. The end result of this harvest would be a stand with some unharvested clumps, some areas with small openings, and some areas of unevenly dispersed leave trees. Subsequent entries may be located next to previous openings to take advantage of the development of desirable advanced regeneration growing in the periphery of previous group openings or underneath thinned areas. These methods will produce a stand with a higher degree of structural and age diversity than two-aged regeneration harvests. Post-harvest treatments would be similar to those described in the group selection description above.

Woodland Management: A woodland is a plant community which, in contrast to a typical forest, the trees are often small, characteristically short-boled relative to their crown depth, and forming only an open canopy with the intervening area being occupied by lower vegetation, often grass (Helms, 1998). The intent of woodland management in this project is to increase the amount of open-forest conditions which are shown to be in deficit in the departure analysis. The goal is to reduce these stands to 40%-60% canopy cover by commercial or non-commercial thinning treatments. Stands selected for woodland management are often of low site index. Trees selected for retention will be appropriate for the ecological zone such as shortleaf pine in the Pine-Oak Heath ecological zone or longer lived white oak in the Dry Oak ecological zone. Woodlands will need frequent management to maintain open-forest, woodland character. The preferred maintenance method is prescribed burning. Prescribed burn units are proposed to overlap woodland management where feasible. Where prescribed burning is not feasible, woodlands may be maintained by mastication, mowing, hand work (chainsaw), and/or herbicide. Woodlands maintained with methods other than prescribed fire may need defined patches of avoidance to allow for some regeneration to occur.

Small Patch Old Growth Designation: In accordance with Forest Plan standards, small patch old growth will be designated, meaning this area will be managed for old growth attributes until the designation is changed.

Permanent Wildlife Fields: Fields will be created or expanded by removing trees and brush, tilling, and planting native grasses. Fields will be maintained by tilling, seeding, mowing, and/or herbicide. In the golden-winged warbler focal area, thinning around the edges of the fields may occur to improve habitat conditions for that species.

Improve stream crossings: Replace current culverts that are inadequate, failing, and obstructing aquatic organism passage with the following: Ford: Open, natural bottom structure that will allow passage of aquatic organisms and allow free flow of streams at all flow levels. Bottomless arch: Closed, bottomless arched culvert that uses a natural bottom surface and prevents a drop from developing on the downstream end of the culvert and allows for passage of aquatic organisms. Oversized buried bottom pipe: Closed culvert pipe with the bottom buried in native materials to create a more natural bottom surface and prevents a drop from developing on the downstream end of the culvert and allows for passage of aquatic organisms.

Stream Enhancement: Within these stream reaches work is proposed to stabilize erosion and sources of sedimentation and improve aquatic habitat diversity. This will be accomplished using natural channel design techniques including the construction of instream structures, see Appendix C –Details of Proposed Watershed Improvement Projects for more information. Specifications: The channels’ natural dimensions, patterns, and profiles would be reestablished in the constructed reach using upstream reference reach data to establish a stable stream channel with high quality aquatic habitat.

33 Environmental Assessment

Transportation Management

The Twelve Mile Project area contains approximately 189.2 miles of roads – 74.7 miles* of which are National Forest System (NFS) roads (*total is 0.1 miles greater than the summation of roads due to differences between GIS and INFRA). The NFS roads are managed for public motor vehicle use as follows: 36.4 miles are open year round, 30.4 miles are restricted or seasonally restricted, and 7.9 miles are closed year around. Private roads account for 0.4 mile of road across NFS land. A safe and efficient transportation system is critical in meeting the diverse needs of the public and managers of the Pisgah National Forest. As a result of the transportation analysis process mandated by Subpart A of the Travel Management Rule, recommendations found in the Pisgah Roads Analysis Project (RAP) Report (December 2003) identify the most ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable transportation system in terms of access for recreation, research, and other land management activities. The Pisgah RAP includes a number of recommendations within the Twelve Mile Project planning area. This project will consider, analyze, and make a decision considering those recommendations, as well as more recent recommendations made by Pisgah National Forest resource specialists, some of which may supersede previous recommendations. Management of the transportation system within the project area is needed to facilitate access to stands proposed for vegetation and wildlife management over the life of the project and into the future and provide access. Road construction on existing corridors is proposed with a total mileage of 7.95 miles and road construction on new template is proposed with a total mileage of 0.68 mile. Additionally, approximately 35.88 miles of road are proposed to have management changes. The transportation system activities prescribed for this project are summarized in Table 8 and Table 9. These actions are displayed on the maps that can be found on the project website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=48776, under the analysis tab. The roads in Table 8 are needed for the currently proposed actions, expected to be needed for future management, or needed for access needs. Therefore, these roads are proposed to be added to the National Forest Roads System (NFRS). Those roads proposed to be “Closed” with an Objective Maintenance Level (ML) - 1 will be placed in storage after project implementation, meaning they will be made hydrologically inert, stabilized, and gated or barricaded and will not be maintained or used until a future entry is proposed. These roads are temporary for all practical purposes but are proposed to be retained and added to the NFRS due to expected future needs. Those roads proposed to be “Closed” with an Objective ML - 2 will be gated and maintained for high clearance vehicles to allow for periodic management needs including maintenance of wildlife fields, linear wildlife openings, and woodlands. These roads with an Objective ML – 2 may be daylighted to maintain grasses for wildlife purposes and reduce erosion. One road (287 Ext) is being proposed as “Restricted” to allow public access with a seasonal closure of 12/31 to 4/5. The roads in Table 9 are proposed to have management changes to meet current transportation needs. Many of these proposals are to change the road management from “Open” (year round) to “Restricted” (seasonal closures) with a winter closure from 12/31-4/5. These changes are proposed because these roads receive considerable damage from vehicles traveling on the roadways during winter freeze/thaw cycles. One exception is NFS 3537 which is being proposed to be closed most of the year from 12/31- 08/01, allowing access for hunting seasons only, since the primary purpose of this road is for maintenance access for the Sutton Top communication towers. Haynes Road (NFS 233) is proposed to have a seasonal closure to reduce impacts to Hurricane Creek. It is worth noting that this road will also have ongoing heavy maintenance to reduce erosion and sedimentation concerns during the open season. 288spur is an open road being proposed to be closed and used only as a private right of way to access private property.

34 Environmental Assessment

NFS roads 453, 3570, 3571-1, and portions of 3571 have not been open for several decades and are proposed to be changed from “Restricted” to “Closed” in the database of record. This will not result in any physical changes as these roads have been closed and managed for wildlife purposes.

Temporary Roads and Landings: Temporary roads and landings are generally proposed where single entry access is needed as part of a timber sale for access to harvest units from the Forest Service Road System. Final temporary road and landing locations, along with stabilization measures, are determined by a Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator, with agreement by the purchaser. These are not included on the project maps. Landings are generally 0.25 acre in size. Temporary roads and landings will be closed, scarified, seeded, and/or covered with logging slash after use. Landings adjacent to Open or Closed/ML-2 transportation system roads may be maintained as permanent openings including tilling, seeding, mowing, and herbicide. In the golden-winged warbler focal area, landings may be expanded and managed as habitat suitable for that species.

Road Daylighting: Selectively cutting trees within 100’ of each side of a forest service system road to allow more sunlight to reach the road surface. For open roads, this is beneficial to speed up drying of the road surface, thus reducing damage from rutting and erosion. In some cases, daylighting is proposed for roads that are closed and managed as linear wildlife openings. This allows more sunlight to create the desired grass/forb conditions and also creates brushy transition zones. Not all trees within this corridor would be cut and the resulting condition would be a more open forest. When feasible, this may be completed as part of a commercial timber harvest. Daylighting will not occur within mapped riparian areas.

35 Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Proposed road construction and National Forest System Road (NFSR) additions needed to access proposed management actions. OPR OPR ML ML Proposed / OBJ Proposed Road Total Segment Proposed

Existing 2 3 4 Activity Mileage Mileage RMO Road #

148spur 0.20 2 2 Closed 148spur2 0.23 2 2 Closed 286spur 0.09 2 2 Closed 287ext 0.20 2 2 Restricted 287spur 0.51 2 2 Closed 287spur2 0.13 2 2 Closed 289spur 0.42 2 2 Closed 3520spur 0.16 1 2 Closed 3521spur 0.47 1 2 Closed Road 3529ext 0.23 1 2 Closed Construction – 7.95 3537A 0.42 2 2 Closed Existing Non- System Corridor 3537spur 0.25 1 2 Closed 3537spur 0.43 2 2 Closed 3539ext 0.12 2 2 Closed 3567spur 0.07 2 2 Closed 3569spur 1.19 1 2 Closed 3570spur 0.06 2 2 Closed 3570spur2 0.59 1 2 Closed 3572ext 0.28 2 2 Closed 453spur 1.28 1 2 Closed 453spur2 0.62 2 2 Closed Road 3569spur 0.27 1 2 Closed Construction - 0.68 3572spur 0.41 1 2 Closed New Corridor

2 OBJ ML (Objective Maintenance Level) - Maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. 1 - Basic Custodial Care (STORAGE); 2 - High Clearance Vehicles; 3 - Suitable for Passenger Cars; 4 - Moderate Degree of User Comfort. 3 OPR ML (Operational Maintenance Level) - Maintenance level currently assigned to road considering today's needs, road condition, budget constraints and environmental concerns. Level to which road is currently maintained. 1 - Basic Custodial Care (STORAGE); 2 - High Clearance Vehicles; 3 - Suitable for Passenger Cars; 4 - Moderate Degree of User Comfort. 4 RMO (Road Management Objectives) – Intended purpose of a road in providing access through management objectives, as well as applicable road standards and operation criteria (Closed, Open, or Restricted).

36 Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Proposed management changes to existing National Forest System Roads (NFSR) and existing non NFSR Daylight OPR ML OPR OBJ ML OBJ Forest RMO Existing New Road NAME Change Comments RMO RMO

# Mileage Change this road to restricted with a 233 Haynes Open Restricted 2 2 No 6.1 season closure from 12/31 to 4/5 for resource protection 0 - 1.06 Open 3 3 Yes 0 Daylighting only Open 286 Redman Close this portion of 1.06 - 1.3 road for resource Closed 3 2 Yes 0.24 Open protection and reduced maintenance costs 0 - 2.795 Open 3 3 yes 0 Daylighting only Open Currently restricted 287 Longarm 2.795 - and open from 4.676 Restricted 3 2 Yes 1.88 08/15-03/15, Change Restricted to have a seasonal closure of 12/31-4/5 Buzzard 288 Open Open 3 3 Yes 0 Daylighting only Roost Change open road to closed and add to 288 system for private n/a Open Closed 2 2 No .5 spur right of way only. Approve private gate installation Change road to restricted with a seasonal closure Old Buzzard 289 Open Restricted 3 2 Yes 1.767 from 12/31-4/5 for Roost resource protection and reduced maintenance costs Add existing road to Non- NFSR for 289A n/a Open 3 3 Yes .19 system maintenance access and thoroughfare Linear wildlife 3521 Laurelett Closed Closed 1 2 Yes 0 opening

37 Environmental Assessment Daylight OPR ML OPR OBJ ML OBJ Forest RMO Existing New Road NAME Change Comments RMO RMO

# Mileage Restricted MP 0 to 2.6, closed with a gate, access to Private property, 2.6 3526 Brady Road Restricted Restricted 2 2 Yes 0 to 2.8 is inside the Harmon Den Horse Camp, MP 2.8 to 3.1, Open. 3528 Robert Gap Closed Closed 1 1 Yes 0 Daylighting only

3529 Raven Cliff Closed Closed 1 1 Yes 0 Daylighting only Change this portion of road to restricted with a seasonal 0-1.173 closure from 12/31 – Restricted 3 2 Yes 1.173 Open 08/1 for resource protection and reduced maintenance costs 1.173- 3537 Sutton 2.525 Closed 1 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Closed 2.525- Closed Private road, no 2.942 (Private n/a n/a No 0 ROW Closed Road) Change this portion 2.942- of road to open for 3.38 Open 3 2 No 0.44 access to private Restricted lands Sutton Close this road, 3538 Open Closed 2 2 Yes 0.363 Tower access to towers Close this road, spur 3539 High Knob Restricted Closed 2 2 Yes 0.62 from closed road 0-1.26 Open 3 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Open 3549 Cataloochee 1.26-3.04 Restricted 3 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Restricted Claud 3565 Closed Closed 2 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Gowan Thurman Linear wildlife 3566 Closed Closed 1 2 Yes 0 Harp opening

38 Environmental Assessment Daylight OPR ML OPR OBJ ML OBJ Forest RMO Existing New Road NAME Change Comments RMO RMO

# Mileage Close this road for resource protection, 3567 Hadecek Open Closed 3 2 Yes 0.491 not needed for access Close this road for resource protection and reduced 3568 Billy Top Restricted Closed 2 2 Yes 5.716 maintenance costs, and wildlife management 3569 Ore Knob Closed Closed 1 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Close this road for resource protection, Hurricane reduced 3570 Restricted Closed 2 2 Yes 5.4 Ridge maintenance costs, and wildlife management Close this portion of road for resource 0-1.0 projection, reduced Closed 3 2 Yes 1 Restricted maintenance costs, and wildlife management Change this portion of road to restricted Haywood 1.0-1.6 3571 Restricted 3 2 Yes 0.6 with a seasonal Hurricane Open closure of 12/31 – 4/ 5 Close this portion of road for resource 1.6-2.44 projection, reduced Closed 3 2 Yes 0.84 Restricted maintenance costs, and wildlife management Change this road to restricted with a seasonal closure of Haywood 12/31 to 4/5, re- 3571-1 Hurricane Open Restricted 2 2 Yes .88 construct upper Ext sections to more sustainable alignment

39 Environmental Assessment Daylight OPR ML OPR OBJ ML OBJ Forest RMO Existing New Road NAME Change Comments RMO RMO

# Mileage Haywood Chang to ML-1 3573 Hurricane Closed Closed 2 1 No .8 (storage – no Spur maintenance)

3581A Salt 1 Closed Closed 2 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only

3581B Salt 2 Closed Closed 2 2 Yes 0 Daylighting only Close this road for resource protection, Hicks reduced 453 Restricted Closed 2 2 Yes 5.3 Branch maintenance costs, and wildlife management From 3571- Barricade and Non- 1 Non-NFSR Non-NFSR n/a n/a No .31 rehabilitate non- NFSR intersection system road

40 Environmental Assessment

Project Design Criteria and Mitigation

All proposed actions will follow the standards and guides of the Nantahala – Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs). The following project design features have been developed to clarify or highlight forest plan standards, follow additional laws, or avoid/reduce undesired effects. The Environmental Analysis in this report was conducted using these design criteria. 1. To provide for future salamander habitat, all existing large coarse woody debris be left on site when feasible. 2. During the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) pup season (June 1–July 31), where possible and not a safety hazard, leave dead or dying trees standing. 3. If discovered during implementation, avoid cutting or destroying known NLEB maternity roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31). 4. If discovered during implementation, avoid Shelterwood harvest within 150 feet of known NLEB maternity roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31). 5. Herbicides application will follow all label directions. 6. Riparian areas (MA 18) will be defined as 100 feet each side of a perennial stream when not specifically mapped by an interdisciplinary team. During implementation, riparian areas may be mapped by an interdisciplinary team using a minimum of 30 feet each side of a perennial stream and /or wider as needed to enhance riparian values. This is not reflected on the proposed action map. 7. Implementation of instream work will be scheduled outside of the trout spawning season (October 15-April 15). 8. Control lines for prescribed burns that are needed within the riparian area will be constructed by hand perpendicular to the stream flow and only remove brush and duff (no trees). After the burn is completed these lines will be rehabilitated by seeding and/or mulching. 9. Trees accidentally felled across stream channels (that prevent or block stream flow) will be lifted (when possible) away from the water. If this is not possible, each tree will be pulled away from the water where it fell and temporary decking will be used to support the weight of the tree as it is pulled across the channel. These removals will be perpendicular to the stream channel whenever possible to minimize stream bank disturbance. Bare soil will be seeded and mulched if native vegetation does not start to recolonize the area by the time timber removal from the unit is complete. 10. Skid roads will avoid stream crossings when feasible and will avoid paralleling perennial channels within designated riparian areas. 11. Landings and skid trails should be vegetated as soon as possible after use to avoid off-site soil movement. 12. Temporary roads (if needed) will be constructed to avoid runoff into area streams. In addition, silt fence, straw bales, or brush barriers will be placed along the length of the road where it parallels or crosses a stream as needed to control runoff and stream sedimentation.

41 Environmental Assessment

13. Where feasible, stream crossings will be designed so that they allow for continuity of habitat for all aquatic organisms. 14. The CxA soil occurs once in harvest unit 97 (woodland management unit) and the TuD soil occurs in units 43 (commercial thinning unit), 42, 45 (regeneration cut unit), 0467/16 (wildlife opening) and 11 (woodland management unit). Before ground disturbing activities occur in these units, consult with hydrologist/soil scientist. 15. Small spreading pogonia was observed by botanical contractors in Commercial Thinning Unit 104 and in Woodland Creation Units 59 & 85. A 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the small spreading pogonia population primarily to keep it from being crushed by machinery and tree felling operations. 16. When butternut is encountered during timber marking or timber harvesting operations this species will be left un-cut in the stand. Consult with botanist to determine the best way to protect individual trees. Butternut was found in the following proposed units: In Regeneration Harvest Unit 7, one tree approximately 18” DBH was found in decent condition (though it probably has early stages of canker). In Regeneration Harvest Unit 21, two trees exhibiting butternut canker were found (one 7” DBH, the other 13” DBH). 17. Ovate catchfly was found in Regeneration Harvest Unit 15. A 100-foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of ovate catchfly primarily to maintain the desired shade environment. 18. A 50-foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the piratebush population in 0462-18 to preserve a partially shaded environment and protect the parasitic interaction with mycorrhizae associated with tree roots. One outlying individual will be avoided but will not have a 50’ buffer in an effort to re-use an existing skid trail. 19. A 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of small yellow lady’s-slipper if discovered (potentially in treatment unit 58). 20. Treatment of non-native invasive species will be prioritized to coincide with implementation of ground disturbing activities when needed to control spread or promote forest regeneration. Controlling invasive plants is most easily and effectively done by the use of herbicide. It may be necessary to treat these populations several times to ensure successful control. This action is covered by the 2009 Decision and Environmental Analysis titled Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Non-native Invasive Plant Control and is not a part of this decision. However, the actions may be performed in conjunction with the proposed activities in this document when needed. 21. All eligible and unevaluated heritage sites will be flagged and avoided during any ground disturbing activities. 22. Rock shelters potentially housing pre-historic archaeological sites will be monitored and protected from undesirable impacts by: 1) Photographing shelters identified by the Archeologist as sensitive before any preparation work is completed; 2) Physically removing dead fuels from the area immediately in front of shelters and scattering those fuels; 3) Blowing leaves and fine fuels from the shelters and entrances to the shelters; 4) Ensuring burn prescriptions are within parameters where duff layer is not consumed; 5) Utilizing firing

42 Environmental Assessment

patterns which minimize intensity around rock shelters; and 6) Photographing documentation of post-burn results. 23. If the implementation of project activities results with the discovery of previously unknown cultural resources, the activity will be immediately stopped pending archeological documentation and evaluation. This may result with a recommendation to stop, modify, or proceed with the activity using appropriate mitigation measures. 24. Harmon Den Horse Camp will be temporarily closed during the harvest of the units within close proximity due to noise concerns and to ensure public safety. 25. Hauling timber through the Harmon Den Horse Camp will be restricted on the weekends and holidays during the open season. Do not allow engine compression breaking while hauling through the Horse Camp and Day Use Area. 26. Temporarily close trails and roads adjacent to or within active harvest units. Post temporary closure signs on gates near trails in the areas where trails will be impacted by timber harvesting. Provide closure information on the Forest website and office. 27. Ensure signs and reassurance markers (blazes) are restored to original location/condition if damage occurs during operations. To the extent possible, retain trees that hold signs or are marked with reassurance markers (i.e. diamonds on trails). 28. Repair any damage to trails caused by commercial harvest operations. 29. When actively hauling, post information and caution signs on roads that are used as Horse Trails. 30. In Compartment 0466, regeneration harvest exceeds Forest Plan Standards by 15 acres as analyzed. During implementation, ensure total acres do not exceed Forest Plan Standards. 31. All prescribed burning activities on the Pisgah National Forest, including those proposed in this action, are conducted in accordance with the Region 8 Smoke Management Guidelines in order to alleviate the smoke related impacts. 32. Natural or artificial regeneration of recently harvested stands may be excluded from prescribed burning, consult with Silviculturist for appropriate timing. 33. Design features to meet Visual Quality Objectives can be found in the Scenery section of this document. These tables were not included in this section due to their lengthy size.

43 Environmental Assessment

Monitoring

National objectives include reducing impacts from non-native invasive species and improving the effectiveness of treating selected invasive species on the Nation’s forests and grasslands. Survey areas would be established to monitor control efforts. Survey areas would be established before treatment, checked during treatment, and within nine months after treatment. A post-treatment evaluation report would be completed with the purpose of monitoring effectiveness of treatments. Follow-up herbicide treatments would occur should monitoring determine necessity. A 10 year period would be used for evaluating non-native invasive species.

Forest Service archeologists will implement a monitoring plan for eligible and potentially eligible unevaluated cultural sites flagged for avoidance. These sites will be visited up to 4 times during the first year of project implementation and one year after. This monitoring plan will not be available for public review to protect resources from vandalism.

Stands proposed for silvicultural treatment will be monitored pre- and post-treatment to determine timing and intensity of intermediate treatments, regeneration harvests and planting needs. Post-harvest stocking and regeneration surveys will be conducted to assess appropriate and sufficient regeneration and needs; certification of natural or artificial regeneration will occur within the first 5 years following regeneration harvest.

44 Environmental Assessment

Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the action alternative. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives.

The following table displays past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Twelve Mile Project analysis area (AA) that would be accounted for in cumulative effects, as appropriate, by resource analysis which could have a cumulative effect in the AA.

Table 10. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Twelve Mile Project Analysis Area Activity Description Special Uses Duke Power Line ROW expansion (future) Habitat Improvement Mastication around fields at Stutton Top (past, 2017) Timber Harvesting Harmon Den Timber Sale EA (past and present), outside of project area boundary

45 Environmental Assessment

Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat

Scale of Analysis

This report documents the findings of an aquatic resource analysis (AQUA) of a proposed project on the Appalachian Ranger District in Compartments 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 475, 476, and 477. A detailed description of the project may be found in the action alternative description. The Twelve-Mile Project has been collaboratively designed to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources while accomplishing silviculture, wildlife, and watershed improvements. Timber harvest operations will be designed with riparian areas of perennial streams designated at 100 linear feet or mapped by an interdisciplinary team. There are no activities proposed within area waters or associated riparian areas, except at designated stream crossings. Riparian areas are defined as 100 feet each side of a perennial stream when not specifically mapped by an interdisciplinary team. During implementation, riparian areas may be mapped by an interdisciplinary team using a minimum of 30 feet each side of a perennial stream and /or wider as needed to enhance riparian values. There are 7 aquatic organism passage projects and 8 culverts in stream crossings that will be improved with this project as funds become available. If failure of an existing stream crossing occurs during project implementation the crossing will be replaced immediately to avoid further resource damage in accordance with the North Carolina Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest Plan Implementation Guidelines (North Carolina Forest Service, 2006). This analysis addresses activity area waters and analysis area (AA) waters. Activity area waters are defined as those within or directly adjacent to proposed activities. The aquatic AA encompasses all of the activity area waters and downstream reaches potentially impacted by the project. The aquatic AA is larger than the activity area. The full areal extent of surface water drainage in the Twelve Mile Analysis Area extends into four watersheds assigned with a Hydrologic Unit Code, or HUC. These are Walters Lake/ Pigeon River (HUC 060101060303); Cold Springs/ Pigeon River (HUC 060101060305); Lower Cataloochee (HUC 060101060302) and Big Creek (HUC 060101060304). The Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area map can be viewed in detail from the project record but is also featured in Figure 3. The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Forest Plan) includes standards and desired future conditions for the Forests, including aquatic resources and associated riparian areas. The standards are intended to protect, manage, and enhance riparian and aquatic resources of the Forests. This analysis will focus on the potential impacts of the proposed activities on aquatic resources and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of project implementation. Activities that do not have the potential to directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect aquatic resources or have aquatic resources within or adjacent to them will not be analyzed in this section. There are no activities proposed within area waters or associated riparian areas, except at designated stream crossings or where stream restoration is proposed. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the effects of stream crossing maintenance or replacement and local sedimentation issues described below on aquatic resources.

46 Environmental Assessment

Figure 3. Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area Map; the aquatic analysis area extends beyond the project area boundary to analyze watershed systems and also includes prescribed burning proposal on GSM National Park lands.

Aquatic Community Existing Condition

Project information was obtained from Rachael Dickson, USFS Silviculturist, Matt Keyes, USFS Timber Management Assistant/ Forester and Jason Herron, USFS Silviculturist and Zone NEPA Planner. Lorie Stroup, USFS Fisheries Biologist, conducted aquatic habitat surveys of the proposed activity and analysis area waters in the spring and summer of 2017 and 2018, with other field visits during fall and winter of those years. Fish community information was collected from existing North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and USFS survey information. Survey dates range from the early 1990s to summer of 2018. All fish surveys were conducted by using an electrofishing back pack shocking device. Other surveys consisted of examining streams within the aquatic activity area, noting habitat quality, quantity, and suitability for rare aquatic and management indicator species (MIS), as well as existing impacts and their source. There is an extensive report and monitoring conducted by Duke Energy (formerly Carolina Power and Light [CP&L]) of water quality and biotic studies of benthic invertebrates and fish in the Pigeon River and Walters (Waterville) Lake near the Walters Hydroelectric Project (Project). This biological and water quality monitoring program was an integral part of a settlement agreement among Duke Energy, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources) and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency executed on February 16,

47 Environmental Assessment

1994 and incorporated into the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License issued on November 4, 1994. These monitoring studies have been conducted every three years since 1995 in fulfillment of requirements. This monitoring has been conducted at multiple stations including sites within the aquatic analysis area of the Twelve Mile Project. The full report that summarizes this work can be found at: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=360693&page=1&cr=1

Figure 4. Image from Duke Energy monitoring locations (2016) During 2016, two of the three criteria (annual mean dissolved oxygen concentration was ≥5 mg/L and a fish community bioclassification rating of, at least, “Good”) were met; however, the benthic community bioclassification criterion (a rating of, at least, "Good") was not met having been rated as “Good-Fair”. Based on these results, the monitoring will be repeated in 2019.

According to the surveys of the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Duke Energy, the fish community within the main stem of the Pigeon River watershed is dominated by cool water species with all of the streams feeding this section being cold water trout streams. Fish species include: banded sculpin, black redhorse, bluegill, brown bullhead, brown trout, central stoneroller, flathead catfish, gizzard shad, green sunfish, greenside darter, logperch (record from the 70’s), northern hogsucker, rainbow trout, red breast sunfish, redline darter, river chub, rock bass, silver shiner, telescope shiner, Tuckasegee darter and whitetail shiner. Cold Springs Creek is still stocked several times per year with all three species of trout. Brook trout exist within upper reaches of several streams within the watershed including Cherry

48 Environmental Assessment

Cove Creek and Groundhog Creek where brook trout restoration has been conducted in partnership with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the USFS. Crayfish surveys were conducted within the Pigeon River in 2016 by NCWRC non-game aquatic biologist Bronwyn Williams and Zac Loughman. These surveys were to determine crayfish distribution and presence within the Pigeon River watershed (below the dam at Waterville). Most of the crayfishes in the lower Pigeon are either a yet undescribed form of Cambarus robustus (Big Water Crayfish) or one of two yet undescribed forms of Cambarus bartonii (Common Crayfish). Near the TN border are Cambarus longirostris (Longnose Crayfish), and maybe Faxonius erichsonianus (Reticulate Crayfish) and Faxonius forceps (Surgeon Crayfish), both of which are relatively common on the TN side, not too far downstream. No rare species were found during these surveys. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality aquatic biologists, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologists.

Aquatic Habitat Existing Condition

Existing data for aquatic resources within the aquatic AA is used to the extent it is relevant to the project proposal. This data exists in two forms: 1) general inventory and monitoring of Forest aquatic resources; and 2) data provided by cooperating resource agencies from aquatic resources on or flowing through the Forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 is used as a historical reference. Project-specific surveys are conducted to obtain reliable data where none exists. The Pigeon River, Walters Lake, and all tributaries in the Project area in NC are classified as Class C waters which has been in effect since 1974 (NCDWR, 2018). Class C waters are suitable for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other uses. There are no restrictions on watershed development activities. The 2018 Integrated Report from the Department of Environmental Quality has the Pigeon River, from Waterville Dam to the state line, listed as 303d for Mercury in fish tissue. This report states that the mercury found in fish tissue from this section of the river “exceeds criteria” which means that the amount of mercury found in fish tissue there exceeds the approved amount allowable by state standards. The full report can be located at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/modeling-assessment/water-quality-data- assessment/integrated-report-files. Cataloochee Creek is a US Geological Survey (USGS) Benchmark Stream and is classified as Class C, trout waters, with a supplemental classification as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) from its source in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to Walters Lake (NCDWR, 2018). The ORW are identified to protect unique and special waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or recreational significance. The Twelve Mile Landscape Assessment Area is within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province draining in a northerly direction within the Pigeon River Basin. The topography of the area is mountainous with strongly sloping to very steep uplands and narrow valley bottoms with often rocky stream channels in FS ownership. Soils are dominated by the Brasstown-Junaluska complex (BsE), Edneyville-Chestnut complex (EcE and EcF) and Soco-Stecoah complex, each steep with slopes ranging from 30 to 95 percent. These soil types have erosion concerns for management because of steep slopes. Average annual precipitation is 45.0 inches (data from nearby 7-Mile Ridge, elevation of 2,171 feet.), but more likely much higher at higher elevations. Stream channels are predominantly stable with an

49 Environmental Assessment

abundance of large rock substrate and banks. Existing old roads, skid trails, system and non-system roads and trails in the analysis area are existing threats to water quality within the Twelve Mile Project. In particular, there are existing crossings that are either deteriorated or non-functioning. These crossings are all proposed for repair with the action alternative. There are watershed improvement projects identified within the Cold Springs Creek drainage of the Twelve Mile Project. These projects include restoration of declining riparian habitat, the restoration of valley bottoms and the enhancement of large woody debris (LWD). According to (Flebbe, 1999), LWD is a “major link” between the riparian zone and the adjacent stream habitat. In that study of a trout stream on National Forest where LWD was in abundance, trout were present. The action alternative with the Twelve Mile Project addresses the lack of LWD in Cold Springs Creek with LWD placement along Forest Road 148 during the clearing of the road limits. There is also approximately 0.7 miles of stream channel in the Harmon Den area in need of stabilization due to disturbance from past management. Stream stabilization work is proposed in Cold Springs Creek and its tributary, Fall Branch. These stream reaches have lost connectivity with the floodplain thus resulting in an incised channel and erosion of the stream banks. Additional watershed improvements are proposed to improve aquatic organism passage (AOP) on Flat Branch and Little Flat Branch, and address sediment concerns where roads are hydrologically connected at stream crossings. Impacts from the sediment sources described above are limited to down slope movement of sediment from road runoff and culvert fills. In most cases, it is suspected that a majority of sediments from these sources are deposited in the natural vegetative filters before they reach areas of perennial streams. Problems with existing routes were evaluated by USFS personnel during project area surveys. Erosion issues have been identified and will be addressed with this project with the exception of the Haynes Road along Hurricane Creek. It was determined that the issues with Haynes Road would be addressed separately.

Effects Analysis

Examples of direct effects of a proposed action on aquatic species include, but are not limited to, activities such as crushing individual insects, fish, or redds during stream crossing installation. Such effects are more likely to occur to less mobile aquatic organisms such as aquatic insects, freshwater mussels, and fish eggs and larvae, whereas more mobile species such as crayfish, aquatic salamanders, and juvenile and adult fish are often able to escape direct effects by simply leaving the area. Direct effects may also include changes in the quality, quantity, or diversity of habitat available resulting from sedimentation. It is important to note that effects to aquatic habitats from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions. Examples of indirect effects of a proposed action on aquatic species include, but are not limited to, altered reproductive or foraging success and increased occurrence of disease as a result of sedimentation, degraded water quality, and altered community structure as a result of migration. Indirect effects may also include changes in the quality, quantity, or diversity of habitat available resulting from changes in riparian vegetation. Specifically, the transport of LWD, an integral component of aquatic habitat diversity, to stream channels is a function of riparian vegetation structure and composition. The Forest Plan does not allow vegetation management within riparian zones for perennial streams unless it is specifically for the enhancement of riparian values (USDA, 1994, pp. page III-181). This standard was designed to allow vegetation along streams to become old and decadent and to serve as a long-term source of LWD to stream channels. However, areas exist across the Forests where vegetation can be managed within

50 Environmental Assessment

designated riparian areas to facilitate LWD transport and to serve as a short-term source of habitat improvement. Cumulative effects on aquatic species and habitat are the integration of any direct or indirect effects into the existing condition—and include past, present, and future actions, including those not occurring on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Most often, cumulative effects are seen as either a degradation or improvement of an already impacted situation, but they can also be the first step in the degradation or improvement process. Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats and populations from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions.

Effects on Aquatic Resources

This discussion assumes all Forest Service timber sale contract clauses, North Carolina BMPs, and any other required management practices relating to water quality would be implemented successfully. In the event that an implemented contract clause or BMP fails during project implementation, immediate corrective action will be taken to reduce impacts to aquatic resources. There are no activities proposed within area waters or associated riparian areas, except at designated stream crossings or in the proposed riparian and stream habitat restoration areas described in the project proposal and existing condition sections of this document. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the effects of stream crossing maintenance or replacement and the sedimentation issues described above on aquatic resources.

(1) Effects of Access on Aquatic Resources

(i) Alternative A (No Action) Implementation of the no action alternative would perpetuate the existing condition described above. Aquatic habitat quality, quantity, and populations would continue in their natural dynamic patterns. It is important to note that natural processes include aspects such as extinction of species and loss of habitat types. It is also important to note that funding for stream crossing improvements (or removals) as well as the 57 culverts that are either failing or deteriorating would have to be acquired through other sources because there would not be harvest activities to fund the watershed projects.

(ii) Alternative B (Action Alternative) Crossings for the action alternatives are summarized in Table 11. All of the stream crossings are on existing roads (or also known as “woods” roads) with the exception of the new crossing on an unnamed tributary to Bad Fork associated with the new road construction. In most cases, locations of crossings will be replacing a deteriorating wood structure or undersized pipe. Temporary roads and skid trails within the units will follow Forest Plan Standards and BMP’s.

(a) Direct Effects.

There are 57 deteriorated or failing culvert locations on existing roads that will be replaced as a part of the action alternative for the Twelve Mile project. Each of these crossings are located within dry ephemeral drainages, intermittent stream channels or perennial stream channels. These existing structures are not functioning properly at this time. Improving these crossings, some of which are in live stream crossings, will be a direct improvement to their existing condition. By replacing the failing structures, the watershed will benefit by reduced sedimentation from erosion during storm events and, in some cases, improved aquatic organism passage. Where the crossings involve perennial streams there will be a direct impact to 22 to 28 linear feet of stream or channel bed at the crossing locations. There are 15 of these structures that

51 Environmental Assessment

have been identified as either Aquatic Organism Passage projects (because they support aquatic life including fish) or culvert replacements. The culvert replacements will replace an undersized culvert with a larger structure that will improve aquatic habitat and reduce the risk of failure during large storm events.

Table 11. Seven Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Projects and eight culverts (in streams) associated with access to this project area Forest Service (FS) Number of crossings Type of Crossing Stream Road Number FS 3526 7 Culverts Unnamed headwater tributaries of Cold Springs Creek FS 3570 2 Open Bottom Structures Unnamed headwater to provide AOP tributaries of Cold Springs Creek FS 3572 1 Open Bottom Structure Bear Creek to provide AOP FS 3576 1 Culvert Unnamed Headwater tributary of Cold Springs Creek FS 3568 1 Open Bottom Structure Unnamed Tributary to to provide AOP Wilkins Creek FS 289 1 Open Bottom Structure Gilland Creek to provide AOP FS 3620 1 Open Bottom Structure Flat Branch to provide AOP FS 3623 1 Open Bottom Structure Laurel Creek to provide AOP

The aquatic organism passage (AOP) projects are designed such that aquatic habitat will remain continuous within the streambed. At each of these locations (listed in Table 11), this is an improvement from the existing crossing. The intermittent and ephemeral drainage crossings will require the installation of corrugated metal pipes (CMPs). At these crossing locations there will be a direct disturbance of stream bottom within the 22-28 linear feet of stream at each crossing where a pipe is installed. Although there will be short term impacts (fluctuation of turbidity) associated with replacing the crossings, there will be long term benefits from improving the crossings. Each crossing will be designed so that it will not constrict flow and cause erosion issues within the channel of the streams. Open bottom pipes, bridges and squash pipes will be installed in flowing or “perennial” streams so that they will allow for streambed material to move into the structure and provide “continuity” of habitat for aquatic organisms. Fish passage is important but we are also concerned with the passage of aquatic macro invertebrates. Disruptions to the movement and dispersal of these organisms can reduce available habitat and lead to genetic isolation of some populations (Vaughan, 2002). Where feasible, bridges or arch structures will be used which provides for the stream bottom to remain undisturbed. Installation of bridge and/ or arch pipe abutment installation will require direct disturbance of the immediate stream bank around the channel. This disturbance is mitigated by diverting stream flow around the working area. Turbidity during construction will be minimized by the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest Practice Guidelines (FPGs). Water degradation is possible during forestry operations such as road building and crossing replacements however, the use of BMP has been shown to substantially reduce the risk (Anderson & Lockoby, 2011). As a result, no measurable direct adverse

52 Environmental Assessment

impacts to aquatic habitat or organisms are expected to occur from the improvement of access into the area. The road drainage on all temporary roads within the activity area would be designed so water flows off the road bed and enters into vegetation rather than directly into activity area streams. Following harvest activities, discing and seeding of all unsurfaced temporary roads, skid roads and log landings will occur.

(b) Indirect Effects.

A small quantity of sediments may enter the streams during culvert installation; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the crossing. Within that area, where stream flow does slow into more pool like habitat, sedimentation may be evident. These effects may persist until the next bank full flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 2.5 years). The effects of the culvert installations would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter the streams. Effects from the culvert installations will be immeasurable at the confluence of the next perennial stream. Additional culverts may be installed within analysis area waters as needed. The effects of these culverts would be the same as described for the culvert installations above. A small quantity of sediments may enter into analysis area streams at the existing crossings during haul activities. This turbidity would not be measurable and would not cause any loss of habitat for aquatic populations across the analysis area. If at any time during haul activities there are measurable sediments entering into the streams timber sale administrators will immediately seek a corrective action. There are approximately 0.68 miles of new road construction for the Twelve Mile Project. It is important to note that this new construction is not all in the same place of the analysis area. The new construction is just extending existing road beds to access the project areas. Table 12. New road construction mileage Total Road Mileage Road 3569Spur 0.27 0.68 Construction 3572Spur 0.41

(2) Effects of Timber Harvest on Aquatic Resources

(i) Alternative A (No Action) The existing condition of aquatic resources has been described above. Natural fluctuations in population stability, and habitat quality and quantity would continue.

(ii) Alternative B (Action Alternative) Riparian buffers have been delineated so that no impact to aquatic habitat will occur from harvest activities. In general, the greatest risk to aquatic resources is associated with access to the stands, which has been discussed above with respect to stream crossings.

North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines (NC-FPGs) (North Carolina Forest Service, 2006) and Forest Plan standards (BMPs) (USDA, 1994) would be implemented during harvest activities. Applications of Forest Plan standards are intended to meet performance standards of the state regulations. Visible sediment derived from timber harvesting, defined by state regulations, should not occur unless there is a failure of one or more of the applied erosion control practices. Should any practice fail to meet existing regulations, additional practices or the reapplication of existing measures would be implemented as specified by state regulations. According to the Executive Summary of the Assessment of Forestry BMPs

53 Environmental Assessment in North Carolina, 2012-2016, (North Carolina Forest Service, 2016) “(where) BMP implementation was higher risks to water quality were lower on all sites larger than 100 acres, regardless of their operational phase of activity.”

A Forest wide effort has been on-going to monitor the effectiveness of BMPs on National Forest lands in North Carolina. According to the results of this survey:

Between 2009 and 2018, Best Management Practices (BMPs) were monitored on the Croatan, Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests. The monitoring was done to determine whether or not BMPs were implemented and effective in controlling sediment and other pollutants during timber sale and road reconstruction and maintenance activities. From the information collected and analyzed over the last ten years, we conclude that the Croatan, Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests are implementing Best Management Practices during timber sales and they are effective in protecting streams and water quality. There has been an improving trend in BMP implementation and effectiveness and a decrease in sediment delivery to streams.

By avoiding skid trail stream crossings when possible (or using temporary bridges), reducing the number of existing road grade sags over streams and correcting fish migration passage problems, BMP implementation and effectiveness should continue to improve. To complete the “BMP feedback loop” this information should be used to assist engineers and sale administrators involved in future projects. (Dodd B. N., 2018)

There is no plan for harvest activities within any riparian area of perennial streams within the Twelve Mile analysis area. According to the Land and Resources Management Plan (USDA, 1994), “Under these conditions, no increase in water temperature is anticipated under any of the alternatives. Since riparian- area treatment is not expected under any alternatives, availability of woody debris would be positively influenced if there was no harvest anywhere within the riparian zone on each streambank” (USDA, 1994). The culvert installations for this project are associated with existing roads and therefore will not cause any disturbance to the existing riparian vegetation. Water quality will not be affected because Forest Plan standards and NC-FPGs are followed, and timber sale contract clauses are implemented. Stream temperatures will not be affected because adequate shade will be maintained along perennial and intermittent streams. In the past, the implementation of the NC- FPGs has protected streams during similar past actions (see discussion above). Long-term adverse impacts from similar past actions have not been apparent. When failure of any BMP or NC-FPG occurred, it was corrected immediately.

(3) Effects of Other Activities on Aquatic Resources

(a) Use of herbicides

(i) Alternative A (No Action) The existing condition of aquatic resources has been described above. Natural fluctuations in population stability, and habitat quality and quantity would continue. Non-native, invasive plants will likely continue to invade riparian vegetation if left untreated within the Twelve Mile Project area. This could cause permanent damage to native riparian vegetation which is directly associated to stream health and good water quality. The soils remain stable along streams that are being impacted by exotic species however, it is possible that the regeneration of native trees along the

54 Environmental Assessment

corridor could decrease due to the existence of NNIP which will eventually impact the nutrient input into the stream system due to lack of large woody debris.

(ii) Alternative B (Action Alternative) In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM-FEIS) (USDA Forest Service Southern Region, 1989), herbicide spraying would not occur within 30 horizontal feet of water unless the herbicide has been approved for aquatic applications. The herbicide triclopyr (ester formulation) has the potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Sublethal effects, such as lethargy or hypersensitivity, have been observed in fish at concentrations of 0.1 mg/L – 0.43 mg/L. No adverse effects have been observed in fish or aquatic invertebrates from exposure to imazapir concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, 2003a; Durkin, 2003b; and Durkin and Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS). The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Treatment area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the treatment area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to the streams within the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis area because the amount of herbicides in activity area waters would be immeasurable.

(b) Twelve Mile Project Watershed Improvements

(i) Alternative A (No Action) The Cold Springs stream channel has been disturbed by past management in the area. This reach has evidence of historic activity including foundations of historic structures. Although the channel is largely functioning properly, there are sections of excessive streambank instability and erosion indicating that the channel has been disturbed by human activity. The most upstream section of this reach is adjacent to the picnic area where the flood area has been leveled and the channel confined. Downstream, the channel is slightly entrenched and the frequency of floodplain access has decreased, resulting in lateral channel adjustment and bank erosion. These conditions exist downstream to beaver ponds, a reach of about 0.35 miles. The current elevated rates of erosion will likely continue unless stream enhancement work is conducted. The Fall Branch stream channel has been disturbed by past management in the area. The channel is largely functioning properly, but there are sections of excessive bank and bed instability and erosion in this ~0.31 mile reach. Additionally, there is an old road crossing of timbers that has plugged and is a high risk of failure and resulting large source of sediment to the downstream channel.

(ii) Alternative B (Action Alternative) For a complete description of the Watershed Improvements proposed for the Twelve Mile Project area see the Twelve Mile Proposed Actions section and Appendix C –Details of Proposed Watershed Improvement Projects.

55 Environmental Assessment

There will be short term impacts associated with the stream restoration activities. Impacts from sediment during placement of large woody debris on in Cold Springs Creek and Fall Branch would be temporary in nature and would have the potential to cause some temporary disturbance along the stream banks during the project implementation. These short term affects will be far outweighed by the long term benefits of enhancing. These short-term impacts will be less than the long term impacts of leaving the site as it is. Implementation of instream work will be scheduled for outside of the trout spawning season (October 15- April 15) in order to minimize potential impacts for trout spawning seasons which is fall for brook and brown trout and spring for rainbow.

(c) Wildlife Habitat Improvements (permanent fields and woodland creation and maintenance)

(i) Alternative A The “no action” alternative would not address wildlife habitat improvements. The existing aquatic condition (described above) will remain on the current trajectory.

(ii) Alternative B The wildlife habitat improvement activities will occur outside the 100 foot riparian area of all perennial streams with the Twelve Mile Project area. Because there will be no disturbance of the 100 foot riparian area associated with these wildlife projects, there will be no potential impacts from implementation. Where streams are within 100 linear feet of the linear opening, no daylighting or “brushy interface” creation will occur. No development of wildlife fields will occur within the riparian area of any aquatic AA streams (LRMP- Management Area 18) (USDA, 1994).

(d) Stand Improvement

(i) Alternative A No Stand Improvement (SI) work and/or site preparation will occur with alternative A. The existing condition described above will continue.

(ii) Alternative B No TSI work and/or site preparation will occur within the 100 foot riparian area of any analysis area stream unless it is mapped and field reviewed by the Interdisciplinary Team. Therefore, there will be no impacts from TSI work to the aquatic resources within the area.

(e) Prescribed Burning (Including GSM National Park Lands)

Streams within this area are at low risk of impact due to the project’s design which includes no dozer line construction and minimal hand line. There are some areas where hand line will be constructed within the riparian area of streams. This will involve minimal soil disturbance. These hand lines will be installed so that they are perpendicular to stream flow and will not involve the removal of trees along streams (only brush and duff layer). After the burn is completed, these hand lines will be rehabilitated using seed and/or mulch. The riparian areas will be inspected immediately following the prescribed burns to determine if any mineral soil exposure has occurred in riparian areas. If disturbance exists that could cause erosion into the analysis area streams, the lines will be seeded and mulched as an immediate site rehabilitation measure to stop erosion and sedimentation.

56 Environmental Assessment

There may be a small fluctuation in nutrients into these analysis area streams after the prescribed burn; however, this fluctuation will not have any negative impacts on aquatic resources or any aquatic species. This fluctuation of nutrients (from ash) may benefit area aquatic resources due to their usual lack of nutrients. Riparian areas around streams generally do not burn intensely therefore riparian vegetation will likely remain in its existing condition with the exception of the small amount of hand line needed.

(f) Horse Trail Relocation

There is a need to connect the existing trail head to the day use area and remove equestrian use on Cold Springs Road. In order to achieve this, an existing trail will be added to the National Forest System so that it can be maintained. This addition will have no adverse impacts to aquatic resources.

Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources

Cumulative effects on aquatic species and habitat are the integration of any direct or indirect effects into the existing condition—and include past, present, and future actions, including those not occurring on NFS lands. Most often, cumulative effects are seen as either a degradation or improvement of an already impacted situation, but they can also be the first step in the degradation or improvement process. Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats and populations from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions.

Alternative B (Action Alternative)

Expected cumulative effects should not be any greater than the direct and indirect effects disclosed above for each alternative and there should be no adverse cumulative effects to aquatic resources within the AA, based on the project’s design features included in this analysis. Remnants of the past timber activities where access was associated with the projects are in many cases on-going contributors to adverse impacts to aquatic resources. In general, undersized culverts and degraded stream crossings cause constant sources of problems for aquatic resources including unstable stream banks and channelization. Monitoring results from Forest-wide BMP Monitoring indicate that “Legacy system roads continued to be the main source of inadequate BMPs and sediment delivered to streams” (Dodd B. N., 2011). Within the aquatic AA for the Twelve Mile Project, solutions to these problems have been addressed where they were discovered during field surveys. There are places within riparian areas of this project area that have historically been harvested. However, as these areas continue to grow older, conditions should improve as large woody debris input into analysis area streams returns to a more natural state. Existing trails or roads with problems that are inside cutting units will be addressed with the Twelve Mile project and roads being added to the system with this project will be repaired. All of the undersized culverts and crossing improvements will reduce the amount of erosion into analysis area streams. This and the stream restoration of the Twelve Mile Project have the greatest potential to positively impact water quality within the drainage. The restoration work that is planned for Cold Springs Creek and Falls Branch as well as the crossing improvements will improve aquatic habitat for aquatic life and prevent erosion. As a result, the expected cumulative effects should not be any greater than the direct and indirect effects disclosed above and there should be no adverse cumulative effects to the analysis area aquatic resources,

57 Environmental Assessment

based on the project’s design features included in this analysis. The following table displays effects on Forest-wide aquatic habitat: Table 13. Effects on forest-wide aquatic habitat Amount across the Aquatic Habitat Effects analysis Nantahala & Pisgah None affected because there are no activities Reservoirs 36,000 acres proposed within the shoreline of Walters Lake. None affected because there are no warm water Warm water streams 210 miles streams within the analysis area. The Pigeon River below the Waterville dam is considered cool water habitat. Cool water streams 400 miles There will be no cool water habitat affected by this project as there are no plans for stream crossing replacements or improvements on the Pigeon. The stream crossings proposed and the stream restoration work in cold water habitat is described above in the effects of alternatives section. The Cold water streams 5,060 miles actual foot print of disturbance of those projects (which are for watershed improvement) will be less than 1% of the overall cold water streams within the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis area.

Effects to Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Forest Concern, and MIS Species

Aquatic Threatened and Endangered Species

There are four aquatic species federally listed on the National Forests in North Carolina- Nantahala & Pisgah NFs. According to recent and historical surveys conducted within the area and queries of the North Carolina Natural Heritage and the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists, none of these species occur within the Twelve Mile Project Area or the main stem of the Pigeon River in Haywood County, therefore there are no aquatic T & E Species considered further in this analysis.

Potential Effects of Proposed Alternatives: Proposed Actions by Alternative. There were no aquatic TES found during activity and analysis area surveys within the Twelve Mile Project area. There are no aquatic TES or FC species listed as occurring by the NHP within this AA.

No Action Alternative: The existing condition would continue within the project area of Twelve Mile if the no action alternative is selected. Action Alternative: There are no aquatic T & E species within the analysis area of the Twelve Mile Project therefore there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any T & E species.

58 Environmental Assessment

Aquatic Sensitive Species

There are sixteen aquatic sensitive species that are either known to occur or may occur on the National Forests in NC- Nantahala & Pisgah NFs. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of sensitive species in Haywood County and the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area. After this initial filter, there is one sensitive aquatic species that potentially occurs in the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area of Haywood County.

Cryptobranchus alleganensis or Eastern hellbenders occur in the Pigeon River near the Tennessee/NC state line. This area of the Pigeon River is located within the most downstream reaches of the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis area. This element of occurrence is from 1988 and considered historical. Recent surveys and eDNA tests indicate that hellbenders no longer exist at that location in the Pigeon River close to the power station at the Tennessee/ NC line (Williams, 2019). Eastern hellbenders are not expected to be impacted by the proposed projects of the Twelve Mile Project. There are no proposals with the direct disturbance of substrate or habitat within the Pigeon River and any off site movement of soil associated with the improvements to stream crossings are so far up within the watershed that any impacts will not be evident where historically hellbenders existed.

Potential Effects of Action Alternative: Cryptobranchus alleganiensis potentially exists within the lower reaches of the Twelve Mile Project Area in the Pigeon River. However, activities associated with this project are not expected to have any impacts on habitat in the Pigeon River therefore will have no impacts to hellbenders.

Aquatic Forest Concern Species

Seventy-four aquatic Forest Concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the National Forests in NC, Nantahala & Pisgah NFs. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area of Haywood County. Three Forest Concern fish species (Sander Canadensis, Percina caprodes, and Cottus carolinae) and one macroinvertebrate (Aeshna verticalis- dragonfly) exist within the Aquatic Analysis area of the Twelve Mile Project. The NHP lists the three fish species as element of occurrences in the lower reaches of the Pigeon River close to the Tennessee Line. These fish species and Aeshna verticalis, the dragonfly, were found in the Pigeon River at NCDWR’s monitoring sites for Duke Energy. Criteria for species on the Forest Concern list are T&E NC Status, US status of Federal Species of Concern (FSC), or NC Rank of S1 or S2 (with local knowledge).

Sander canadensis historically existed within Haywood County in the Pigeon River (EO from below Walters Power House- A. Leslie, 1988). The NC Heritage Program has this species listed as a “historical” element of occurrence. Percina caprodes also existed historically in this area of the Pigeon River but has not been documented there since 1998. Because of these records being “historic” in nature, both Sander canadensis and Percina caprodes have been eliminated from further analysis for the Twelve Mile Project.

The element of occurrence for Cottus carolinae is more recent with surveys from 2009 and 2012, NCDWR. That species was not found at the monitoring sites during the 2016 surveys according to the 2016 Water Quality and Biotic Indices Studies Appendix A - Requirements.

Aeshna verticalis was located during the ambient monitoring surveys of the Pigeon River by the NCDWR in 2016. This dragonfly inhabits slower waters of ponds, rivers (on edges) and marshes. The location of this survey is in the slower reaches of the Pigeon River below Waterville Dam.

59 Environmental Assessment

Potential Effects of Action Alternative: The records for Sander canadensis and Percina caprodes are historical for the downstream reaches of the Pigeon River in the Twelve Mile Project Aquatic Analysis Area. Activities associated with this project are not expected to have any impacts on habitat in the Pigeon River therefore will have no impacts to sauger or logperch. Cottus carolinae exists within the lower reaches of the Twelve Mile Project Area in the Pigeon River. Activities associated with this project are not expected to have any impacts on habitat in the Pigeon River therefore will have no impacts to banded sculpin. Aeshna verticalis exists within the Pigeon River of the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area. Activities associated with this project are not expected to have any impacts on habitat in the Pigeon River therefore will have no impacts to green-striped darter.

Table 14. Threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and forest concern species in Haywood County, Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area Common Name Scientific Name Type Likelihood of Occurrence Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species NONE

Sensitive Species (based on 12-21-2001 Regional Forester's list) Eastern hellbender Cryptobranchus Amphibian Known to Occur- Located in the lower alleganiensis reaches of the Pigeon River near Tennessee Line. Forest Concern Species Sauger Sander canadensis Fish Not Likely to Occur- Historical records located in the lower reaches of the Pigeon River near Tennessee Line. Banded sculpin Cottus carolinae Fish May Occur- Located in the lower reaches of the Pigeon River near Tennessee Line. Logperch Percina caprodes Fish Not Likely to Occur- Historical records located in the lower reaches of the Pigeon River near Tennessee Line. Green-striped Aeshna verticalis Dragonfly Located in the Pigeon River below darner Waterville Dam Definitions for likelihood of occurrence are as follows: “Known to occur” – those species of which there is documentation that the species exists within a specified area, or it was found in the area during surveys. “Likely to occur” – those species of which there is no documentation of the species occurring in a specified area but are expected to occur based on documentation of very similar habitat to known populations. For purposes of the AQUA, it should be assumed that the species does occur in a specified area until presence/absence of the species is verified. “May occur” – the species probably occurs in a specified area in the broadest sense. Only very general habitat preferences and species distribution are used to determine if a species may occur. This does not imply their existence in an area, but that their general habitat description is found in the area, so therefore the species may occur. “Not likely to occur” – Suitable habitat for a species may exist in a specified area, but there is other information known about the area and/or the species to determine that it is not likely to occur. These species are not included in the analysis. “Does not occur” – exhaustive surveys (existing and ours) have not found the species in the project and/or analysis areas. These species are not included in the analysis.

60 Environmental Assessment

Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Wild rainbow, brown and brook trout exist within the aquatic activity area in several streams of the Twelve Mile Aquatic Analysis Area including the Pigeon River (rainbow trout) and Cold Springs Creek which is stocked several times per year with all three species of trout. Brook trout exist within upper reaches of several streams within the watershed including Cherry Cove Creek, Dicks Branch, Dogwood Flats, Snowbird Creek, and Groundhog Creek where brook trout restoration has been conducted in partnership with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and the USFS. Although brown and brook exist, this watershed is primarily populated by wild rainbow. The stream crossing replacement activities associated with the action alternatives could have negative short-term impacts on the spawning habitat of trout during culvert installations and replacements. However, this project has been designed so that fluctuations in sediment will be minimized by the implementation of best management practices (BMP) and forest practice guidelines (FPG). Included in the FPG’s for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest is no stream disturbance during the trout spawning moratorium (October 15 thru April 15). This moratorium will protect any trout eggs and juveniles from being smothered or crushed during project implementation. Harvest activities will occur outside of riparian areas, 100 linear feet of all perennial streams or as mapped by an interdisciplinary team. It is expected that long term benefits of more stable stream crossings, road drainage issues addressed and preventing further erosion will far outweigh possible short term impacts. It should be noted that the Action Alternative will improve permanent stream crossings (Table 11). This disturbance will occur one time, during installation. Therefore, there is more likely to be long-term sedimentation and downstream impacts from offsite movement of soil with the no action alternative than the action alternative. The No Action Alternative will leave the crossings in their current state which has been described in the existing condition. Individuals of the rainbow, brown and brook trout community within the Twelve Mile Project area of potential impacts may be indirectly impacted by the activities associated with this project. Mobile organisms, such as trout, can move up or downstream to avoid disturbed areas within the stream (Waters, 1995). These impacts are expected to be short term and will cease with site rehabilitation.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects will occur to as a result of the implementation of this project.

Consultation History

The USDI FW&S was not consulted for the Twelve Mile Project because no aquatic threatened or endangered species or critical habitat exists within the aquatic AA. No formal or informal consultation is necessary.

Determination of Effect

Threatened and Endangered Aquatic Species

No risk to population viability of any aquatic federally listed species across the Forest would occur as a result of the implementation of the Twelve Mile Project. The project would have no effect on any federally listed species or their habitat.

61 Environmental Assessment

Sensitive Aquatic Species

No risk to population viability of any aquatic Sensitive species across the Forest would occur as a result of the implementation of the Twelve Mile Project. Therefore, the project would have no impact on Sensitive aquatic species or their habitat.

Forest Concern Aquatic Species

No risk to population viability of any aquatic Forest Concern species across the Forest would occur as a result of the implementation of the Twelve Mile Project. Therefore, the project would have no impact on FC aquatic species or their habitat.

Management Indicator Species

There will be no impacts to the long-term viability of this rainbow, brook and brown trout population or the populations across the Forest.

62 Environmental Assessment

Soil/Geology Resources

Scope of the Analysis

The scope of the analysis for the impacts to soils will be the area contained within the activity areas for this proposed project including proposed prescribed burning on GSM National Park Lands. The activity areas are the treatment areas where there is potential for soil disturbance because of timber harvest units, log landings and corridors of temporary and skid roads. Activity areas will be smaller in extent than the entire proposed project area and are intended to include only the areas being treated by the proposed project alternatives. Table 15 shows the total activity area for the project action alternative, which defines the scope of this analysis to estimate effects to the soils from the proposed activities. Table 15. Activity areas potentially impacting the soil resource for the action alternative, Twelve Mile AA Project Activity Area Alternative B Timber Harvest – Two-Age Regeneration 1,027 acres Timber Harvest – Commercial Thinning 327 acres Timber Harvest – Uneven-Aged 329 acres Timber Harvest – Woodland Management 498 acres Prescribed Burn 1,342 acres Prescribed Burn Fire-line Construction 3,840 feet Log Landings 137 landings Bladed Skid Roads 35.49 miles Unbladed Skid Trail 32.03 miles Road Construction Existing Corridor 7.95 miles Road Construction Non-existing Corridor (New road) 0.68 miles Stream Rehabilitation 24 acres Timber Stand Improvement Treatments No soil impacts expected Non-native plant control No soil impacts expected

Existing Conditions

A detailed soil survey has been completed for the project area. The information about the soils is obtained from the soil survey for the Pisgah National Forest completed by the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). The US Forest Service is a partner both nationally and locally in North Carolina with the National Forests in North Carolina cooperating with the NRCS. Field work for this soil survey was done in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The mapping and soil data is currently located in NRCS and Forest Service files, with the most complete data available on the NRCS Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). The soils potentially impacted by this project are derived from rock in the Biotite granitic gneiss, Max Patch Granite, Granodiorite gneiss, Wading Branch and Longarm Quartzite Formations (North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985). These formations contain a wide range of rock types. The primary soils occurring in the activity areas are identified in Table 16.

63 Environmental Assessment

Table 16. Primary soils (> 10 acres) in proposed activity areas Percent of Activity Soil Type (Map unit symbol) Area in Soil Type Brasstown-Junaluska complex, 15 to 30 % slopes (BsD) 9.02% Brasstown-Junaluska complex, 30 to 50 % slopes (BsE) 20.40% Cheoah channery loam, 30 to 50 % slopes (ChE) 0.47% Cheoah channery loam, 50 to 95 % slopes (ChF) 1.60% Edneyville-Chestnut complex, basin, 15 to 30 % slopes, stony (EdD) 2.03% Edneyville-Chestnut complex, basin, 30 to 50 % slopes, stony (EdE) 9.96% Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 50 to 95 % slopes, stony (EdF) 10.68% Evard-Cowee complex, 15 to 30 % slopes (EvD) 1.15% Evard-Cowee complex, 30 to 50 % slopes (EvE) 1.90% Plott fine sandy loam, 30 to 50 % slopes, stony (PwE) 2.17% Plott fine sandy loam, 50 to 95 % slopes, stony (PwF) 3.98% Saunook loam, 8 to 15 % slopes, stony (SdC) 0.75% Saunook loam, 15 to 30 % slopes, stony (SdD) 3.87% Saunook loam, 30 to 50 % slopes, very stony (SdE) 1.61% Soco-Stecoah complex, 30 to 50 % slopes (SoE) 2.01% Soco-Stecoah complex, 50 to 95 % slopes (SoF) 19.53% Trimont gravelly loam, 30 to 50 % slopes, stony (TrE) 0.57% Trimont gravelly loam, 50 to 95 % slopes, stony (TrF) 0.72% Tuckasegee-Cullasaja complex, 15 to 30 % slopes, very stoney (TuD) 1.09% Whiteoak cobbly loam, 15 to 30 % slopes, stony (WoD) 3.92% Other Soil Types 2.57%

Hydric Soils Listing

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States, 1994). These soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. Soil types in the activity area are made up dominantly of non-hydric soils. However, the Cullowhee- Nikwasi complex and Tuckasegee-Cullasaja complex, have a potential for hydric soil conditions in the lower positions on the landform.

Prime Farmland Soils Listing

NRCS farmland classification identifies soils as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. The federal Farmland Protection Policy Act states the following: FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT Subtitle I—Farmland Protection Policy Act Section 2 [7 USC 4201] Findings, Purpose, and Definitions

64 Environmental Assessment

(a) Congress finds that: (7) the Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies should take steps to assure that the actions of the Federal Government do not cause United States farmland to be irreversibly converted to nonagricultural uses in cases in which other national interest do not override the importance of the protection of farmland nor otherwise outweigh the benefits of maintaining farmland resources. (b) The purpose of this subtitle is to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to assure that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be compatible with State, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. About 22 percent of the activity area is identified as farmlands of importance (Table 17). These lands are found on the moderately sloping (8 to 30 percent) lands of the Brasstown-Junaluska complex, Edneyville- Chestnut complex, Evard-Cowee complex, Saunook loam and Whiteoak cobbly loam. Prime Farmland would not be adversely impacted by planned silvicultural treatments since lands will not be irreversibly converted to nonagricultural uses. Table 17. Summary of prime farmlands in the activity area Prime Farmland Category Acres Not prime farmland 1730.01 Farmland of local importance 253.19 Farmland of statewide importance 223.7 Prime farmland 0.4 Unique farmland 0

Desired Condition of the Soils

Soil productivity is maintained or enhanced while achieving multiple resource objectives. Soil erosion is within natural levels after an activity area recovery period that allows for revegetation of erodible soil areas.

Direct & Indirect Effects Analysis

Soil Productivity

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no new effects to soil productivity from this alternative. Areas of existing soil compaction, e.g. old woods roads, would continue to improve as compaction is reduced by natural processes, such as frost heave and disturbance by roots and ground dwelling animals, thus slowly improving soil productivity.

65 Environmental Assessment

Alternative B

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

The action alternative has the potential to affect soil resources as a result of commercial treatment activities and the development of the system and temporary road network. The effects of these activities on soil resources in the activity area can be described in terms of short- and long-term effects on the productivity of the soils. Short-term effects are those effects lasting three years or less, and are associated with the recovery period in which disturbed soils become reestablished with natural vegetative cover. Short-term effects imply that the existing soil profile is left intact. Surface disturbances, such as displacement of vegetation over a small area of ground, are the primary impacts. In contrast, long-term effects are associated with activities that displace the upper portions of the soil profile (topsoil) or alter soil structure, e.g. compaction. Many years are needed for the soil to recover its original productivity when the surface layers are removed. Also considered a short-term impact is temporary access roads and landings since the project or activity authorizing the temporary road or trail shall decommission the temporary access at the conclusion of the project or activity; e.g. remove drainage structures, re-contour when needed, and stabilize the final slope. Although soil horizons would be mixed in the process, soil productivity would be largely restored with the help of soil amendments (lime and fertilizer), sowing of grass seed and the placement of vegetative material on the surface.

The estimated extent of soil disturbance and associated estimated short- and long-term effects to soils are summarized in Table 18. Proposed activities associated with Alternative B pose the larger risk of adversely impacting soil productivity due to a greater area of disturbance from the treatment activity and proposed road network compared to Alternative A.

66 Environmental Assessment

Table 18. Estimated short- and long-term effects to soil productivity for Alternative B. (Activities in Bold Font are assessed in Table 5 while the others are assessed separately Alternative B ------Effects (acres) ------Activity Short-Term Long-Term Total Prescribed Burn 68 0 68 Prescribed Burn Fire-line Construction (3,840 feet & 6 0.53 0 0.53 feet wide line) Log Landings (137 estimated) 17.1 17.1 34.2 Bladed Skid Roads (estimated 35.49 miles & 15 feet wide) 0 64.5 64.5 Unbladed Skid Trail (estimated 32.03 miles & 10 feet wide) 36.5 0 36.5 Road Construction Existing Corridor (7.95 miles & 7 0 6.7 6.7 feet width of new disturbance) Road Construction Non-existing Corridor (New road, 0 2.88 2.88 0.68 miles & 35 feet wide) Stream Rehabilitation (0.66 miles) 24 0 24 Alternative B TOTAL 146.1 91.2 254 Assumptions: 1. Prescribed Burn area would have short-term impacts over 5% of the area where fire burns more forest duff than desired. Six feet wide hand-line disturbance will be rehabilitated by raking removed leaf litter back onto the line and therefore be a short-term impact only. 2. Log landings, 0.25 acres each, the area is 50% long-term impact due to blading and 50% short-term. 3. Bladed skid road density assumed at 3.5% of unit area, 15' wide and 1% for units harvested by the combination of Skyline and Ground. Existing bladed skid roads will be used for Alternatives B whenever feasible. Long term impacts from these roads will be shown in cumulative effects. 4. Primary unbladed skid trails cover assumed over 2% of the area harvested by ground based method and 1% for units harvested by the combination of Skyline and Ground, at 12 feet wide. 5. Reconstructed roads have a 7 feet new disturbance (of the 35-foot width), long-term effects. 6. Constructed system roads have a 35-foot width, long-term effect. 7. Stream rehabilitation would be a short-term impact to soils for 0.66 miles of stream corridor 300 feet wide.

Important factors considered in evaluating effects to soil resources from this project’s action alternative are the extent of the activity area and the extent of the area where long-term soil productivity might be impacted. Effects to the soils from this project are considered not significant when 85 percent of the activity area is unaffected and retains its potential long-term soil productivity (USDA). In other words, no more than 15 percent of the activity area and each individual harvest unit are affected and lose potential long-term soil productivity. Table 19 shows the estimated percentage of harvest unit and activity area disturbed, grouped by logging system (e.g. “Ground” refers to a system of logging that uses skid roads/trails to access timber by ground- based equipment such as skidder or dozer and “Skyline” by a cable yarding system). Proposed treatments include commercial thinning, regeneration, uneven aged management, woodland, and wildlife openings. Percent area disturbed is broken out into short- and long-term disturbance to soil productivity. Short-term disturbance includes impacts from log landings, temporary road construction (and subsequent obliteration) and skid trails. It does not include potential impacts from prescribed burns that may occur within the unit. These will be discussed separately, as well as prescribed burn fire-line construction and stream rehabilitation, also short-term disturbances. Long-term effects to soil productivity include log landings and skid roads, while road construction is addressed separately. For each harvest unit, short-term percent area disturbed is often less than the long-term disturbance because of the inclusion of skid roads as a long-term impact. Skid roads are assumed to occupy 3.5% of the ground system harvested area. An exception rises when there is a temporary road accessing the unit. Since temporary roads planned for a harvest unit are included in that units disturbance calculations, they can elevate the percent area in disturbance beyond 15 percent especially where units are small in size, such as wildlife openings (units 0452/2, 0468/21 and 0468/22). Disturbances from temporary roads will be mitigated and therefore short-term. Long-term disturbances are well below the threshold value of 15 percent for each individual unit and the activity area altogether with the exception of a potential

67 Environmental Assessment commercial harvest of woodland management unit 0475/98; a unit area of only one acre. This can be a common concern where unit size is small, the area of disturbance becomes more pronounced. In the case of unit 0475/98, and other units where we approach the 15% threshold, landing size may be reduced to less than the estimated ¼ acre, fewer skid roads and skid road obliteration might be considered to mitigate soil disturbance. Therefore, soil productivity is not likely to be notably impacted as a result of timber harvest activities and temporary roads.

Table 19. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by the Alternative B

Percent Area Disturbed New Number of Reconstruct Miles Miles Miles Harvest Treatment Log Miles Temp Temp Skid Skid Short- Long- Unit Treatment Acres Logging System Landings1 Road Road Road2 Trail3 term4 term5 ALTERNATIVE B 0452/01 Com. Thinning 29.5 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.49 2.8% 4.3% 0458/17 Com. Thinning 28.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.47 2.4% 3.9% 0464/43 Com. Thinning 80.9 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 1.56 1.33 2.3% 3.8% 0465/51 Com. Thinning 22.2 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.37 3.1% 4.6% 0468/66 Com. Thinning 43.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.71 2.3% 3.8% 0468/10 4 Com. Thinning 21.2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.35 2.6% 4.1% 0452/2 Regeneration 19.8 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.33 3.3% 4.8% 0452/3 Regeneration 23.5 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.39 2.5% 4.0% 0452/4 Regeneration 17.2 Ground 1 0.20 0.00 0.33 0.28 4.1% 4.2% 0452/5 Regeneration 18.2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.30 2.7% 4.2% 0452/6 Regeneration 18.8 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.31 2.7% 4.2% 0452/7 Regeneration 31.2 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.51 2.8% 4.3% 0452/8 Regeneration 20.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.34 2.6% 4.1% 0453/12 Regeneration 29.6 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.49 2.8% 4.3% 0458/22 Regeneration 7.8 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.13 3.6% 5.1% 0462/30 Regeneration 18 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.30 2.7% 4.2% 0462/31 Regeneration 13.1 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.22 3.9% 5.4% 0462/32 Regeneration 22.4 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.37 3.1% 4.6% 0464/44 Regeneration 22.1 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.36 3.1% 4.6% 0464/45 Regeneration 13 Ground 1 0.00 0.06 0.25 0.21 4.1% 4.5% 0464/46 Regeneration 31.9 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.53 2.4% 3.9% 0465/52 Regeneration 19 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.31 2.7% 4.2% 0465/53 Regeneration 14.6 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.24 2.9% 4.4% 0466/58 Regeneration 38.3 Ground 1 1.00 0.00 0.74 0.63 5.5% 3.8% 0467/60 Regeneration 13.9 Ground 1 0.11 0.00 0.27 0.23 3.9% 4.4% 0467/61 Regeneration 15.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.25 2.8% 4.3% 0467/62 Regeneration 20.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.33 2.6% 4.1% 0468/69 Regeneration 32.8 Ground 2 0.21 0.00 0.63 0.54 3.5% 4.3% 0468/71 Regeneration 12.8 Ground 1 0.47 0.00 0.25 0.21 7.4% 4.5% 0469/83 Regeneration 42.9 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.71 2.6% 4.1% 0469/84 Regeneration 43.2 Ground 1 0.24 0.18 0.83 0.71 4.0% 3.8% 0475/89 Regeneration 23.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.39 2.5% 4.0% 0475/90 Regeneration 21.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.35 2.6% 4.1% 0476/10 0 Regeneration 23.7 Ground 1 1.53 0.00 0.46 0.39 10.4% 4.0% 0452/10 Un-even Age 55.8 Ground 3 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.92 2.7% 4.2% 0458/28 Un-even Age 55.6 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.92 2.4% 3.9% 0458/29 Un-even Age 27.3 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.45 2.9% 4.4%

68 Environmental Assessment

Percent Area Disturbed New Number of Reconstruct Miles Miles Miles Harvest Treatment Log Miles Temp Temp Skid Skid Short- Long- Unit Treatment Acres Logging System Landings1 Road Road Road2 Trail3 term4 term5 0462/39 Un-even Age 34.7 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.57 2.7% 4.2% 0464/49 /50 Un-even Age 158.3 Ground 4 0.00 0.00 3.05 2.61 2.3% 3.8% 0452/1 Wildlife 10.2 Ground 1 0.20 0.00 0.20 0.17 5.6% 4.7% 0452/2 Wildlife 1.8 Ground 0 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 15.5% 3.5% 0453/3 Wildlife 18.2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.30 2.7% 4.2% 0454/4 Wildlife 2.5 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.04 7.0% 8.5% 0455/5 Wildlife 1.5 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 10.3% 11.8% 0457/04 58/6 Wildlife 5.4 Ground 1 0.28 0.00 0.10 0.09 10.6% 5.8% 0458/7 Wildlife 4 Ground 1 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.07 6.3% 6.6% 0463/8 Wildlife 1.4 Ground 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02 2.0% 3.5% 0464/9 Wildlife 1.7 Ground 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 2.0% 3.5% 0464/10 Wildlife 2.6 Ground 1 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.04 10.5% 8.3% 0464/11 Wildlife 3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.05 6.2% 7.7% 0464/12 Wildlife 3.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.05 5.8% 7.3% 0464/13 Wildlife 4.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 4.9% 6.4% 0464/14 Wildlife 6.9 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.11 3.8% 5.3% 0467/15 Wildlife 29.9 Ground 2 0.40 0.27 0.58 0.49 6.6% 4.3% 0467/16 Wildlife 3.6 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 5.5% 7.0% 0467/17 /18 Wildlife 11.5 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.19 4.2% 5.7% 0467/19 Wildlife 2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 8.3% 9.8% 0468/20 Wildlife 2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 8.3% 9.8% 0468/21 Wildlife 1.8 Ground 1 0.20 0.00 0.03 0.03 22.4% 10.4% 0468/22 Wildlife 2.2 Ground 1 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.04 28.6% 9.2% 0469/23 Wildlife 16 Ground 1 0.52 0.00 0.31 0.26 6.7% 4.3% Woodland 0453/11 Mgmt. 80.3 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.32 2.3% 3.8% Woodland 0457/16 Mgmt. 13.2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.22 2.9% 4.4% Woodland 0462/40 Mgmt. 28.2 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.47 2.4% 3.9% Woodland 0462/41 Mgmt. 26.9 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.44 2.5% 4.0% Woodland 0466/59 Mgmt. 15.6 Ground 1 0.65 0.00 0.30 0.26 7.9% 4.3% Woodland 0469/85 Mgmt. 44.6 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.74 2.6% 4.1% Woodland 0469/87 Mgmt. 59.6 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.98 2.4% 3.9% Woodland 0469/88 Mgmt. 12.3 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.20 3.0% 4.5% Woodland 0475/95 Mgmt. 10.1 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.17 3.2% 4.7% Woodland 0475/97 Mgmt. 34.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.57 2.4% 3.9% Woodland 0475/98 Mgmt. 1 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 14.5% 16.0% Woodland 0475/99 Mgmt. 23.1 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.38 2.5% 4.0% 0477/10 Woodland 3 Mgmt. 35.3 Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.58 2.7% 4.2%

69 Environmental Assessment

Percent Area Disturbed New Number of Reconstruct Miles Miles Miles Harvest Treatment Log Miles Temp Temp Skid Skid Short- Long- Unit Treatment Acres Logging System Landings1 Road Road Road2 Trail3 term4 term5 0477/10 Woodland 5 Mgmt. 7.4 Ground 1 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.12 3.7% 5.2% Summary by Logging System 1713.6 Ground 97 6.71 0.51 32.99 28.27 3.3% 4.2% 0468/67 Com. Thinning 59.8 Skyline/Ground 4 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.49 1.8% 1.8% 0468/68 Com. Thinning 42.2 Skyline/Ground 3 0.64 0.00 0.23 0.35 3.7% 1.9% 0453/13 Regeneration 39.2 Skyline/Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.32 1.6% 1.6% 0458/18 Regeneration 24.2 Skyline/Ground 2 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.20 2.4% 2.0% 0458/19 Regeneration 14.6 Skyline/Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.12 2.7% 2.7% 0458/20 Regeneration 17.3 Skyline/Ground 2 0.55 0.00 0.10 0.14 6.3% 2.4% 0458/21 Regeneration 28.5 Skyline/Ground 3 0.00 0.40 0.16 0.24 5.7% 2.3% 0458/23 Regeneration 13.2 Skyline/Ground 1 1.00 0.00 0.07 0.11 11.1% 1.9% 0462/33 Regeneration 35.4 Skyline/Ground 3 0.10 0.00 0.19 0.29 2.4% 2.1% 0462/38 Regeneration 9.6 Skyline/Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 3.6% 3.6% 0463/42 Regeneration 40.4 Skyline/Ground 3 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.33 1.9% 1.9% 0466/56 Regeneration 39.5 Skyline/Ground 2 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.33 1.6% 1.6% 0466/57 Regeneration 34 Skyline/Ground 2 0.65 0.00 0.19 0.28 4.1% 1.7% 0468/70 Regeneration 40.5 Skyline/Ground 3 0.64 0.00 0.22 0.33 3.8% 1.9% 0477/10 2 Regeneration 16.7 Skyline/Ground 2 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.14 5.4% 2.5% Summary by Logging System 455.1 Skyline/Ground 36 4.05 0.40 2.50 3.75 3.3% 2.0% 0456/15 Regeneration 38.5 Skyline 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0% 1.0% Summary by Logging System 38.5 Skyline 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0% 1.0% 1 Landings are estimated at 1/4 acres each. 2 Skid road densities assumed at 3.5% of unit area and 15' wide. Skyline/Ground units value reduced to 1% of area. 3 Estimated Skid Trail densities assumed at 2.0% of unit area, 10' wide. Skyline/Ground units value reduced to 1% of area.

4 Short-term (ST) disturbance assumptions: 1) number of landings = 1/4 acre with 1/2 contributing to ST disturbance; 2) reconstructed temp. road had 1/2 the disturbance, and all temporary road will be obliterated after use, therefore totally a ST disturbance; 3) skid trails are a ST disturbance at 2% of the unit area, and reduced 1% for Skyline/Ground system units.

5 Long-term (LT) disturbance assumptions: 1) number of landings = 1/4 acre with 1/2 contributing to LT disturbance; 2) all temporary road will be obliterated after use, therefore not a LT disturbance; 3) skid roads are a LT disturbance at 3.5% of the unit area, and reduced to 1% for Skyline/Ground system units.

70 Environmental Assessment

Other activities, such as prescribed fire, fireline construction and stream rehabilitation are also not likely to adversely impact soil long-term productivity. Prescribed fire is expected to burn with varying intensities across the landscape, resulting in a mosaic pattern of soil burn severity. Monitoring of past prescribed burns and wildfires show that fire typically does not consume the entire soil surface duff layer due to high moisture content in this layer. Although prescribed burning will largely have a low soil burn severity, there is likely to be small patches where the fire burns more intense due to dryer and/or heavier fuels. It is unlikely that these areas will have adverse impacts to soil structure and productivity. The 3,840 feet of fireline to be constructed for prescribed fire would remove the forest duff layer down to near mineral soil but retain larger roots at the surface. This disturbance would be temporary since the removed duff would be returned to the fireline following completion of the burn. Disturbance is likely to quickly heal as roots grow back into the disturbed area. Stream rehabilitation would require heavy equipment in the streamside zone to access streams in the Cold Springs drainage that have been straightened and channelized. The goal is to restore natural channel function including improved floodplain access across about 24 acres. Since soil disturbance, such as compaction, would be mitigated as the equipment leaves the area, soil impacts would be short-term and productivity would be improved by restoring riparian and floodplain areas. Road construction on existing and new corridors would have long-term impacts to soil productivity. Where roads would be constructed on existing, abandoned road corridors they would be considered reconstruction with improvements to drainage and runoff control. Any improvements to soil productivity that occurred since the road was abandoned on these 6.7 miles (possibly on road fill slopes) would be eliminated with the reconstruction. Of the 26 acres of reconstruction disturbance, 20 % (5.2 acres) of that is assumed to be a new reduction of soil productivity. New road construction would be a long-term disturbance and remove about 2.9 acres of forest out of production in the action alternative.

Hydric Soils

Alternative A (No Action):

There would be no new effects to hydric soils from this alternative.

Alternative B:

Two soil types, the Cullowhee-Nikwasi complex (CxA) and Tuckasegee-Cullasaja complex (TuD), have a potential for hydric soil conditions in the lower positions on the landform. The CxA soil occurs once in harvest unit 0475/97 (woodland management unit) and the TuD soil occurs in units 0464/43 (commercial thinning unit), 0463/42, 0464/45 (regeneration cut unit), 0467/16 (wildlife opening) and 0453/11 (woodland management unit). Before ground disturbing activities occur in these units hydric soils would need to be identified and avoided.

Soil Moisture

Alternative A (No Action):

There would be no new effects to soil moisture from this alternative.

Alternative B: Soil moisture content in the harvested areas is expected to increase initially during the post-harvest period (Swank & Vose, 1988). Soil moisture would return to pre-harvest levels as the vegetative canopy re-closes

71 Environmental Assessment

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

Nutrients

Alternative A (No Action)

There would be no new effects to soil nutrients from this alternative.

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

Soil Erosion

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

Alternative B Soil movement (erosion) can occur on long unimpeded slopes with grade, where mineral soil material is exposed to raindrop impact and overland water flow (Dunne & Leopold, 1978). Soil movement can affect soil productivity when soil is transported by water offsite. Soils on upper slopes can lose productive topsoil if it moves downslope with water. Soil erosion may occur where bare soil is exposed on a slope as a result of equipment tracking difficulties (spinning wheels), bladed skid roads and landings, or where logs are dragged across the soil repeatedly (Pritchett, 1979). The placement of the landings on gentle topography prevents long, unimpeded erosion surfaces. The presence of a natural organic surface layer covering the soil and logging debris, which is commonly found on harvested areas, would prevent long unimpeded erosion surfaces.

72 Environmental Assessment

Soil disturbance and compaction during timber harvest vary depending upon both the type of soil and harvest method (Swank, DeBano, & Nelson, 1989). Design features associated with this project include 1) using a skyline system where appropriate, 2) using existing skid roads and 3) directional felling and winching, which will decrease skid road construction and the need to operate on steeper slopes to move trees to landings. Also, erosion control treatment will be applied to minimize soil movement. Full skyline and partial skyline logging (combined with ground-based on low slopes) is proposed for harvesting two and 21 percent, respectively, of the harvest area for Alternative B. The skyline logging system has been found to greatly reduce soil erosion because of less ground disturbance (USDAFS, 2012). A large portion of the units planned for harvest (approximately 77 percent) would be harvested using ground-based equipment.

A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey Site (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/) shows that the analysis area has soil types characterized by a hazard of soil loss ranging from “slight” to “very severe” (Table 20). Alternative B proposes 38 and 37 percent of proposed harvest unit area that is within “severe” and “very severe” ratings, respectively (Table 20). This NRCS erosion hazard stems from logging activities that expose 50 to 75 percent of the surface area. Although there is a high likelihood of soil erosion from ground-based logging operations, Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring shows a high rate of implementing effective best management practices (BMPs) that minimize soil loss (USDAFS, 2018) and expose far less mineral soil than expressed in the NRCS erosion hazard rating.

Table 20. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Interpretation of hazard of soil loss from areas off-roads and off-trails for Alternative B Erosion Hazard - Off Roads & Trails ALT. B Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe Not Rated Total Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Commercial Thinning Acres 7.51 59.80 105.70 150.00 4.40 327.41 % in Class 2.29 18.26 32.28 45.81 1.34 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Regeneration Acres 17.90 180.18 370.60 446.31 5.40 1020.39 % in Class 1.75 17.66 36.32 43.74 0.53 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Un-Even Age Acres 0.00 117.20 125.50 87.60 0.00 330.30 % in Class 0.00 35.48 38.00 26.52 0.00 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Wildlife Acres 9.10 50.20 55.60 20.00 0.90 135.80 % in Class 6.70 36.97 40.94 14.73 0.66 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Woodland Management Acres 7.60 92.20 183.80 108.40 0.00 392.00 % in Class 1.94 23.52 46.89 27.65 0.00 100.00

Total Values for Alt B - Soil Types by All Harvest Acres 42.11 499.58 841.20 812.31 10.70 2205.90 % in Class 1.91 22.65 38.13 36.82 0.49 100.00 Therefore, the potential for soil movement from Alternative B is expected to be short-term and limited to the recovery period time of approximately 1 to 3 years. Prompt implementation of erosion control measures (seeding, waterbars, ripping compacted surfaces, logging slash on skid roads, etc.) of the disturbed areas will help prevent continued soil movement after harvest area closure (Swift, 1984).

73 Environmental Assessment

Roads

Approximately 9 miles of reconstructed and constructed road would be added to the FS system under Alternative B. All of these roads would be closed or have restricted use to minimize soil and water damage. The Objective Maintenance Level of several of these roads would change to “in storage” with culverts removed and the road prism stabilized to have no adverse impacts from storm events. All other roads in this category of “existing roads added to the system” would be managed to bring them to a standard to ensure adequate drainage and stability. These roads would be a minimum addition to the District’s current maintenance program since they would be scarified, seeded and closed to be managed as linear wildlife openings, driven only for administrative use. Once vegetation is established within the first year after use there should be very little erosion from the road surface. Additionally, many system roads would have their management level changed from open to closed or restricted for resource protection and reduced maintenance costs. A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey Site shows that the analysis area comprises of soil types formed on slopes predominantly over 30 percent with predominantly a “severe” hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails (Table 21).

Table 21. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Interpretation of hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails for Alternative B Erosion Hazard from Road & Trail ALT. B Slight Moderate Severe Not Rated Total Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Commercial Thinning Acres 0.00 16.31 306.70 4.40 327.41 % in Class 0.00 4.98 93.67 1.34 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Regeneration Acres 0.00 17.30 997.69 5.40 1020.39 % in Class 0.00 1.70 97.78 0.53 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Un-Even Age Acres 0.00 0.00 330.30 0.00 330.30 % in Class 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Wildlife Acres 0.00 8.10 126.80 0.90 135.80 % in Class 0.00 5.96 93.37 0.66 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Woodland Management Acres 6.40 1.10 384.50 0.00 392.00 % in Class 1.63 0.28 98.09 0.00 100.00 Total Values for Alt B - Soil Types by All Harvest Acres 6.40 42.81 2145.99 10.70 2205.90 % in Class 0.29 1.94 97.28 0.49 100.00 An assessment of the existing road network reveals that erosion would likely be an issue if mitigation measures had not been implemented, such as road closures, graveled surfacing and frequent drainage features. System roads planned under this analysis would be improved and reconstructed with such measures to effectively control storm runoff and minimize erosion before the timber sale activities begin, then erosion control features would be refreshed following use to leave them in a stable state. Many roads would be closed to the public and converted to linear wildlife openings for resource protection and reduced maintenance costs.

74 Environmental Assessment

Landslides

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

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

Sulfidic Rock

The project area is within the Biotite granitic gneiss, Max Patch Granite, Granodiorite gneiss, Wading Branch and Longarm Quartzite Formations that do not containing sulfidic rock (NCDWQ, 2007). This area is not considered to have a high potential to produce acidic runoff when rocks are exposed during excavation. Therefore, special mitigation measures to address sulfidic rock would not be necessary.

Timber Harvest

A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey Site shows that the analysis area has soil types characterized by a rating for Harvest Equipment Operability for each proposed harvest unit. Overall, 74% of the activity area is considered “poorly” suited for ground-based methods (Table 22). With about 77 percent of the activity area planned for ground-based methods, caution in harvest layout of skid roads and trails will need to be practiced, as well as special attention to implementation of effective BMPs. Again looking at Table 19, we see that long-term soil disturbance is estimated to be below 15 percent in all units with the exception of the one acre woodland management unit 0475/98 where site mitigation would occur to minimize skid roads and landing size. Therefore, timber harvest operations, apart from system roads, would have minimal impacts to soil erosion.

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

75 Environmental Assessment

Table 22. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and Harvest Equipment Operability Harvest Equipment Operability (Suited) ALT. B Well Moderately Poorly Not Rated Total Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit (Commercial Thinning) Acres 7.51 59.80 255.70 4.40 327.41 % in Class 2.29 18.26 78.10 1.34 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Regeneration Acres 4.00 204.38 806.61 5.40 1020.39 % in Class 0.39 20.03 79.05 0.53 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Un-Even Age Acres 0.00 117.20 213.10 0.00 330.30 % in Class 0.00 35.48 64.52 0.00 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Wildlife Acres 7.30 52.00 75.60 0.90 135.80 % in Class 5.38 38.29 55.67 0.66 100.00 Alt B - Soil Types by Harvest Unit - Woodland Management Acres 0.00 102.40 289.60 0.00 392.00 % in Class 0.00 26.12 73.88 0.00 100.00 Total Values for Alt B - Soil Types by All Harvest Acres 18.81 535.78 1640.61 10.70 2205.90 % in Class 0.85 24.29 74.37 0.49 100.00

Cumulative Effects Analysis

This project is proposed in small areas within eighteen compartments across approximately 23,220 acres. Therefore, scope of the analysis considered for cumulative effects to soils for this project is the same as that used for the effects analysis above. The scope of the cumulative effects analysis is 2206 acres for Alt. B, and is bounded by the activity area boundaries identified on project location maps included in scoping letters and within this environmental analysis. Using this area will give a good estimate of the effects to soils from past, future and the proposed actions within this area of the National Forest in North Carolina. Past actions and future planned actions in this analysis (project) area, when combined with the proposed actions described in Alternative B, will be used for estimating the cumulative effects to soils.

The Forest Service is charged with maintaining soil productivity on its land (Forest Service Manual 2502, Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 1974, and National Forest Management Act 1976). Therefore, cumulative effects to soils will consider past, present and future planned activities and their effects on soil productivity within this analysis area. Too much loss in soil productivity is when less than 85% of an area will retain its potential long-term soil productivity (USDA, Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards).

Past and Future Actions in the Project Area: Past activities impacting soils in the project area are:

• Past long-term disturbance (e.g., old logging roads and log landings) are estimated to comprise 4.2 acres, based on an estimated disturbance density of 1 mile of disturbance per square mile area.

76 Environmental Assessment

• Harmon Den Timber Sale harvested 96 acres in the Cold Springs Creek watershed using both ground-based and skyline methods. Temporary road (0.32 miles) was constructed to access two units and three miles of skid road was likely constructed on new or old routes. A total long-term soil disturbance was estimated to be 7.2 acres.

• Sutton Top Wildlife Field Mastication was considered, but no long-term soil disturbance was likely.

Future activities impacting soils in the project area are:

• Duke Powerline Expansion is estimated to cut and leave approximately 100 acres which would have no ground disturbance and therefore no long-term effects.

To estimate the effects from these activities, estimates for the above projects will be used along with the assumptions listed below the table.

Table 23. Cumulative effects to long-term soil productivity by alternative for the project area Project Past Proposed Future Total long- % of % area retaining Alternative Actions Actions Planned term impact project potential long-term Actions activity soil productivity area B 11.4 91.1 0 102.6 5% 95%

Assumptions for estimating cumulative effects:

1. This project activity area is 2,206 acres for Alt. B even though Past Activities fall outside this area.

2. Temporary roads from past actions are a long-term impact.

3. Proposed Actions in Alternative B include 93.4 acres of long-term effects from harvest activity and new road construction and reconstruction.

Table 23 shows that when proposed, past and future actions are considered, soil productivity will be reduced on 5% of this analysis (project) area. Cumulative effects to soil productivity are well within the Forest Plan standard (USDA, Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards) that 85% of an area will retain its potential long-term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard will be met in this area of the Forest for these proposed project alternatives.

77 Environmental Assessment

Wildlife

Introduction

This report documents the effects of proposed silviculture and wildlife habitat improvement treatments to terrestrial wildlife resources within the wildlife analysis area (AA, defined below). The report was written to support the Twelve Mile Environmental Analysis (EA) and help provide the decision maker with the best and most recent terrestrial wildlife science possible. The potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects on federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered (T& E), Forest Service Sensitive (S) and Forest Concern (FC) terrestrial wildlife species are evaluated. Potential direct and indirect effects to T&E, S (TES) and FC terrestrial wildlife species were analyzed in the areas where treatments are proposed. Any area subject to treatment is referred to as the “activity area”. The possible activity areas are shown on the attached project map. The project area is located in Haywood County, North Carolina.

Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods

Potentially affected TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species were identified by:

• Reviewing the list of TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species of the Pisgah National Forests and their habitat preferences;

• Evaluating element occurrence (EO) records of TES and FC terrestrial wildlife for Haywood County as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs;

• Consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area.

• Conducting field surveys in areas designated for treatments.

The field surveys were conducted by point count and a meander search pattern to survey varying aspects, elevations, and forest types. The proposed activity areas were surveyed by Matt Eldridge, Acting Pisgah NF Wildlife Biologist, between May and November of 2018. Acoustical surveys were conducted during the summer of 2016 by Pisgah Wildlife Biologist Chris Williams (Okeefe & Walters, 2016). The terrestrial wildlife analysis area (AA) or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the proposed activity areas and areas within 0.5 miles of the activity areas. The terrestrial wildlife AA consists of approximately 35,530 acres (the project area is 23,220 acres). Potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to terrestrial wildlife resources in the terrestrial wildlife AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The American Black Bear, Elk, and White-tailed Deer would use a larger home range outside of this AA and for those species a 4 mile buffer is used to consider cumulative effects but did not result in any additional activities for consideration. Other resource disciplines may employ different definitions to analyze this proposal.

78 Environmental Assessment

Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition

Terrestrial Wildlife Communities and Habitats Found in the Twelve Mile Analysis Area

The analysis area ranges in elevation from approximately 1,500 – 4,000 feet above sea level and is comprised of different ecotypes due to the variation in elevations and aspects. The southern portion of the analysis is north facing and generally mesic, while the northern portion is drier and can be described as southeast facing. Vegetation types are also highly variable. The entire analysis area is dominated by deciduous forests community types. Natural, non-forested areas are very rare within this area. Nearly all of these forests were logged and farmed near the turn of the last century. Additional areas were logged more recently. As a result, the forested communities of the Twelve Mile Project AA area are of a second (or third) growth nature. Even so, the existing forest represents a relatively diverse group of communities and plant species. Common throughout the analysis area are five natural communities (in order of relative extent): 1) Rich Cove Forest 2) Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, 3) Mesick Oak Forest, 4) Acidic Cove Forest and 5) Pine-Oak Heath Forest. Almost all of the proposed activities occur within the Mesic Oak, Rich Cove, and Acidic Cove Forest. The primary natural communities found within the proposed burn units are displayed in Table 24.

Table 24. Estimated quantity of communities within terrestrial wildlife analysis area, Forest Service Lands Percent Project Acres Percent of App of Percent Treatment Ecozone Area Proposed for RD Acres Project of Ecozone Acres Acres Treatment Area

Acidic Cove 20% 1,788 10% 297 17%

Dry Oak 3% 429 2% 54 13%

Dry-Mesic Oak 6% 3,945 22% 685 17%

Floodplain 0% 117 1% 1 1%

Mesic oak 21% 2,323 13% 732 32%

Northern Hardwood 11% 16 0% 2 12%

Pine-Oak/Heath 10% 1,031 6% 324 31%

Rich Cove 19% 8,472 47% 1,288 15%

Shortleaf Pine 2% 56 0% 17 30%

Grand Total 100% 18,176 100% 3,400 19%

79 Environmental Assessment

Past Actions within the Terrestrial Wildlife AA (Considered in Cumulative Effects)

Timber harvest (<30 years old), large wildfires (> 100 acres), prescribed fire, and agricultural conversion are the only activities sufficient to have a measurable effect upon habitat for terrestrial wildlife populations. The cumulative effect includes the total effect of past, current, and foreseeable actions within the terrestrial wildlife AA that have directly or indirectly affected TES, and FC terrestrial wildlife species habitat. Within the terrestrial wildlife AA, timber harvesting, prescribed burns, wildfire, and land clearing are thought to have important influence on habitat; the activities are minor and not analyzed. The Harmon Den Timber Sale (previous), Sutton top meadow mastication (previous), and Duke Powerline expansion (future) are activities within the AA considered for cumulative effects.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species within the Terrestrial Wildlife AA

There are 32 TES/FC species known to occur in Haywood County, NC (Appendix E – Wildlife Rare Species List for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests). Twenty-six of these species are considered for further analysis in this document (Table 25). All the other TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species occurring within the Nantahala and Pisgah NF’s were dropped from further consideration, discussion and analysis for one of the following reasons: 1) lack of suitable habitat for the species in the terrestrial wildlife AA, 2) the species has a well-known distribution that does not include the analysis area, or 3) based on field surveys no habitat or element occurrence of a TES or FC was seen in or near the proposed activity areas. Habitats, community types and ranges of terrestrial wildlife TES and FC species are derived from information in Classification of the Natural Terrestrial Wildlife Communities of North Carolina, the Natural Heritage Program's List of Rare Terrestrial wildlife of North Carolina, or information obtained through other biologists. The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), a federally listed endangered species, is not known to occur within the terrestrial wildlife AA. The AA is within the species’ historical range; however, rusty patched bumble bees have not been observed or collected in Haywood County since before the year 2000. The only county with a documented extant population on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is Swain County. Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for this species.

Table 25. Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Regional Forester's Sensitive (S) Species and Forest Concern (FC) terrestrial animal species considered to occur within the twelve Mile Analysis Area ORGANISMAL SCIENTIFIC COMMON HABITAT Presence GROUP NAME NAME

Eurycea Longtail moist woods and floodplains; Existing EO Amphibian longicauda Salamander small ponds for breeding within AA longicauda

Southern moist areas of talus slopes or Plethodon Existing EO Amphibian Zigzag rock outcrops in hardwood ventralis within AA Salamander forests

Marginal spruce-fir forests or mixed Aegolius Northern Saw- Habitat Bird hardwood/spruce forests (for acadicus whet Owl present nesting) [breeding season only] within AA

80 Environmental Assessment

ORGANISMAL SCIENTIFIC COMMON HABITAT Presence GROUP NAME NAME

Marginal spruce-fir forests; sparingly in Catharus Habitat Bird Hermit Thrush northern hardwood forests guttatus present [breeding evidence only] within AA

Available Coccyzus Black-billed deciduous forests, mainly at Bird Habitat erythropthalmus Cuckoo higher elevations within AA

Falco American cliffs (nesting); coastal ponds Observed Bird peregrinus Peregrine and mudflats (foraging in present anatum Falcon winter) within AA

mature forests near large Haliaeetus bodies of water (nesting); Existing EO Bird Bald Eagle leucocephalus rivers, lakes, and sounds within AA (foraging)

Setophaga Available cerulea (syn. Cerulean mature hardwood forests; steep Bird Habitat Dendroica Warbler slopes and coves in mountains within AA cerulea)

Available Sphyrapicus Yellow-bellied mature, open hardwoods with Bird Habitat varius Sapsucker scattered dead trees within AA

Golden- Observed Vermivora old fields and successional Bird winged present chrysoptera hardwoods Warbler within AA

Available Vermivora Blue-winged low elevation brushy fields and Bird Habitat cyanoptera Warbler thickets within AA

Golden Autochton moist woods near streams; host Existing EO Butterfly Banded- cellus plant – Hog Peanut within AA Skipper

Available Celastrina rich, moist deciduous forests; Butterfly Dusky Azure Habitat nigra host plant -- goat's-beard within AA

woodland openings, glades, Phyciodes Appalachian and road banks at higher Available Butterfly batesii Tawny elevations; host plants -- asters, Habitat maconensis Crescent mainly (Symphyotrichum within AA undulatum)

81 Environmental Assessment

ORGANISMAL SCIENTIFIC COMMON HABITAT Presence GROUP NAME NAME

Freshwater or Available Inflectarius central mountains (Watauga to Terrestrial Velvet Covert Habitat subpalliatus Haywood counties) Gastropod within AA

Freshwater or Available Patera clarki Dwarf Proud Terrestrial forested mountainsides Habitat clarki Globe Gastropod within AA

Observed Mid-high elevation meadows Mammal Cervus elaphus Elk present and grassy areas. within AA

Available fields and forests, mostly at Mammal Mustela nivalis Least Weasel Habitat high elevations within AA

Available Sylvilagus Appalachian dense cover of montane woods Mammal Habitat obscurus Cottontail and thickets within AA

Corynorhinus roosts in caves, mines, and Rafinesque's Existing EO Mammal rafinesquii hollow trees, usually near Big-eared Bat within AA rafinesquii water

Observed Perimyotis forested landscapes, open Mammal Tricolored bat present subflavus woods, riparian areas within AA

roosts in hollow trees and in Eastern Small- rock crevices (warmer Existing EO Mammal Myotis leibii footed Bat months), in caves and mines within AA (winter)

roosts in hollow trees and Northern Myotis buildings (warmer months), in Existing EO Mammal Long-eared septentrionalis caves and mines (winter); within AA Bat mainly in the mountains

roosts in hollow trees or under Available Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat loose bark and snags (warmer Habitat months), in caves (winter) within AA

Roost sites are nearly Myotis Existing EO Mammal Gray Bat exclusively restricted to caves grisescens within AA throughout the year

82 Environmental Assessment

Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources

Effects to Management Indicator Species

 Pine warblers

Pine warblers are commonly found in pine forests of the eastern US. This species rarely occurs in purely deciduous vegetation, except uncommonly during migration and occasionally during winter. The pine warbler is a common breeding bird and permanent resident in the southeastern United States. Even though the pine warbler is widespread and common in parts of eastern North America, surprisingly little is known about its natural history, and its nesting biology in particular. This is likely due to its propensity to nest high in pine trees, making nests difficult to observe.

• Direct and Indirect Effects – Pine warbler

The No Action alternative would not impact this species negatively or positively. Only 6% of the AA is suitable habitat for this species, therefore the lack of management action in this case does not substantially benefit nor harm this species or its requisite habitat. The effects of the proposed actions to pine warbler are expected to be minimal. The proposed activities that have the greatest potential to impact pine warbler include prescribed burning and timber harvesting. Pine warbler breeding populations are believed to require a minimum of 10-15 ha (25-37 ac.) (Schroeder, 1985) of suitable forest habitat for breeding. Pine warbler nests could be lost during activities, a negative direct effect. But as stands of this size comprised primarily of pine are not common in and around the activity areas, there is low potential for the proposed activities to negatively impact pine warbler. Prescribed burning, timber harvesting, road daylighting, and road construction activities could temporarily displace pine warbler, but no long term negative effects are expected. Activities occurring on dry south and southwest facing ridges with a pine component could promote future habitat for the warbler, an indirect positive effect.

• Cumulative Effects – Pine warbler

The Harmon Den Timber Sale is not likely to have impacted pine warbler habitat or populations and if so only slightly. Requisite habitats composed less than 4% of the AA and the only pine stands to be impacted were White Pine, and those would be converted to a more native pine type. Cumulative impacts from previous, future, and proposed activities are expected to be negligible, not contributing to a loss of species viability or habitat suitability within the AA.

 Pileated woodpecker

The Pileated Woodpecker is a permanent resident of deciduous, coniferous, or mixed forests in southern Canada and in the western, midwestern, and eastern United States. Dead and deteriorating live trees provide favored sites in which to excavate nest cavities, and hollow trees are typically used to roost in at night. Only large-diameter trees have enough girth to contain the nest and roost cavities of this species, so there is concern for populations of this woodpecker where late-successional forests are being converted to younger stands. Availability of suitable habitat is apparently the factor limiting most populations. A pair defends its territory year-round, and a pair member will not abandon a territory even if its mate is lost. Because of its size and strong chisel-shaped bill, this woodpecker is particularly adept at excavating, and it uses this ability to construct nest and roost cavities and to find food. Considered a keystone species, the Pileated Woodpecker plays a crucial role in many forest ecosystems in North America by excavating large nesting, roosting and foraging cavities that are subsequently used by a diverse array of birds and

83 Environmental Assessment

mammals—for shelter and nesting—particularly the larger secondary cavity users (e.g., Boreal Owl, Wood Duck, and American marten). Pileated Woodpeckers accelerate wood decomposition and nutrient recycling by breaking apart snags and logs and may facilitate inoculation of heartwood in live trees with heart-rot fungi. They may also be important in helping control some forest beetle populations because their diet consists primarily of wood-dwelling ants and beetle larvae that are extracted from down woody material and from standing live and dead trees.

• Direct and Indirect Effects – Pileated Woodpecker

In the case of the pileated woodpecker the “No Action” alternative would not impact this species negatively. This species requires large trees common to late successional forests, there is plenty of available habitat within the AA. The no action alternative would not further increase habitat but would not reduce it either. The effects of the proposed actions to pileated woodpecker vary by the specific proposed action. Stand improvement, tree planting, road daylighting, and prescribed burning are not expected to negatively affect pileated woodpecker during implementation. Timber harvest is not likely to directly affect pileated woodpecker, but is likely to have negative indirect effects. All of the proposed actions could temporarily displace pileated woodpecker due to the noise and disturbance associated with fire and mechanical equipment, a negative indirect effect. Prescribed fire could create future forage and nest trees, a positive indirect effect. Timber harvesting is not likely to alter standing dead and dying trees as these are not sought after for timber value. These types of trees could be damaged by fire and timber harvesting, a possible negative direct effect if occupied by adults or young. Timber removal could alter pileated woodpecker occupied stands to the extent that the area is no longer suitable, a negative indirect effect. Pileated woodpecker would then likely relocate to another, more suitable area within the analysis area. With the exception of the prescribed burning proposed action, which is likely to weaken or kill standing trees, the proposed actions, in general, will not benefit pileated woodpecker.

• Cumulative Effects – Pileated Woodpecker

All three additional projects considered for cumulative effects analysis would contribute to negative impacts on Pileated Woodpeckers and their habitat in conjunction with the proposed action. All activities would, at least temporarily, displace individuals and could lead to the loss or failure of nests. While all combined activities have an overall negative impact, these impacts are not expected to be large enough to lead to substantial long term declines in population numbers within the AA. Suitable habitat will remain abundant throughout the AA and adjacent lands during and after implementation.

 Eastern towhee & Ruffed Grouse

The Eastern Towhee spends much of its time near or on the ground in dense habitats and scrubby growth, however, it is usually difficult to study. Northern populations are migratory; southern populations are resident. During the breeding season it spends much time seeking insects and fruit in woody vegetation above ground as well. The ruffed grouse is distributed throughout deciduous and coniferous forests of North America but is most abundant in early-successional forests dominated by aspens and poplars (Populus spp.). Resident in young forests as far north as central Alaska and as far south as northern Georgia, this species finds protection from predators in the canopy of young trees and in the thick understory of shrubs and saplings. Leaves, buds, and fruits of deciduous-forest plants constitute most of its diet. The ruffed grouse is avidly hunted and, for this reason, harvests are monitored and controlled by bag limits, season lengths, and area closures. Harvest rates may be high in some areas; nevertheless, on local and regional scales ruffed grouse populations are usually limited by aging and succession of forests. Wildlife managers work with foresters

84 Environmental Assessment

and hunting groups to harvest small blocks of timber in ways that encourage reproduction of aspen and other early-successional plants.

• Direct and Indirect Effects – Eastern Towhee, Ruffed Grouse

The No Action Alternative would lead to a continued reduction of available suitable habitat for these species. Disturbance or intentional management actions are needed to maintain early successional habitats these species rely upon. The effects of the proposed actions have potential to benefit eastern towhee and ruffed grouse. Early successional habitat created by prescribed burning and timber harvesting is expected to have positive indirect effects to eastern towhee and ruffed grouse in the form of new suitable habitat. Permanent wildlife habitat will be created during implementation that will directly benefit this species. While adult eastern towhee and ruffed grouse are likely to flee disturbance associated with the proposed action, nests could be lost, a negative direct effect. The proposed action includes burning with an intensity to create canopy gaps at the upper elevations. The result of which is likely to benefit eastern towhee and ruffed grouse. Low intensity prescribed fire may reduce stem density in affected stands, without creating early successional habitat. Eastern towhee and ruffed grouse may find the new conditions unsuitable and may seek out more suitable habitat within the analysis area. This disturbance would be considered a negative, indirect effect. The proposed actions are likely to result in new large woody debris on the forest floor. This large woody debris would represent new drumming logs for ruffed grouse, a positive indirect effect.

• Cumulative Effects – Eastern Towhee, Ruffed Grouse

Eastern towhee habitat is more common throughout the AA as compared to ruffed grouse habitat. The proposed action is likely to create additional habitat for eastern towhee and ruffed grouse. The proposed actions may be implemented for up to ten years. As the habitat created by the proposed actions matures, it will be less attractive to both species and they are likely to move to other areas that are more suitable. If the fire burns at an intensity that creates early successional habitat, eastern towhee and ruffed grouse habitat would be created. Implementation is likely to provide positive effects for eastern towhee and ruffed grouse in the form of new habitat. There is suitable eastern towhee and ruffed grouse habitat on private lands in close proximity to the analysis area. This trend is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

 Ovenbird

A common member of the deciduous forest breeding bird community in North America, the Ovenbird forages on the ground for leaf-litter arthropods, and their notoriously well-concealed nests are also on the ground and mainly constructed of leaves. The resemblance of the nest to a dome-shaped oven is the source of their common name.

• Direct and Indirect Effects – Ovenbird

The No Action Alternative is not expected to have an obviously discernable impact on ovenbird populations. This species uses a variety of habitats and successional stages for nesting and foraging. While disturbance can have immediate negative impacts, the lack of change or disturbance does not contribute to or improve habitat suitability over the long term. The effects of the proposed actions to ovenbird are expected to vary by the specific proposed action. Prescribed burning, the proposed action that will treat the majority of the acres, is not expected to alter the AA at a level that would negatively affect ovenbird. If the canopy gaps created by the prescribed fire are so large that ovenbirds find that area unsuitable, they are likely to move to an undisturbed area within the AA. SI, tree planting, and road daylighting are also not expected to negatively affect ovenbird as these areas exist past disturbed areas.

85 Environmental Assessment

New road construction and timber harvesting is likely to negatively impact ovenbird as these activities are proposed to take place in some locations that have not been recently disturbed. These proposed actions represent small breaks in contiguous forest that ovenbird inhabits. Prescribed burning, timber harvesting, and road construction has the potential to take ovenbird nests, a negative direct effect.

• Cumulative Effects – Ovenbird

Ovenbird habitat is relatively abundant throughout the activity area and analysis area. The proposed actions may impact ovenbird. Implementation could cause displaced individuals from the project area to seek out habitat within the analysis area. As there is adequate habitat within the analysis area, there is not likely to be a significant impact to the bird. This alternative is not likely to affect populations of ovenbird across the analysis area. There is ovenbird habitat on private lands in close proximity to the and within the analysis area. This trend is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

 Black bear &White-tailed Deer

Pre-European Settlement, black bears lived in all forested regions of North America and were abundant in the area that would one day become North Carolina. Today, there are approximately 15,000 bears in the state, occupying about 60% of the state’s total land area. The black bear is an omnivore with a diet of both plants and animals. Bears prefer large expanses of uninhabited woodland or swampland with dense cover. Black bear find large stands (10 acres plus) of early successional habitat suitable for foraging and escape cover. Recent research has shown bears to be much more adaptable to habitat changes than previously thought. Bears put on additional weight in autumn to prepare for winter denning. They build dens in cavities of live trees, hollow logs, caves, rock outcroppings, cavities in the ground, or in a thicket. Usually black bears construct nests of leaves, sticks, and grass within the den, which often resemble giant bird nests. In North Carolina, den entry can occur as early as the end of November or as late as the beginning of January. Most North Carolina bears emerge from their dens in March or early April, depending on the weather and food availability. North Carolina’s population of white-tailed deer is estimated at 1.35 million animals. More people hunt white-tailed deer than any other game species in North Carolina. Each year approximately 250,000 sportsmen/women take more than 2.9 million trips afield in pursuit of deer. White-tailed deer are considered a forested and non-forested generalist species and readily adapt to variety of habitats.

• Direct and Indirect Effects – Black Bear, White-Tailed Deer

The No Action Alternative has no immediate negative impacts for these two species, but in the long term a lack of management will reduce available early successional habitat and heterogeneity within in the forest age classes. A lack of silvicultural treatments can lead to dominance of non-mast producing species such as Red maples, Yellow poplar, and White pines. The effects of the proposed actions are expected to benefit black bear and white-tailed deer through the creation of early successional habitat. Black bear and white-tailed deer will use the newly created early successional habitat for food and escape cover. A focus on regenerating oak species has the potential to result in a long term increase in desirable mast producing trees. The resulting acorns will benefit both black bear and white-tailed deer. The tree planting proposed action is expected to benefit deer and bear by increasing hard mast into the foreseeable future.

86 Environmental Assessment

• Cumulative Effects – Black Bear, White-Tailed Deer

Black bear and white-tailed deer habitat is common throughout the AA. The proposed action is likely to create additional habitat for black bear and white-tailed deer. The proposed actions are likely to be implemented for 10 years. The results of implementation to habitat and forge are expected to carry on into the foreseeable future. No activities that will benefit black bear and white-tailed deer other than the proposed actions and the Harmon Den Timber Sale, Sutton top meadow mastication, and Duke powerline expansion are planned within the analysis area for the next 5 years. Implementation is likely to provide positive effects for black bear and white-tailed deer in the form of new habitat. There is suitable black bear and white-tailed deer habitat on private lands in close proximity to the analysis area. This trend is not expected to change in the foreseeable future.

Effects to TES and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species Species within similar life history characteristics and or habitat requirements will be analyzed together.

 Amphibians

Longtail Salamanders are found in forested riparian areas of the Appalachian Mountains and Ohio River Valley. They are frequently associated with caves, mines, and shale and limestone creek beds. Adults are predominately terrestrial but their eggs and larvae are aquatic, requiring small pools or ephemeral ponds for breeding and larval development (University of California, 2019).

Southern Zigzag Salamanders are only known to occur in wooded areas near springs or cave mouths within western North Carolina. They also occasionally inhabit rocky areas with deep, cool crevices. During the summer, these salamanders become difficult to find as they become inactive or move to underground retreats (University of California, 2019).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

While the No Action Alternative does not include harmful ground disturbing activities like logging or prescribed fire, it also does not address soil and water issues impacting species that depend on aquatic habitats like salamanders. There are 55 reported undersized or failing culverts that were identified as needing replaced, some of those would be replaced with AOP approved culverts. Under the no action alternative issues with improper drainage, head cutting, soil erosion and sedimentation would only continue to worsen exponentially as time passes. These habitats are used by salamanders for breeding and larval development and are highly sensitive to worsening conditions. Disturbance caused by silvicultural treatments could be expected to lead to the loss of a relatively low number of individuals due to crushing or trampling. Most salamanders are going to be found within the riparian buffers and therefore not subject to direct effects. Impacts from these activities would not lead to the loss of suitable habitat. It would increase rotting woody debris that these species use in the surrounding wooded areas. Fire line construction in moist habitats may crush some individuals, although these impacts would be minimal. Removal of downed trees across fire lines where salamanders are located would cause them to relocate away from the line. These burns would occur predominately during the dormant season. During drier/colder periods, salamanders are likely to be underground, under logs, or in moist leaf litter in coves and riparian areas. Prescribed burns would be of low intensity and patchy with minimal impacts to moist habitat preferred by these species. Low intensity burns in moist habitats do not consume large woody debris. Fire generally burns in a mosaic pattern; leaving much of the cove forests untouched. Therefore

87 Environmental Assessment

some individuals may be damaged or destroyed by fire, but most would be protected from direct effects of the fire. Unburned patches would continue to provide leaf litter, logs, and rock habitats within the affected areas. In burned patches, some large downed wood usually remains in low intensity burns. Leaf litter and food availability would temporarily decline within the burn units, but the forested landscape of the project area would remain. Another layer of leaf litter would return the following year. These impacts would be short-term for the population which would persist in the area. Habitat is scattered throughout the analysis area, and the majority of the populations would not be impacted.

• Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts can be expected from the previous Harmon Den Timber Sale. This activity would have had similar short term effects to populations but riparian buffers would have maintained the majority of the suitable habitat and populations would have recovered in subsequent years. Additional impacts from the proposed activities will further delay population recovery but any declines in populations from both activities combine are not expected to be substantive but rather similar to natural stochastic events and therefore would not lead to an overall or long-term decline in populations within the AA.

 High Elevation Northern Hardwoods Birds

The Northern Saw-whet Owl is most commonly found in coniferous forest not present within the AA but is also known to use mixed woods such as pine-oak, spruce-poplar, and others. In some places, breeds in oak woodland or in streamside groves in arid country. Winters in habitats with dense cover, especially groves of conifers (NatureServe, 2018).

The Hermit Thrush predominately uses open humid coniferous, mixed forest and forest edge, less frequently is found in deciduous forest and thickets. This species has been shown to be negatively impacted by forest fragmentation. They usually nest on the ground under conifers with low branches or hidden by low plants, or in low conifers or other trees or bushes (National Audubon Society, 2019).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative is not expected to have a substantially different impact then the action alternative due to the relatively small amount of suitable habitat within the AA for these species. If either species does occur within the AA the no action alternative is not expected to benefit nor harm these species or their habitat over the long term. While both species prefer Spruce-fir habitats that are lacking within the AA, this species is known to use adjacent stands of Northern Hardwoods and could occur within the AA. There are 16 acres of documented Northern Hardwoods within the AA and only 2 of those acres are proposed for management activities (regeneration harvest). This activity may disturb individuals but is unlikely to harm adults, hatchlings may be lost during implementation but with the small amount of impacted habitat the likelihood is small. This activity will also lead to a negligible reduction in suitable habitat for this species.

• Cumulative Effects

None of the previous or future activities considered for cumulative effects analysis impact habitats used by this species, therefore no cumulative impacts are expected.

88 Environmental Assessment

 High Elevation Deciduous Forest – Old Growth Birds

Black-billed Cuckoo is associated with riparian and mature woodland habitats. This species prefers forest edge and open woodland, both deciduous and coniferous, with dense deciduous thickets. They nest in groves of trees, forest edges, moist thickets, overgrown pastures; in deciduous or evergreen trees or shrubs (National Audubon Society, 2019).

Cerulean Warblers breed in large tracts of older deciduous forests with tall trees. In the Appalachian Mountains many warblers nest on north and east-facing slopes and seem to gravitate toward gaps or openings in the canopy. They tend to use white oak, cucumber magnolia, bitternut hickory, and sugar maple for nesting and foraging, typically avoiding red oak and red maple (NatureServe, 2018).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action Alternative these species are not expected to experience any direct effects, indirectly the lack of management can lengthen the amount of time it takes stands to reach an open and mature forest condition that can serve as habitat for these species. Both species tend to prefer mature woodland habitats. Small-patch Old Growth designations will help sustain and improve habitat for these species. They are typically associated with riparian areas and moist steep coves and their nesting sites would predominately fall within buffer zones for silvicultural treatments (even though Cerulean warblers are primarily non-breeding residents in NC). Prescribed burning could lead to nest disturbance and the loss of individuals, although this is still to a relatively small degree considering burns are not likely to reach habitats preferred by these species and would be low intensity if they did burn due to the mesic site characteristics.

• Cumulative Effects

The Sutton Top project and the proposed Duke Powerline Expansion would both improve forest edge habitat preferred by the Black-billed Cuckoo, and would not benefit but also is not expected to add to effects for the Cerulean Warbler. The Harmon Den Timber Sale is not expected to have overlapping impacts to either of these species.

 Birds of Prey (riparian dependent)

American Peregrine Falcons are almost exclusively found nesting along tall cliffs or rock faces. They can forage over a variety of terrain but prefer open country or riparian corridors. Their prey consists of smaller birds and occasionally other small animals. Nesting pairs are known to occur along Buzzard’s Roost within the AA. A closure order has been issued in this area to prevent climbers from disturbing nests.

Bald Eagles nest in large trees along shorelines and river corridors within the Southern Appalachians. They also use the riparian corridors to hunt and forage for fish or small animals. Bald eagles have been documented within the AA but at this time there are no known nest sites within the AA even though the probability is high that eagles are nesting within the Pigeon River gorge in Haywood Co. Any eagle nests discovered during implementation will be reported to the FWS and mitigations will be set in place to exclude those trees from impacts.

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative is not expected to have direct or indirect effects to either species, proposed management actions are not necessary to maintain the requisite habitat conditions.

89 Environmental Assessment

Nesting and foraging sites for these two species are located well out of the way of direct impacts from any of the proposed actions. During the spring prescribed burn window these species are likely to have hatchlings in the nest and dense smoke from fires may potentially disturb foraging activities and negatively impact young for a brief period. These impacts are not expected to be severe enough to lead to nest failure or abandonment.

• Cumulative Effects

None of the previous or future activities considered for cumulative effects analysis impact habitats used by this species, therefore no cumulative impacts are expected.

 The Yellow-bellied Sapsucker influences the structure of local bird communities (e.g., through cavity excavation), and sap-wells made by these birds enhance local insect abundance and diversity (Rissler, Karowe, Cuthbert, & Scholtens, 1995). These birds are primarily winter residents but have been occasionally known to nest at higher elevations (above 3,500ft) within WNC. These birds are associated with deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous forest. During winter they can also be found in a variety of forest and open woodland habitats, parks, or orchards (National Audubon Society, 2019).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative will not lead to impacts to this species’ winter habitat within the AA, therefore no impacts (positive or negative) are expected from that alternative. As a non-breeding resident impacts from the proposed action are limited to individual adults. Silvicultural treatments and prescribed burns are likely to disturb and displace birds within the AA. The majority of individuals would be expected to be able to relocate to adjacent undisturbed stands. Suitable over- wintering habitat is readily available for this species within the AA. The proposed action is not expected to reduce the available habitat for this species over the long-term, but may render some available habitat unsuitable during implementation.

• Cumulative Effects

Impacts from previous or future activities are not expected to have effects on this species that would be compounded by the proposed activities. Effects would be limited to displacement of over-wintering populations, and no cumulative effects from combined past, proposed, and future activities would occur.

 Golden-winged & Blue-winged Warblers: Both species of warbler utilize early successional habitats which are intrinsically ephemeral in nature. Blue-winged warblers prefer forested-field areas shaded by large trees (National Audubon Society, 2019). They will also use brushy hillsides, second growth, partly open situations with saplings, bogs, woodland edge and clearings, stream edges, overgrown pastures, and swamps. Golden-winged warblers prefer deciduous woodlands or areas of thick undergrowth in swampy areas, woodland edge with low cover, overgrown pastures, abandoned farmland, powerline right-of-ways, recently logged sites, bogs, and forest openings (National Audubon Society, 2019). Both species nest on or a little above ground, in grass tuft, fern or weed clump, or concealed in herbage at base of shrub, or tree. Habitat is ephemeral and requires periodic disturbance to return it to favorable early successional conditions. A constant supply of newly disturbed habitat is necessary to sustain populations in upland forest sites.

90 Environmental Assessment

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative would not provide the disturbance and management necessary to maintain habitats used by these species. Over time GWWA, and possibly BWWA, would no longer be able to inhabit areas within the AA due to lack of suitable habitat. Habitat currently available within the AA currently is reaching a successional stage that will soon preclude use for GWWA. BWWA are a more generalist species and may hang on in those areas for a longer period but they would more than likely select for more suitable habitat if available. The proposed actions within known locations of GWWA/BWWA include the creation of early successional habitat and it is for the direct benefit of these species. Silviculture treatments in adjacent areas can indirectly benefit these species by creating early successional habitat that will develop into desired condition over time. Individuals may be disturbed during implementation and activity will temporarily reduce habitat availability. Implementation is not expected to occur during nesting season, and is not expected to impact recruitment within local populations outside of the timeframe of implementation.

• Cumulative Effects

The activities considered for cumulative effects are not expected to have negative impacts on populations of BWWA & GWWA within the AA. The Harmon Den Timber Sale and Sutton Top project would not contain suitable habitat. The proposed powerline expansion would only provide future potential habitat for these species.

 Butterflies

The Golden Banded-Skipper is usually found along ravines or near streams in rich forests typically with the host species for its larvae, Hog Peanut (NatureServe, 2018).

The Dusky Azure is found in moist deciduous forests, shaded northern slopes, along with the host plant for its larvae, Goat’s Beard. This plant generally grows in moist woods, meadows, and along streams (NatureServe, 2018).

The Appalachian Tawny Crescent is found in moist meadows and pastures but can also use dry rocky ridges or hillsides. The larvae feed on asters (NatureServe, 2018).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects are likely to occur to eggs and larvae of all species since the host plants may be crushed or lost during implementation of silviculture treatments and prescribed burns. Many host plants are located within riparian buffers and not likely to be impacted by treatments. Burning may also consume or displace some adults but that is not likely to lead to significant losses of individuals. Inadvertent herbicide application on the host plants could also lead to the loss of young and possibly reduce fitness of adults.

• Cumulative Effects

Impacts from previous, proposed and future activities would be expected for these species since it is possible that the host plant could occur in the habitats impacted by those activities. The impact on butterfly populations from each of these actions is not expected to be long-term or severe enough to lead to notable declines. Those impacts are short-lived enough that they are not expected to have an additive effect on host plants or population viability within the AA for these species.

91 Environmental Assessment

 Terrestrial Gastropods

The Velvet Covert and the Dwarf Proud Globe are both known to occur on forested mountainsides in Haywood Co.

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative is not expected to have direct or indirect effects to either species, proposed management actions are not necessary to maintain the requisite habitat conditions. The Velvet covert and the Dwarf Proud globe may be directly impacted (relocated or crushed) during commercial harvest (regeneration, thinning, and uneven-aged), AOP placement, prescribed burning, and road construction, particularly during tree felling and moving soil with heavy equipment. Any effects would be short term, occurring only during the activities and limited to the activity area. Individuals in underground retreats, at the base of trees, and under large logs would be protected from direct impacts. Compliance with Forest Plan standards, including the stream filter zones, would protect individuals in riparian areas from harm. If individuals are lost, remaining ones would be capable of repopulating even if somewhat isolated by disturbed areas as they are hermaphrodites and can fertilize themselves (Burch & Pearce, 1990) Negative and long-term indirect effects would occur in potential habitat. Commercial harvest (regeneration, thinning, and uneven-aged) would increase sunlight to the forest floor causing leaf litter to dry out, and increased surface temperatures. This may cause snails to relocate to more moist conditions in adjacent stands. However, snails are able to survive dry periods, sometimes for years (Burch & Pearce, 1990). Habitat would remain in harvested areas in the form of underground retreats, slash piles, and logs. By protecting them from dry conditions and predators, refugia are the most important limiting factor for these animals (Burch & Pearce, 1990). Over the years, canopy cover would increase to more suitable conditions, and the snails should return to the area. Burning does not greatly reduce snail diversity (Royal BC Museum, 2006), and small snails have been found in previously burned areas on national forest lands in the southern Appalachians. These impacts would be short-term and populations would persist in the areas.

• Cumulative Effects

Impacts from previous, proposed, and future activities would be expected for these species since while not known to occur in affected areas the requisite habitats were impacted by activities considered for cumulative effects. The impacts to habitat from each of these actions is not expected to be long-term or severe enough to lead to notable declines in snail populations throughout the area. Those impacts are short-lived enough and do not impact large enough portions of suitable habitat to have an additive effect on gastropod population viability within the AA.

 Elk within the GSMNP and the NFNC are the product of a population of introduced Rocky Mountain elk that were established in the GSMNP in 2001. This population has successfully re- established elk in the southern Appalachians and have begun to expand out from the park into adjacent public and private lands. Studies conducted on these populations have shown a preference for early successional and floodplain forest types for grazing, while other readily available habitats such as northern hardwoods, high elevation oak, and montane-cove forests were notably selected against by elk (Hillard, 2013). Hemlock, oak-hickory, and pine forests are used with some regularity based on availability. Elk appear to be selecting for cover types maintained by disturbance (Hillard, 2013). These areas provide the highly desirable grasses and forbs elk prefer. Elk are known to browse woody trees species, but those species are typically early-mid successional mesic midstory species (Dogwood, Sassafras, Striped maple, etc.) (Hillard, 2013).

92 Environmental Assessment

Studies also show that elk avoid thickets or dense ericaceous cover, so not all midstory species are equally important. Elk will bed down at night within mature or mid-late successional stands but typically when those areas are adjacent to available herbaceous cover.

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative will negatively impact elk in the short and long term. In the short term, there are very limited areas currently available on public lands and elk are resorting to using residential and agricultural areas for grazing, which often leads to land owner use of depredation to protect their resources. Over the long term, a lack of management will mean the current amount of suitable habitat will lose its utility for this species. As early and mid-successional stands mature and the herbaceous component is reduced elk will need to continue to migrate further out of public lands to meet their needs. The proposed action will directly benefit elk despite disturbances from implementation causing temporary displacement and possibly harming calves. The large number of individuals are highly mobile and capable of removing themselves from harm’s way during implementation though other large animals like deer and bear have been known to be consumed by fires or crushed during tree felling. Even with taking those potential causalities into account, the creation of permanent wildlife field complexes, implementation of prescribed burns, thinning, two-aged regeneration harvest, uneven-aged management, and woodland management will all lead creation of more suitable habitat for elk. Some areas such as wildlife fields and thinnings will directly benefit the elk, while activities like stream enhancement are more of an indirect benefit since this species seems to select forested habitats with a riparian component or in a floodplain.

• Cumulative Effects

Previous activities have taken place that also benefit elk in the same manner as the proposed action. The Sutton Top project was specifically undertaken to create and open woodland component to the area specifically to benefit local elk populations. The Harmon Den Timber sale would have indirectly improved habitat for elk for the near future by opening up the canopy and creating for early-mid successional forested communities for foraging. The proposed Duke Powerline expansion would in theory also maintain and improve potential habitat for elk, but it is not well-documented whether or not elk use these specific sites within the AA already.

 Least Weasels occupy open forests, grassy fields, and riparian woodlands but they generally avoid deep dense forest. When inactive, weasels occupy burrows made by voles or moles, or rest in nest holes in walls of buildings. Den site may change often. Young are born in abandoned underground burrows made by other mammals (or similar secluded sites) (NatureServe, 2018). This species is more than likely also associated with similar habitats to GWWA & BWWA.

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative would not provide the disturbance and management necessary to maintain some of the habitats used by these species. Habitat currently available within the AA currently is reaching a successional stage that will soon become too dense and brushy for this species. The proposed actions within currently suitable habitat (riparian buffer areas, forest openings) for this species would only further maintain habitat suitability. Creation of wildlife fields and woodland creation will improve availability of suitable habitat. Silviculture treatments in adjacent areas can indirectly benefit these species by creating early successional habitat that will develop into desired condition over time. Prescribed fire would result in immediate negative impacts for individuals who were not able to retreat underground or disperse from the area, also fire line construction may inadvertently destroy underground

93 Environmental Assessment

burrows. Individuals may be disturbed during implementation and activity will temporarily reduce habitat availability.

• Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the proposed expansion of Duke Energy’s powerline could have a negative impact on least weasels individuals from disturbance during felling operations within the immediate vicinity of those actions where they overlap with suitable habitat. The other two activities considered may have helped created suitable habitat but those areas would not have been considered suitable habitat prior to implementation, therefore they may have indirectly benefited this species. Overall the combined effect on least weasels from all activities (past, proposed, and future) within the AA would not contribute to a loss of population viability or reduction in available habitat for this species.

 Appalachian Cottontails can be found in brushy habitats and woodlands above 2,500ft ASL. They have been documented occupying early-successional stands, ericaceous thickets, and brushy edges of mountain balds and pastures (NatureServe, 2018). They are food generalists and will consume most any herbaceous vegetation available. The “folds” they use for nesting or bedding down are typically shallow depressions within thick ericaceous vegetation or shrubs for cover. They breed from March-early September, and are fairly prolific which is offset by a rather high mortality rate within the first year (Smith, Alves, & Hacklander, 2018).

• Direct and Indirect Effects

The No Action Alternative will not result in any known negative direct impacts, but indirectly the conversion of early successional or shrubby habitats will lead to the reduction of suitable habitat for this species within the AA. The proposed action would have direct negative impacts since implementation of many of the proposed activities would occur during their breeding season and that would more than likely lead to the loss of young and possibly even some adults through prescribed fire or silviculture activities. Overall the proposed action would indirectly support this species through the maintenance and creation of habitat this species can use. Habitat creation for GWWA would make ideal habitat for the Appalachian Cottontail also. Due to their high rate of reproduction and relative abundance within suitable habitat in the AA, it is not likely that direct impacts from implementation will create a substantial population viability issue and management actions will improve habitat conditions for this species for the long term.

• Cumulative Effects

Implementation of all considered actions (past, proposed, and future) would have a negative immediate impact on Appalachian Cottontail rabbits within the immediate vicinity of those actions. But implementation of these actions is relatively short in duration and overall will improve or maintain habitat types used by this species. Due to the abundance of this species within the AA and the species ability to rapidly produce offspring it is unlikely that these repeated but relatively small scale disturbances would add to the proposed action to contribute to population viability issues or reduce habitat suitability.

94 Environmental Assessment

 Bats

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat occupy caves & mine portals. Hibernation in the north and mountainous regions often occurs in small caves or similar sites. These bats stay near the entrance (often within 30 m) of the hibernaculum site and move about in winter. Summer roosts often are in hollow trees, occasionally under loose bark or in structures including abandoned buildings, houses and culverts, along with other man-made features (NatureServe, 2018). Maternity colonies are common in abandoned buildings and occasional in caves and mines. Solitary males roost in buildings and hollow trees during the summer (Harvey, Altenbach, & Best, 1999). These bats forage primarily in mature forests.

Eastern Small-footed Bat is moderately widespread with spotty distribution from southeastern Canada to Alabama and Georgia, west to Oklahoma. In summer they roost in rock outcrops and cliffs, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges, trees, and buildings. Rocky areas or bridges with a sunny exposure in forested landscapes may be important maternity site features. These bats hibernate singly or in small groups only in coldest periods of winter and early spring in caves, mines and buildings (Harvey, Altenbach, & Best, 1999). The species typically forages over streams, ponds, roads, and waterholes in mature forests (NatureServe, 2018).

Northern Long-eared Bat (NLEB) is found throughout the eastern United States and Canada (Caceres & Barclay, 2000). This bat uses caves and man-made structures for hibernation. They leave their hibernacula in March and April and return in August and September (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). In summer they roost singly or in small colonies, mainly in trees but occasionally in caves. NLEB typically use large, tall trees (either live or dead) and roost under loose bark or in cavities or crevices. NLEB are known to roost in intensively managed stands with abundant snags (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016). Structural complexity of roosting habitat may be more important. Forest canopy cover has been found to range from 56 to 84%, with some studies finding roosts in stands with lower canopy cover than the surrounding forest, particularly for females (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2016).

Indiana Bats in the Southern Appalachian region hibernate in caves, but establish primary maternity roosts under the sloughing bark of dead yellow and white pines and eastern hemlock from April to September (O'Keefe, 2012). Single bats may use a variety of tree species for roosts, as long as there is available sloughing bark or crevices on those trees. The majority of roosts are on mid and upper slopes in mixed pine-hardwood stands, but some roosts have been found near streams. The species forages for flying insects along waterways, floodplains, and over upland waterholes (NatureServe, 2018). The Indiana bat returns to hibernacula beginning in late August.

Tri-color Bats are associated with open woodlands and mature forested landscapes with open water or adjacent to riparian area, early successional habitats are also used in foraging for this species (NatureServe, 2018). They hibernate in caves during winter months. They give birth to young in June that become volent within 6 weeks and weened at 12 weeks.

Gray Bats are well documented within the Pigeon River Gorge and I-40 corridor within the 12-mile AA. Gray bats roost in caves year round and forage over rivers and lakes. They give birth to young in late May or early June, which become volent within 3-4 weeks.

• Direct and Indirect Effects

This proposal would comply with the Terms and Conditions of the species wide Biological Opinion and the standards set forth in Amendment 25 to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Providing a diverse landscape comprised of a variety of successional classes, available clean water, and suitable snags or roosting structures is an expected outcome of this proposed action. In

95 Environmental Assessment

heavily forested landscapes, thinning and group selection treatments can provide important habitat heterogeneity for bats (Johnson & King, 2018). Most of the proposed activities would occur during the day while gray bats are roosting in caves and are absent from the project area, so they would not be disturbed during implementation. Tri-color, Indiana, and NLEB may be disturbed during implementation. Design criteria are in place to reduce the impact to roosting bats during the summer months but avoiding known maternity trees (which there are none documented within the project area), retaining all snags and trees with exfoliating bark unless they pose a safety hazard, and prescribed burns would be conducted in fall/winter/early spring when most bats species are still in hibernation.

The proposed project would indirectly affect bat species by alteration of roosting and foraging habitat. Removal of trees during regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and uneven-aged commercial harvest could contribute to the loss of future roosting habitat. However, Indiana bats have adapted to these types of situations as roost trees are temporary in nature (O'Keefe, 2011). The 15-20 basal area per acre (BA) remaining in early successional areas and 35-60 BA in the thinned area would ensure that roosting habitat would continue to be available in harvested stands over the next five years. New snags would develop from trees damaged during harvest and prescribed burns that create roosting habitat in the future. Prescribed fire over a large area generally burns in a mosaic pattern, with some areas burning completely while others little to none, particularly in moist coves.

• Cumulative Effects

All three other actions could have created temporary short term impacts to growing season roosting habitat for Indiana, NLEB, and Tri-colored bat. Implementation of appropriate design criteria regarding leave trees, and snag retention should reduce the severity of impacts to these species. These actions would not have an effect on Gray bat roosts or hibernacula, and would not have foreseeable impacts to their foraging habitat. The disturbance created during previous and future project implementation, combined with effects from the proposed action, is not expected to reduce habitat suitability for these species or have a noticeable impact on population numbers within the AA therefore there are no cumulative effects on these species.

Summary of Effects

The proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Northern Long-eared bat and Indiana bat. The proposed actions will not affect Gray bats or any other proposed or listed Federal threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species. Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required only for Northern Long-eared bat and Indiana Bat. No formal consultation is required.

The project may impact individual Eastern Small-footed bats, Rafinesque’s Big-eared bat, Tri-colored bat, Longtail Salamanders, Southern Zigzag Salamanders, Northern Saw-whet Owls, Hermit Thrush, Black-billed Cuckoo, American Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Cerulean Warbler, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, Golden-winged Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, Golden Banded-Skipper, Dusky Azure, Appalachian Tawny Crescent, Velvet Covert, Dwarf Proud Globe, Elk, Least Weasel, Appalachian Cottontail but is unlikely to affect species viability locally or cause a trend towards federal listing. This proposal will have no known cumulative negative effects to any Federally Listed, Forest Sensitive, or Forest Concern terrestrial wildlife species.

This project complies with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding on migratory birds between the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (extension signed 8/1/2016). The analysis discloses effects to migratory birds, focusing on species of management concern.

96 Environmental Assessment

Table 26. Management indicator species and associated habitat effects Effects of Proposed Indicator Species Principal Habitat Characteristics Action on Habitat Pine warbler Longleaf pine, scrub oak, pine savanna, and Move towards increasing Setophaga pinus white pine–hemlock habitat. Eastern towhee dry, sunny southern and southwestern slopes, Move towards increasing Pipilo erythrophthalmus brushy clearings of spruce-fir forests habitat. Ruffed grouse Move towards increasing Young mixed-deciduous forest Bonasa umbellus habitat. Mature, large, contiguous tracts of deciduous Ovenbird Sustain suitable habitat or mixed deciduous/coniferous closed-canopy Seiurus aurocapilla present. forest Black bear Sustain and expand Large expanses of uninhabited woodland Ursus americanus suitable habitat present. White-tailed deer Sustain and expand Forested and non-forested generalist Odocoileus virginianus suitable habitat present.

Table 27. Summary of effects to TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species known in the AA COMMON Effect on Species’ HABITAT Determination of Effect NAME Habitat within the AA Suitable habitat moist woods and May impact individuals but is Longtail remains. Habitat floodplains; small ponds not likely to cause a trend toward Salamander protected by riparian for breeding federal listing or loss of viability buffers. Suitable habitat Southern moist areas of talus May impact individuals but is remains. Habitat Zigzag slopes or rock outcrops not likely to cause a trend toward protected by riparian Salamander in hardwood forests federal listing or loss of viability buffers. spruce-fir forests or Northern May impact individuals but is Negligible portion of mixed hardwood/spruce Saw-whet not likely to cause a trend toward suitable habitat forests (for nesting) Owl federal listing or loss of viability impacted. [breeding season only] spruce-fir forests; May impact individuals but is Negligible portion of Hermit sparingly in northern not likely to cause a trend toward suitable habitat Thrush hardwood forests federal listing or loss of viability impacted. [breeding evidence only] deciduous forests, Suitable habitat May impact individuals but is Black-billed mainly at higher remains. Habitat not likely to cause a trend toward Cuckoo elevations [breeding protected by riparian federal listing or loss of viability evidence only] buffers. cliffs (nesting); coastal Suitable habitat American ponds and mudflats May impact individuals but is remains. Habitat Peregrine (foraging in winter) not likely to cause a trend toward protected by riparian Falcon [breeding evidence; federal listing or loss of viability buffers. regular wintering sites]

97 Environmental Assessment

COMMON Effect on Species’ HABITAT Determination of Effect NAME Habitat within the AA mature forests near large Suitable habitat bodies of water May impact individuals but is remains. Habitat Bald Eagle (nesting); rivers, lakes, not likely to cause a trend toward protected by riparian and sounds (foraging) federal listing or loss of viability buffers. [breeding evidence only] mature hardwood Suitable habitat May impact individuals but is Cerulean forests; steep slopes and remains. Habitat not likely to cause a trend toward Warbler coves in mountains protected by riparian federal listing or loss of viability [breeding evidence only] buffers. Yellow- mature, open hardwoods May impact individuals but is Sustain suitable habitat bellied with scattered dead trees not likely to cause a trend toward present. Sapsucker [breeding evidence only] federal listing or loss of viability Golden- old fields and May impact individuals but is Habitat within the AA winged successional hardwoods not likely to cause a trend toward improved/expanded. Warbler [breeding evidence only] federal listing or loss of viability low elevation brushy May impact individuals but is Blue-winged Habitat within the AA fields and thickets not likely to cause a trend toward Warbler improved/expanded. [breeding evidence only] federal listing or loss of viability Habitat disturbed, Golden moist woods near May impact individuals but is abundant suitable Banded- streams; host plant – not likely to cause a trend toward habitat persists within Skipper Hog Peanut federal listing or loss of viability AA Habitat disturbed, rich, moist deciduous May impact individuals but is Dusky abundant suitable forests; host plant -- not likely to cause a trend toward Azure habitat persists within goat's-beard federal listing or loss of viability AA woodland openings, Habitat disturbed, Appalachian glades, and road banks May impact individuals but is abundant suitable Tawny at higher elevations; host not likely to cause a trend toward habitat persists within Crescent Symphyotrichum federal listing or loss of viability AA undulatum Habitat disturbed, central mountains May impact individuals but is Velvet abundant suitable (Watauga to Haywood not likely to cause a trend toward Covert habitat persists within counties) federal listing or loss of viability AA Habitat disturbed, May impact individuals but is Dwarf abundant suitable forested mountainsides not likely to cause a trend toward Proud Globe habitat persists within federal listing or loss of viability AA Mid-high elevation May impact individuals but is Suitable habitat Elk meadows and grassy not likely to cause a trend toward improved/increased areas. federal listing or loss of viability within AA. Habitat disturbed, May impact individuals but is Least fields and forests, mostly abundant suitable not likely to cause a trend toward Weasel at high elevations habitat persists within federal listing or loss of viability AA

98 Environmental Assessment

COMMON Effect on Species’ HABITAT Determination of Effect NAME Habitat within the AA Habitat disturbed, May impact individuals but is Appalachian dense cover of montane abundant suitable not likely to cause a trend toward Cottontail woods and thickets habitat persists within federal listing or loss of viability AA Rafinesque's roosts in caves, mines, May impact individuals but is Suitable habitat Big-eared and hollow trees, usually not likely to cause a trend toward remains Bat near water federal listing or loss of viability forested landscapes, May impact individuals but is Tricolored Suitable habitat open woods, riparian not likely to cause a trend toward bat remains areas federal listing or loss of viability roosts in hollow trees Habitat disturbed, Eastern May impact individuals but is and in rock crevices abundant suitable Small-footed not likely to cause a trend toward (warmer months), in habitat persists within Bat federal listing or loss of viability caves and mines (winter) AA roosts in hollow trees Habitat disturbed, Northern and buildings (warmer May affect, not likely to abundant suitable Long-eared months), in caves and adversely affect habitat persists within Bat mines (winter); mainly AA in the mountains roosts in hollow trees or Habitat disturbed, under loose bark and May affect, not likely to abundant suitable Indiana Bat snags (warmer months), adversely affect habitat persists within in caves (winter) AA Roost sites are nearly exclusively restricted to Roosting and foraging Gray Bat No effect caves throughout the habitat not impacted. year

99 Environmental Assessment

Botanical

Introduction

This section documents the effects of the project alternatives to botanical resources within the botanical analysis area (BAA defined below). The potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects and impacts on federally endangered, proposed endangered, threatened (T& E), Forest Service Sensitive (S) and Forest Concern (FC) plant species are evaluated. Potential direct and indirect effects to T&E, S and FC plant species were analyzed in the areas where forest management or other activities are proposed. Any area subject to disturbance is referred to as the “activity area”. This document also analyzes the effects to natural plant communities and Non Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIP) by the proposed activities. Two alternatives (A & B) were considered in this report. Alternative A is a No Action Alternative. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) was analyzed in detail. The project area is located in Haywood County, North Carolina.

Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods

Botanical Analysis Area

The Twelve Mile project area consists of approximately 23,220 acres and is located in entirely in Haywood County, North Carolina. The BAA (project area + a 2 kilometer buffer) for the Twelve Mile Project consists of approximately 53,302 acres, occurring mostly in Haywood County, North Carolina, but extends slightly into Madison County, NC and parts of Tennessee. Approximately 27,475 of the acres in the BAA occur on the Pisgah National Forest. The BAA includes land outside the National Forest System boundary because the botanical analysis area includes the total area within two kilometers or approximately 1.2 miles of proposed project activities (this includes the Cherokee National Forest, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and privately owned property. The botanical analysis area (BAA) or "boundary of effects" used for this proposal is defined as the total area within two kilometers of any proposed unit (treatment area). The BAA definition was selected because it is analogous to NatureServe’s (NatureServe, 2018) habitat-based population delimitation guidelines for plant occurrences. The assumption is for those rare plant populations that may occur within the proposed activity area, their spread, such as by pollen exchange and/or seed dispersal, would generally not extend beyond two kilometers. The BAA helps determine which rare plant species have the highest likelihood of occurring in the proposed activity areas. Because plants are rooted species that must be present in proposed activity areas to undergo effects, potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects were evaluated for rare plant species that occur within proposed activity areas. Possible time dependent effects of this proposal to natural communities are dependent upon the type of natural community. In some communities, succession may be 100+ years after logging. However, significant succession occurs in most natural communities at a much faster rate. For this analysis, a 40 year time period will be used to analyze the effects of logging because most communities have reestablished a significant portion of habitat character by this time. Activities considered for cumulative effects include the Harmon Den Timber Sale (adjacent to project area, the Sutton Top Mastication Project (within the project area), and the Duke Powerline Right-of-Way Expansion (future, within the project area). None of the past activities had any impacts to rare plants, and the future project is not expected to have any impacts to rare plants either.

100 Environmental Assessment

Existing Conditions

The Twelve Mile botanical analysis area is a mostly low-elevation montane setting and contains at least twenty-one distinct natural community subtypes, as classified in the Fourth Approximation to the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale, 2012) and supported by NatureServe. The most common communities are Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, and Rich Montane Seep.

Species Evaluated and Rationale

All 419 federally threatened & endangered, Region 8 sensitive (TES), and National Forest in North Carolina forest concern (FC) plant species were initially considered in this analysis. TES and FC plant species with the greatest likelihood of occurring in the proposed action units were determined by:

1. Reviewing the list of TES and FC plants species that occur across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest and their habitat preferences.

2. Reviewing the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program element occurrence (EO) records for TES and FC plant species that occur in Haywood County.

3. Consulting with individuals knowledgeable of the area and associated flora (Gary Kauffman, Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in North Carolina).

4. Reviewing TES and FC element occurrence (EO) records that occur in or immediately adjacent to the proposed units.

5. Performing botanical field surveys in the proposed activity areas.

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

Botanical Surveys

All units in the project area with expected ground disturbance activity were surveyed at least once and some multiple times between April 2017 and September 2018 in order to characterize natural communities, document the occurrence of rare plant species, and document the occurrence of non-native invasive plant species. Botanical field surveys were conducted by a meander search pattern to survey habitat variability within each proposed unit (Goff, Dawson, & Rochow, 1982). Proposed activity areas with specialized habitat (e.g. rock outcrops and seeps) and/or high plant diversity were surveyed more intensively due to a higher probability of containing rare plant species. Overall, survey intensity varied depending on botanical diversity, presence of indicator species, and presence of rare plant species. The botanical surveys were conducted by Sue Fruchey (Pisgah Zone Botanist), Matt Bushman (Nantahala Zone Botanist), Andy Walker (Uwharrie/Croatan Zone Botanist) and Helia Environmental Consulting Group (Kevin Caldwell, Alan Smith, and Lloyd Raleigh). Although the search was focused on the possibility of occurrences of the rare plants listed in Appendix B; all rare plant species were searched for during the survey. Surveys were conducted so that a rare plant species would not be overlooked due to phenology or time of the year that the species could reasonably be detected.

101 Environmental Assessment

Using survey data and known element occurrence data from the State Natural Heritage Program, no federally proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species are known from the BAA, six Region 8 Sensitive plant species are known from the BAA, and fifteen Forest Concern plant species are known from the BAA.

Existing Botanical Condition

TES, and FC Plant Species

The entire project area is located in Haywood County. The Botanical Analysis Area (BAA) is the entire project area boundary plus a 2 kilometer buffer, which extends slightly into Madison County, NC and Tennessee. 20 rare plant species are known to occur within the BAA

• none are federally threatened or endangered species;

• six are Sensitive (Buckleya distichophylla, Cleistesiopsis bifaria , Juglans cinerea, Riccardia jugata, Silene ovata, Trillium simile); (Table 28)

• fourteen are Forest Concern (Adlumia fungosa, Campanula aparinoides var. aparinoides, Crocanthemum propinquum, Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum*, Dicentra eximia, Draba ramosissima, Hackelia virginiana, Heuchera pubescens, Lilium canadense var. canadense, Meehania cordata, Poa saltuensis, Solidago uliginosa var. uliginosa, Sphagnum subsecundum, Trientalis borealis; (Table 29)

• three of the above mentioned plant occurrences are considered historic (not seen in 20-40 years and the species’ continued existence is uncertain): Hackelia virginiana, Solidago uliginosa var. uliginosa, Sphagnum subsecundum;

• one of the above mentioned plant occurrences is a new record for Haywood County (Cleistesiopsis bifaria).

No other TES or FC plant species are known to occur within the BAA but some may have potential habitat within in the BAA. All the other TES and FC plant species were dropped from further consideration, discussion and analysis for one of the following reasons: 1) lack of suitable habitat for the species in the proposed action areas, 2) the species has a well-known distribution that does not include the analysis area, or 3) based on field surveys, no habitat or element occurrence of a TES or FC plant species was seen in or near to the proposed activity areas. Habitats, community types and ranges of TES and FC plant species are derived from information in Classification of the Natural Plant Communities of North Carolina – Third Approximation (Schafale & Weakley, 1990), the Natural Heritage Program's List of Rare Plant of North Carolina, or information obtained through other botanists.

102 Environmental Assessment

Table 28. Known TES plant species in the Botanical Analysis Area Natural Community Species Type Occurrence or Habitat Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species (T &E) None ------2018 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant species (S) Buckleya Vascular Hemlock Hardwood Known to occur in Unit 39 (UEA distichophylla Plant Forest, Acidic Cove Management) Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Slopes, Forests on lower slope Cleistesiopsis Vascular Pine-Oak/Heath Known to occur in Unit 104 (Commercial bifaria Plant Forest, Pine-Oak Thinning), Unit 59, 85 (Woodland) Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Juglans cinerea Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Known to occur in Unit 7, 21 Plant (Tree) Mesic Oak-Hickory, (Regeneration Harvest) Montane Alluvial Forest Riccardia jugata Liverwort Rotten Logs in Acidic Occurs in Little Cataloochee Creek in the Cove Forest in Gorge BAA, west of White Oak Mountain. Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Silene ovata Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Unit 15 (Regeneration Harvest) Plant Mesic Oak-Hickory, Roadside, mafic rock Trillium simile Vascular Rich Cove Forest Occurs along the Appalachian Trail in the Plant BAA. Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species occurs in or near proposed activity areas.

103 Environmental Assessment

Table 29. Known forest concern plant species within the Botanical Analysis Area Natural Community Species Type Occurrence or Habitat Adlumia fungosa Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Unit 83 Regeneration Harvest overlaps Plant Montane Acidic Cliff, with one large/low accuracy known Montane Calcareous occurrence; area was surveyed and no Cliff plants found. Small Patch Old Growth Unit 6, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16 Several locations known from the BAA that are outside proposed action areas. Campanula Vascular Southern Appalachian Occurs near the Pigeon River aparinoides var. Plant Bog, Wet Meadow approximately 1,000 feet south of UEA aparinoides Mgt. Unit 39. Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Crocanthemum Vascular Glade, Southern Occurs in Hurricane Ridge Natural Area propinquum Plant Appalachian Fen, within Small Patch Old Growth Unit 2; Montane Acidic Cliff adjacent to Woodland Unit 16. Cypripedium Vascular High Elevation Red Unit 58 (Regeneration Harvest) parviflorum var. Plant Oak Forest, rich parviflorum*** Northern Hardwood Forest Dicentra eximia Vascular Montane Acidic Cliff, Occurs in Hurricane Gap Branch Natural Plant Montane Mafic Cliff Area and Hurricane Creek Forest Natural Area Small Patch Old Growth Units 15 & 16 Draba Vascular Montane Mafic Cliff, Occurs near the Pigeon River ramosissima Plant Montane Calcareous approximately 500 feet southeast of Stand Cliff Improvement Unit 65 in Slickrock Branch Cove Natural Area. Possibly occurs in Small Patch Old Growth Unit 6, though accuracy of element occurrence is low. Hackelia Vascular Woods and thickets, Historic record and not found in any virginiana, Plant circumneutral soils proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species occurs in or near proposed activity areas. Heuchera Vascular rock outcrop Occurs along SR 1347 in the BAA; closest pubescens Plant proposed action area is over 1.5 miles away. Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species occurs in or near proposed activity areas.

104 Environmental Assessment

Natural Community Species Type Occurrence or Habitat Lilium canadense Vascular Wet Meadow, Occurs in wet areas in the BAA southwest var. canadense Plant Southern Appalachian of Hurricane Mountain Bog Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Meehania cordata Vascular Northern Hardwood Occurs near I-40 in the Project Area, but is Plant Forest, Boulderfield ½ mile from the closest proposed action Forest, Rich Cove unit. Forest Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species occurs in or near proposed activity areas. Poa saltuensis Vascular Serpentine Woodland, Occurs in the Project Area along NC 281, Plant Serpentine Forest over 1,000 feet west of Stand Improvement Unit 92. Not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Solidago uliginosa Vascular High Elevation Seep, Occurs in BAA in a wet area along SR var. uliginosa Plant Southern Appalachian 1334 over 1 mile west of the closest Bog proposed action area. Historic record and not found in any proposed action area; no effect; not further analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Sphagnum Vascular Southern Appalachian Occurs in BAA along the Cataloochee subsecundum Plant Bog, Fen, Spray Cliff, River. Grassy Bald, High Historic record and not found in any Elevation Rocky proposed action area; no effect; not further Summit analyzed. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Trientalis borealis Vascular Rich Cove Forest, Small Patch Old Growth Unit 13 Plant Northern Hardwood Forest ***Plant ID not confirmed (need flowers to appropriately name) – will need to resurvey in appropriate season to confirm identity.

Research Natural Areas (RNA), Special Interest Areas

There are no Research Natural Areas (RNA) or botanical Special Interest Areas (SIA) recognized by the current Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan within the Twelve Mile Project Area; therefore no RNAs or botanical SIAs will be affected by this proposal.

105 Environmental Assessment

North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas

There are 11 North Carolina Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) within the Twelve Mile Project Area. Ratings (as determined by the state) and overlap with proposed actions are detailed in Table 30. There are almost 2,000 acres of SNHA in the Twelve Mile Project Area, and most of the proposed actions within those areas are Small Patch Old-Growth Designation (30%). Approximately 4,300 linear feet of Stream Restoration occurs in two SNHA s (Cold Spring Flats and Fall Branch Forests). While this will create some initial disturbance, it is expected to increase the overall quality of these SNHA s. Dormant- season prescribed burning is proposed to occur in 73 acres (4%) in Gilliland Creek Forests and Pigeon Ford Rare Species Habitat; this is expected to improve quality in these SNHA s. Less than 2% of the SNHA s overlap with ground-disturbing proposed action areas; proposed action includes Regeneration Harvest in Fall Branch Forests, Mount Sterling Creek Forests, and Slickrock Branch Coves (24 acres total) and UEA Management in Pigeon Ford Rare Species Habitat (10 acres). Ground-disturbing activities proposed for the Twelve Mile treatment units would affect an approximately 34 acre portion (or 1.7%) collectively of the SNHA s in Twelve Mile, but would not negatively affect the core values of the individual SNHA s. None of these SNHA s are identified as Special Interest Area by the current Forest Plan.

106 Environmental Assessment

Table 30. NC Significant Natural Heritage Ares in the Twelve Mile Analysis Area R_RATING & Overlap with Proposed Actions (description & SNHA Name Size C_RATING (if approximate acreage) different than R)

Cold Spring Flats 93 acres R4 (Moderate) Stream Restoration (proposed along north & east boundaries of SNHA –should improve SNHA quality; approximately 3,000 ft)

Fall Branch Forests 123 acres R5 (General); C4 Stream Restoration (bisects southern half of SNHA) (Moderate) – stream restoration should improve SNHA quality (1,4300 ft) Regeneration Harvest Unit 7 (5 acres)

Gilliland Creek Forests 122 acres R5 (General) Stand Improvement Unit 101 (4.5 acres) Prescribed Burn Unit D1 (70 acres)

Hurricane Creek 85 acres R4 (Moderate) Small Patch Old Growth designation (70 acres) Forests

Hurricane Gap Branch 147 acres R5 (General) Small Patch Old Growth designation (60 acres)

Hurricane Ridge 323 acres R4 (Moderate) Small Patch Old Growth designation (97 acres)

Mount Sterling Creek 343 acres R4 (Moderate) Regeneration Harvest Unit 83 (8 acres) Forests AOP 4 (<1 acre)

Pigeon Ford Rare 107 acres R2 (Very High); Uneven-Aged Management Unit 39 (10 acres) Species Habitat C4 (Moderate) Prescribed Burn Unit P (2.5 acres)

Salt Bin Bluffs 42 acres R3 (High); C4 Small Patch Old Growth designation (42 acres) (Moderate)

Salt Bin/Mount Sterling 251 acres R1 (Exceptional); Small Patch Old Growth designation (214 acres) Creek Yellowwood C5 (General) Slopes

Slickrock Branch Coves 341 acres R4 (Moderate) Stand Improvement 36 & 65 (14 acres) Regeneration Harvest Unit 60 (11 acres) Small Patch Old Growth designation (115 acres)

Totals 1,977 acres Ground Disturbing: SNHA in • Regeneration Harvest: 24 acres (1%) Twelve • UEA Management: 10 acres (<1%) Mile Non-Ground Disturbing: Project • Small Patch Old Growth Designation: Area 598 acres (30%) • Stand Improvement: 19 acres (1%) • Prescribed Burn: 73 acres (4%) Stream Restoration: 4,300 linear feet

107 Environmental Assessment

Non Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIP) within the Botanical AA

Boundaries of Analysis

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

Existing Condition

Surveys for non-native invasive plants (NNIP) were conducted within meander survey paths and along roads adjacent to and within proposed management units. Pathways of proposed roadway construction and wildlife openings adjacent to proposed management stands were inventoried as well. For assessment purposes, the area of coverage and the percent cover of NNIP were noted upon locating infestations in the proposed management area. All NNIP surveys were conducted at the same time rare plant surveys were conducted by USFS staff and by Helia Environmental Consulting. Twenty-two NNIP species were located in the Twelve Mile Project Area (Table 31). Thirteen of the NNIP found in the Twelve Mile Project area are considered highly invasive and are prioritized and tracked by the Forest Service (USDA, 2009):

Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) Japanese meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica) Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) Privet (Ligustrum sinense) Chinese silver grass (Miscanthus sinensis) Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Chinese yam (Dioscorea oppositifolia)

The remaining nine species are non-native, but are not tracked by the Forest Service. Of all the species detected, Princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), and multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora) were the most abundant species, occurring mostly along system roadways, on old logging roads, in wildlife openings and occasionally in sensitive habitats such as seeps or within rich cove forests. NNIP were detected in 86 proposed action units, and along most of the roads used for access to the proposed action units. Without intervention, these NNIP areas are expected to increase in the Twelve Mile BAA over the next several years. Especially prone to infestation are high risk areas of infestation (Table 34). In addition to the abundance of multiflora rose and garlic mustard throughout the project area, most notable are the large groups of mature Princess trees that occur in the Twelve Mile Project area, as well as individual trees in remote locations. This highly shade-intolerant NNIP requires large-scale disturbances such as fire, landslides, flood scour, or other land scarification (such as logging operations) for optimal stand establishment, and the small, wind-dispersed seeds germinate almost exclusively on open sites with exposed mineral soil. Opening the canopy through silvicultural activity is highly likely to spread this tree and care should be taken during harvest activities to treat all stumps, sprouts and seedlings.

108 Environmental Assessment

Table 31. Non-native invasive plant species in the Twelve Mile Project Area NPNF Treatment Species Occurrence in the Project Area Priority (From 2009 EA) Ailanthus altissima High Stand Improvement Unit 34; seedling pulled Tree of Heaven UEA Management 50; 8 plants Wildlife Field 12; smaller sapling Woodland Unit 16; one 18” DBH tree Alliaria petiolata Medium Commercial Thinning Unit 17 Garlic Mustard Prescribed Burning Unit L Regeneration Harvest Units 13, 15, 18, 31, 69, 70 Small Patch Old Growth Units 12, 13 Stand Improvement Units 24, 25, 26, 27, 34 UEA Management Units 28, 39 Wildlife Field 3, 12 Woodland Unit 11, 16 Berberis thunbergii Not Tracked Road: FSR 543 Spur Japanese barberry Cardamine hirsuta Not Tracked Regeneration Harvest Unit 13 Hairy Bittercress UEA Management Unit 49 Wildlife Field 3 Celastrus orbiculatus High Road: FSR 3521 Oriental bittersweet Regeneration Harvest Unit 52 Wildlife Field 9, 18, 23 Woodland Unit 40 Dioscorea polystachya Medium Regeneration Harvest Unit 23, 32, 33 Chinese yam Road: FSR 286 UEA Management Unit 49 Elaeagnus umbellata Medium Regeneration Harvest Unit 33, 46 Autumn Olive Road: FSR 148 Spur, FSR 286, 3581B Stand Improvement Unit 54, 55 Wildlife Field 12, 13, 14 UEA Management Unit 49, 50 Hemerocallis fulva Not Tracked Regeneration Harvest Unit 33 orange daylily Hosta sp. Not Tracked UEA Management Unit 39 plantain lily Lespedeza bicolor Not Tracked Stand Improvement Unit 78 Bicolor lespedeza Road: FSR 543 Spur, FSR 3549 Lespedeza cuneata Not Tracked Regeneration Harvest Unit 102 Sericea lespedeza Ligustrum sinense High Roads: FSR 288 Chinese/European privet UEA Management Unit 39 Lonicera japonica Medium UEA Management Unit 49, 50 Japanese honeysuckle Prescribed Burning Unit A Miscanthus sinensis High Prescribed Burn Units I, L Chinese silver grass Stand Improvement Unit 36

109 Environmental Assessment

NPNF Treatment Species Occurrence in the Project Area Priority (From 2009 EA) Microstegium vimineum High Commercial Thinning Unit 1, 43, 104 Japanese stiltgrass Prescribed Burning Unit A, J, L Regeneration Harvest Unit 2, 7, 13, 15, 18,21, 44, 90, 102 Roads: FSR 289A Stand Improvement Unit 25, 36, 48 UEA Management Unit 49, 50 Wildlife Field 9, 17, 18, 23 Woodland Unit 11, 14, 97 Paulownia tomentosa High Commercial Thinning 43, 67 Princess tree Prescribed Burning Unit B, I, L Regeneration Harvest Unit 21, 31, 60, 83 Roads: FSR 287, FSR 288, FSR 289A, FSR 289 Spur, FSR 3521, FSR 3568 Small Patch Old Growth Unit 7 Stand Improvement Unit 24, 34, 36, 37, 79 UEA Management Unit 29 Wildlife Field 6, 17, 23 Rosa multiflora High Commercial Thinning 1, 43, 51, 67 Multiflora rose Prescribed Burning Unit B, C2, K, L, M, P Regeneration Harvest Unit 7, 8, 13, 15, 18, 30, 31, 32, 33, 44, 46, 52, 58, 60, 69, 83, 90 Roads: FSR 148 Spur, FSR 288, FSR 289 Spur, FSR 453, FSR 453 Spur, FSR 3521, FSR 3568 Small Patch Old Growth Unit 10 Stand Improvement Unit 24, 27, 34, 36, 37, 47, 48, 54, 55, 63, 75, 78 Stream Restoration Section 2 UEA Management Unit 10, 28, 39, 49, 50 Wildlife Field 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23 Woodland Unit 14, 40, 105 Securigera varia Not Tracked Prescribed Burn Unit F, L Crownvetch Regeneration Harvest Unit 102 Roads: FSR 288, FSR 3568 Stand Improvement Unit 24, 25, 36, 56 UEA Management Unit 28 Woodland Unit 103 Spiraea japonica High Prescribed Burn Unit L Japansese meadowsweet Regeneration Harvest Unit 33, 52, 83 Roads: FSR 288, FSR 3549 Stand Improvement Unit 55, 65, 80 Wildlife Field 12 Tussilago farfara Medium Stand Improvement Unit 24, 25 Coltsfoot UEA Management Unit 28 Vinca minor Not Tracked Regeneration Harvest Unit 33 Periwinkle

110 Environmental Assessment

Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species

Several rare plants are found within the BAA, Twelve Mile Project Area, and within proposed action areas. With mitigation measures in place, there should be no effects to these rare species except for piratebush (Buckleya distichophylla), which is minimal and described below.

Effects of Alternatives on Threatened and Endangered Botanical Species

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: No proposed, threatened, or endangered plant species occurs in the BAA, or is known to occur within the proposed treatment areas for the Twelve Mile Project following surveys. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species from the implementation of the proposed Twelve Mile Project. Determination of Effect: The proposed Twelve Mile Project would have no effect on any federally proposed, endangered, or threatened plant species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for botanical resources.

Effects of Alternatives on Region 8 Sensitive Botanical Species

PIRATEBUSH (Buckleya distichophylla)

Piratebush is an uncommon shrub known from the Southern Appalachian Blue Ridge Mountains and occurs on dry, rocky, or shale outcrops and river bluffs (Nickert, 2016). Piratebush is a 3-4 meter tall shrub that flowers from April-May with a greenish terminal inflorescence and has lanceolate to ovate- lanceolate entire leaves (Nickert, 2016). The species is root hemiparasitic and rhizomatous. At one time it was thought that Piratebush was parasitic only on Tsuga canadensis (eastern hemlock), but laboratory research by (Musselman & Mann, 1979) has shown it will parasitize a number of species, including Table Mountain Pine (Musselman & Mann, 1979). Large populations of this species are known to occur in fire- dominated Table Mountain Pine communities in other states (Leahy, Curtis, & Clarke, 2006)The shrub is known from Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Dry Slopes, and Forests on lower slopes in the Southern Appalachians. On the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests, Piratebush is known from dry slopes near waterfalls on streams and in gorges, generally at elevations below 2,800 feet (Kauffman, 2019). Globally this species is vulnerable (G3) and is a considered imperiled (S2) in North Carolina (NatureServe, 2018). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are sixteen forest populations. There are 4 documented locations in the Twelve Mile Project Area, but only one is within a ground- disturbing proposed action area. Piratebush was observed by USFS botanists in UEA Management Unit 39 in the Twelve Mile project area. It appears to be an extension of a larger known population along FSR 288, the main road that passes through much of the project area. Some stems are being mowed by routine, contracted roadside maintenance, but others are far enough into the unit off the road that they are not affected by contract mowing.

111 Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatments: The proposed silvicultural treatment where this plant is located is uneven aged management, a ground-disturbing, commercial operation. Without protection, individual piratebush plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest as the species seems to prefer partial shade and doesn’t really seem to occur in full sunlight conditions. All of the plants except for one discovered during surveys lie outside of a 50’ buffer from where a skid road and a landing will be placed in the UEA management unit. None of the plants will be directly impacted by logging equipment (the plants will be flagged and avoided), but at least one small shrub is located within 8’ of an old skid road that will be repurposed into a new skid road, resulting in more light and less moisture in the ground. Therefore, indirect impacts may be felt by at least one piratebush plant. In order to mitigate the potential direct and indirect effects to the majority of the piratebush plants, a 50- foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the piratebush population to preserve a partially shaded environment and protect the parasitic interaction with mycorrhizae associated with tree roots. At least one plant documented near an old skid road that will be reused will fall outside this buffer, and therefore the action may impact some individuals in the population, though the larger population will remain unaffected. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of piratebush, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would include piratebush populations. If they arise, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact piratebush. Alternative B may impact individuals of piratebush, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the population.

SMALL SPREADING POGONIA (Cleistesiopsis bifaria)

This orchid is known to occur in moist to fairly dry meadows and on dry ridgetops under pine where it is seasonally moist (Weakley, 2015). The orchid is distributed in the central and Southern Appalachians from West Virginia south and west to Georgia and Alabama and is known from 11 counties in western North Carolina (Weakley, 2015). Species of the Cleistes orchids seem to benefit from fire and have been known to reappear after absences and to re-flower following fire (Raliegh, 2018) Small spreading pogonia was observed by botanical contractors in Commercial Thinning Unit 104 and in Woodland Creation Units 59 & 85 in the Twelve Mile project area (Raliegh, 2018). Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatments: The proposed silvicultural treatments where this plant is located include commercial thinning and woodland creation. Individual small spreading pogonia plants may be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly positively impacted by a change in the amount of light in the stand following timber harvest activities as this species should flourish in the increased amount of light associated with these activities and especially in the woodland areas. In order to mitigate these potential direct effects, a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around the small

112 Environmental Assessment

spreading pogonia population primarily to keep from being crushed by machinery and tree felling operations. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of small spreading pogonia nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact small spreading pogonia. If discovered, botanical analysis areas would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would not impact small spreading pogonia. Alternative B would not directly or indirectly affect individuals because of the 50 foot no activity buffer and would result in a “No Impact” determination for small spreading pogonia.

BUTTERNUT (Juglans cinerea)

Butternut is a tree that is found from western New Brunswick to North Dakota south to Georgia in rich forest communities. Usually it is a 20-30 meter tall tree with light gray to gray-brown bark shallowly divided into smooth or scaly plates and pinnately lobed leaves with 11-17 ovate to lanceolate leaves (Nickert, 2016). The tree produces nuts that are ellipsoid to subcylindric or ovoid and flowers April through June (Nickert, 2016). Butternut occurs in rich woods of river terraces and valley and also on dry rocky slopes, but is decreasing in numbers due to a fungal disease – butternut canker (Sirococcus clavigignenti) – killing Juglans cinerea across its range. This is considered to be the primary risk for species viability (Nickert, 2016). Globally this species is apparently secure (G4) and in North Carolina, this species is imperiled (S2). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are 11 known forest populations. Five butternut locations were documented by botanical contractors within the units of Twelve Mile Project Area, all being individual trees (Raliegh, 2018). Three are located in units with proposed silvicultural treatments. In Regeneration Harvest Unit 7, one tree approximately 18” DBH was found in decent condition (though it probably has early stages of canker). In Regeneration Harvest Unit 21, two trees exhibiting butternut canker were found (one 7” DBH, the other 13” DBH). The two other butternut trees are located in wildlife openings or in units that were dropped from silvicultural consideration. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatments: The proposed silvicultural treatments where butternut is found is regeneration harvest. When butternut is encountered during timber marking or timber harvesting operations this species will be left un-cut in the stand and a botanist will be consulted for protection measures. Cumulative Effects: Two vegetation management projects affecting butternut populations across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were implemented in the last 20 years. Both sites avoided the butternut trees, and none overlapped spatially with the Twelve Mile Project Area. Butternut is decreasing in number across its range due to butternut canker a non-native invasive pathogen that has killed an estimated 80% of butternut trees across eastern North America (Leisso & Hudelson, 2008). This is an ongoing and future issue with butternut that will continue to affect its viability across its range. Not harvesting butternut in the Twelve Mile Project will help preserve this tree into the future. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for butternut. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known butternut will not be harvested during silvicultural activities and a 50-foot no activity buffer will be in place.

113 Environmental Assessment

OVATE CATCHFLY (Silene ovata)

Ovate catchfly is a perennial herb with opposite leaves and flowers with 5-parted white petals that bloom in July and August (NatureServe, 2018). Typical habitat for this species is rich woods on circumneutral soils of woodlands and forest especially over mafic or calcareous rocks at medium elevation (Weakley, 2015). Habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National forest consists of Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, roadside, and mafic rock. Globally the species is vulnerable (G3) and in North Carolina the plant vulnerable (S3). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are 23 known forest populations, some of these have scattered separate subpopulations. Ovate catchfly is known from Regeneration Harvest Unit 15. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatments: The proposed silvicultural treatment where ovate catchfly is found is regeneration harvest. Without protection, individual ovate catchfly plants would be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities as this species seems to prefer partial shade and does not appear to grow in full light conditions. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects, a 100-foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of ovate catchfly primarily to maintain the desired shade environment. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of ovate catchfly nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact ovate catchfly. If discovered, botanical analysis areas would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for ovate catchfly. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of ovate catchfly will have a 100-foot no-activity buffer. Table 32. Impact determination for Region 8 sensitive botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Buckleya distichophylla No Impact May impact individual plants (with 50’ buffer in (Piratebush) place), but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the population Cleistesiopsis bifaria No Impact No Impact (with 50’ buffer in place) (Small Spreading Pogonia) Juglans cinerea No Impact No Impact (with 50’ buffer in place and (Butternut) direction to not cut any trees found) Silene ovata (Ovate No Impact No Impact (with 100’ buffer in place) Catchfly)

114 Environmental Assessment

Effects of Alternatives on Forest Concern Botanical Species

CLIMBING FUMITORY (Adlumia fungosa)

Climbing fumitory is a delicate, climbing biennial vine that can reach nearly ten feet in height. It is rare throughout its range and is protected in most states, where it inhabits rocky forests and cliff bases (Weakley, 2015). The plant grows on wet, rocky, and wooded slopes, and is native to North America, particularly the Allegheny Mountains area (NatureServe, 2018). This species requires soil disturbance. Where found along shorelines, protection of habitat and perpetuation of natural disturbance (winter ice, storms, wind) and long-term hydrological regimes is beneficial. Where found in inland mesic forests, a moderate amount of disturbance is likely tolerable, but large scale clear cutting is not recommended (Kauffman, 2019). There are 5 populations of climbing fumitory in the Botanical Analysis Area (4 known prior to surveys and one new discovery during surveys). Climbing fumitory was observed in new locations (2 sub- populations and one new population) by USFS staff and botanical contractors in two Regeneration Harvest Units and one UEA Management Unit during surveys – however, all three units were dropped before the final proposed action. One known location of climbing fumitory with a Low Accuracy ranking overlaps with Regeneration Harvest Unit 83, but when surveyed, no plants were located directly in the unit. The other known locations of climbing fumitory occur in areas that will be designated Small Patch Old Growth and are proposed to be protected from ground-disturbing activities. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatments: One proposed silvicultural treatment area (Regeneration Harvest Unit 83) has spatial overlap with a low-accuracy known occurrence of climbing fumitory. During surveys, no plants were discovered in the area of overlap, therefore there will be no direct or indirect effects to this population. Small Patch Old Growth Designation: Climbing fumitory is known to occur in Small Patch Old Growth Designation Units 6, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 16. These areas will be subject to natural disturbances only such as fire, individual trees falling or rock/landslides. Climbing fumitory relies on disturbance and bare soils for reproduction and spread. Though it will correspond with the timing of natural occurrences, this proposed action should have a beneficial effect on climbing fumitory over time. Lack of human activity in these areas (road maintenance, thinning, prescribed fire, etc.) may allow these areas to have a more closed canopy over time, which may decrease the spread of climbing fumitory in the short term, but when natural disturbances do occur, the seeds should respond and the populations will likely remain stable over time. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of climbing fumitory, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of climbing fumitory. If discovered, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silviculture and other treatments. Inclusion of populations in Small Patch Old Growth areas are likely to produce a beneficial impact over time to climbing fumitory. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for climbing fumitory. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of climbing fumitory will be protected by Small Patch Old Growth Designation.

115 Environmental Assessment

CREEPING SUNROSE (Crocanthemum propinquum)

Creeping sunrose is a creeping perennial herb approximately 10-30 cm tall with small (1-3 cm long) linear-spatulate leaves (NatureServe, 2018). This plant has two types of flowers – 5-petaled yellow showy flowers that appear early in the season (June/July), and smaller cleistogamous flowers with no petals later in the season (July-September). It spreads rhizomatously and is typically found in mixed woodland areas with dry, sandy open grounds, rock outcrops, barrens or fields in North Carolina (Weakley, 2015). Succession is considered a threat to creeping sunrose (NatureServe, 2018). Globally this species is secure (G4) and is a considered critically imperiled (S1) in North Carolina (NatureServe, 2018). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are two forest populations, one of which is in the Twelve Mile Project Area/BAA in the Hurricane Ridge Natural Area. This population is adjacent to Woodland Unit 16 and overlapping with Small Patch Old Growth Designation Unit 2. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Natural disturbances such as fallen trees and fire would be allowed and would likely benefit this species over time. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: Woodland Creation is proposed in Unit 16, adjacent to the Hurricane Ridge Natural Area. There is no spatial overlap with creeping sunrose, therefore there will be no direct effects to this population. Adjacent Woodland Creation should increase sunlight and may improve neighboring habitat for creeping sunrose to spread into the woodland area, as it prefers habitat that has more light – overall there may be beneficial indirect impacts to creeping sunrose. Small Patch Old-Growth Designation: Creeping sunrose is known to occur in Small Patch Old Growth Designation Unit 2. This areas will be continue to be subject to natural disturbances only such as fire, individual trees falling or rock/landslides. Though it will correspond with the timing of natural occurrences, this proposed action should have a beneficial effect on creeping sunrose over time. Lack of human activity in these areas (road maintenance, thinning, prescribed fire, etc.) may allow designated Old Growth areas to have a more closed canopy over time, which may decrease the spread of creeping sunrose in the short term, but when natural disturbances do occur, the seeds should respond and the populations will likely remain stable over time. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of creeping sunrose, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of creeping sunrose. If discovered, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Inclusion of populations in Small Patch Old Growth areas are likely to produce a beneficial impact over time to creeping sunrose. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for creeping sunrose. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of creeping sunrose will be protected by Small Patch Old Growth Designation. Additional habitat creation in adjacent units will likely produce a beneficial impact on creeping sunrose habitat.

SMALL YELLOW LADY’S SLIPPER (Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum)

Small yellow lady’s slipper is a 15-40 cm. tall perennial orchid with elliptic leaves that sheath the stem and are lightly pubescent and usually glandular (NatureServe, 2018). The orchid usually has 1-2 yellow flowers (blooming from April – June) with one petal that is strongly pouch shaped and often purple-

116 Environmental Assessment

dotted while the other two petals are untied into one and the fruit a capsule with thousands of tiny seeds (NatureServe, 2018). The orchids occur in rich, humus and decaying leaf litter in wooded areas, often on rocky wooded hillsides on north or east facing slopes, and near moist stream sides (NatureServe, 2018). The plant occurs in High Elevation Red Oak Forest and rich Northern Hardwood Forest habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests. Globally the species is apparently secure (G5T3T5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are twelve known forest populations. Small yellow lady’s slipper is possibly known from within the Regeneration Harvest Unit 58. Further surveys prior to implementation of the action while the plant is flowering are needed to confirm whether C. parviflorum var. parviflorum or C. parviflorum var. pubescens species occurs in the treatment area (Flowers are required for positive identification). For the purpose of this analysis C. parviflorum var. parviflorum is assumed to be present. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Silvicultural Treatment: The proposed silvicultural treatments where small yellow lady’s- slipper is found is Regeneration Harvest (Unit 58). Without protection, individual small yellow lady’s- slipper plants would be directly impacted by timber harvest operations and may be indirectly impacted by a change in the amount of light and moisture in the stand following timber harvest activities. In order to mitigate these potential direct and indirect effects, a 50 foot no-activity buffer will be placed around populations of small yellow lady’s-slipper. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of small yellow lady’s-slipper, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would include small yellow lady’s-slipper populations. If they arise, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for small yellow lady’s-slipper. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of small yellow lady’s-slipper will be buffered by a 50- foot no activity buffer.

BLEEDING HEART (Dicentra eximia)

Bleeding heart is a long-lived, deciduous, perennial herb with clusters of drooping pinkish to red, heart shaped flowers with only finely cut basal leaves (NatureServe, 2018). The natural range of bleeding heart extends along the Appalachians from North Carolina and Tennessee to Maryland and Pennsylvania, though it is often found as a cultivated perennial plant in gardens. It is typically found in rocky mountain woods, in crevices of rocks at bases of cliffs. Over-collection and poaching is considered a threat to bleeding heart (Nickert, 2016). Globally, bleeding heart is secure (G4) and is a considered imperiled (S2) in North Carolina (NatureServe, 2018). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are sixteen forest populations, one of which is in the Twelve Mile Project Area with subpopulations in Hurricane Gap Branch Natural Area and Hurricane Creek Forest Natural Area. These occurrences overlap with Small Patch Old Growth Units 15 & 16.

117 Environmental Assessment

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct effects to this species indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Natural disturbances such as fallen trees and fire would be allowed and would likely benefit this species over time through habitat maintenance. Small Patch Old-Growth Designation: Bleeding heart occurs in Small Patch Old Growth Designation Units 15 & 16. Through designation, this area will be continue to be subject to natural disturbances such as fire, individual trees falling or rock/landslides, but will not be subject to large-scale silvicultural operations with ground disturbance. This proposed action should have a beneficial effect on bleeding heart over time since there would be no mechanical disturbance. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of bleeding heart, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of bleeding heart. If discovered, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments Inclusion of populations in Small Patch Old Growth areas are likely to produce a beneficial impact over time to bleeding heart. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for bleeding heart. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of bleeding heart will be enhanced by Small Patch Old Growth Designation.

BRANCHING DRABA (Draba ramosissima)

Branching draba is a small, perennial mustard plant 10-40 cm tall with white flowers in April/May (NatureServe, 2018). It is typically found in crevices of rock outcrops, or in dry talus slopes, over a variety of rock types (including limestone, dolostone, schist, gneiss, shale) (Weakley, 2015) or in forested woodlands (Nickert, 2016). Globally this species is secure (G4) and is a considered imperiled (S2) in North Carolina (NatureServe, 2018). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are four forest populations, one of which is in the Twelve Mile Project Area in the Slickrock Branch Cove Natural Area. This population occurs near the Pigeon River approximately 500 feet southeast of Stand Improvement Unit 65. It is also near Small Patch Old Growth Unit 6, though accuracy of element occurrence is low and may not occur within the boundaries of this unit. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action) There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Natural disturbances such as fallen trees and fire would be allowed and would likely benefit this species over time. Alternative B: Small Patch Old-Growth Designation: Branching draba may occur in Small Patch Old Growth Designation Unit 6, though the location accuracy is low and the plant was not located during surveys. Through designation, this area will be continue to be subject to natural disturbances such as fire, individual trees falling or rock/landslides, but will not be subject to large-scale silvicultural operations with ground disturbance. This proposed action should have a beneficial effect on branching draba over time through protection from forest management activities. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations

118 Environmental Assessment

of branching draba, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of branching draba. If discovered, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Inclusion of populations in Small Patch Old Growth areas are likely to produce a beneficial impact over time to branching draba. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for branching draba. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of branching draba will be protected by Small Patch Old Growth Designation.

STARFLOWER (Trientalis borealis)

Starflower is a small plant with a terminal whorl of leaves and its one to several white flowers with seven petals on a terminal slender pedicel (Weakley, 2015). The plant is common in the northern portion of its range at times dominating the forest floor in paper birch, balsam fir, and white spruce forests. The plant reaches its southern range in North Carolina and Georgia. The plant occurs in Rich Cove Forest and Northern Hardwood Forest habitat on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests. Globally the species is secure (G5) and in North Carolina the plant is listed as critically imperiled (S1). Across the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest, there are 2 known forest populations. Starflower is known from within the Twelve Mile Project Area. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A (No Action): There would be no direct or indirect effects to this species since there would be no disturbance that would affect the plant or its habitat. Alternative B: Small Patch Old-Growth Designation: Starflower occurs in Small Patch Old Growth Designation Unit 13. Through designation, this area will be continue to be subject to natural disturbances such as fire, individual trees falling or rock/landslides, but will not be subject to large-scale silvicultural operations with ground disturbance. This proposed action should have a beneficial effect on starflower over time due to maintaining a mostly closed canopy and preferred microhabitat conditions. Cumulative Effects: Since Alternative A would produce no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative B: Impacts to this species caused by past forest management projects during the 20th century are unknown. There are no known ongoing actions that would impact populations of starflower, nor are there any reasonably foreseeable future actions that would impact populations of starflower. If discovered, botanical AAs would be identified, surveys conducted, and effects determinations and, if needed, design criteria developed to minimize or eliminate impacts, prior to finalizing silvicultural and other treatments. Inclusion of populations in Small Patch Old Growth areas are likely to produce a beneficial impact over time to starflower. Determination of Effect: Alternative A: This alternative would result in a “No Impact” determination for starflower. Alternative B would result in a “No Impact” determination because known populations of will be protected by Small Patch Old Growth Designation.

119 Environmental Assessment

Table 33. Impact determination of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern botanical species. Species Alternative A Alternative B Adlumia fungosa No Impact No Impact (climbing fumitory) (with 50’ buffer in place) Crocanthemum propinquum No Impact Beneficial impact (creeping sunrose) Cypripedium parviflorum var. No Impact No Impact parviflorum (with 50’ buffer in place) (small yellow lady’s-slipper) Dicentra eximia No Impact Beneficial impact (bleeding heart) Draba ramosissima No Impact Beneficial impact (branching draba) Trientalis borealis No Impact Beneficial impact (starflower)

Effects of Non-Native Invasive Plant Species within the Botanical Analysis Area

It is expected that there will be a temporary increase of ruderal (weedy) species of plants within the activity areas. These species are often prevalent during the initial stages of succession and decrease with age. This is particularly true near constructed roads and log landings. A high percentage of these ruderal species are non-native. Many of these species, both native and non-native, have benefits for wildlife and erosion control. However, as succession progresses, most ruderal species tend to become much less prevalent and generally do not persist in the area. Most ruderal plant species are expected to decrease to non-significant population levels within ten years after the initial disturbance.

Non-native invasive plant species (NNIP) are not only persistent in ecosystem but may invade natural ecosystems. Out of the 124 species of non-native plants known to occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, 17 are currently recognized as having aggressive invasive qualities that can dominate local communities and are considered high and medium priority for treatment across the Pisgah National Forest (USDA, 2009). Those that occur in the Twelve Mile Project are listed in Table 31 in the existing condition section and the relative risk of spread of the NNIP is predicted in Table 34.

120 Environmental Assessment

Table 34. Relative risk of spread of NNIP to adjacent areas based on proposed action type (USDA, 2009).

Level of Risk Treatment Areas Amount in Proposed Action of Spread Wildlife Openings 136 acres Highest Roads 10 miles Highest Silvicultural 2,830 acres High Treatment Units Rich Cove Forest 1,288 acres High Prescribed Burns 1342 acres Lower Thought it is very difficult to predict actual spread, we can generalize what will happen and suggest ways to reduce the risk of spread of NNIP throughout the Twelve Mile Project Area. Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative A: With no silvicultural treatments, temporary road construction, road daylighting, and wildlife opening treatment activities, the potential habitat for the outbreak and spread of NNIP infestations would be small in comparison with the action alternative. However, NNIP species already present within the proposed activity area would likely increase without further disturbance. With no control, NNIP infestations would continue to spread in existing disturbed areas along Forest Service roads, wildlife openings and linear wildlife openings. Alternative B: Under alternative B, the acreage suitable for the spread of NNIP would increase. The areas at a higher risk for NNIP infestation include proposed silvicultural treatments, roadside thinning, wildlife opening rehabilitation, and proposed temporary road construction. The NNIP found in or adjacent to proposed activity areas would likely increase across the project area along Forest Service roads. It is difficult to estimate the total amount of infestation potential from the proposed action Alternatives B. Areas with the highest potential of infestation include sites with current NNIP infestations that occur adjacent to areas with proposed activity or within units directly (Table 31). In addition, NNIP infestations that occur adjacent to proposed units with high moisture and nutrient content have a higher likelihood of invasion in comparison with drier communities Table 34. Cumulative Effects: Alternative A would create no disturbance, and therefore produce no cumulative effects for NNIP. Alternative B: There is a long land use history in the Twelve Mile Project Area that has contributed to the density and abundance of NNIP. Past actions that have contributed to the spread of NNIP species include the construction of roads and trails, the construction and maintenance of electrical transmission lines, and the management of timber, and the use of private property. Suitable habitat for most NNIP species can be defined as areas with ground disturbing activities such as road construction, recent timber regeneration (0-10 years) areas, and wildlife field construction. Therefore, this proposal would generate at least 2,830 acres of NNIP suitable habitat in addition to existing permanent openings and new temporary road construction. Areas in the Harmon Den Timber Sale may be contributing to additional NNIP spread, though there have been treatments along the roads and within some units for garlic mustard and multiflora rose associated with that project. Additionally, areas within the Cold Spring Bog area were treated in 2018 for several NNIP species including Japanese Spiraea, Multiflora Rose and others.

121 Environmental Assessment

Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas

There are no Research Natural Areas (RNA) or botanical Special Interest Areas (SIA) areas recognized by the current Nantahala-Pisgah Forest Plan within the Twelve Mile Project Area; therefore no RNAs or botanical SIAs will be affected by this proposal.

122 Environmental Assessment

Summary of Effects This proposal will not affect (directly, indirectly, or cumulatively) any proposed or listed Federal Threatened or Endangered plant species. Consultation with the USDI Fish & Wildlife Service is not required. By incorporating mitigation measures to rare plant species found in proposed action areas, this proposal will not have any impact on any Region 8 Sensitive or Forest Concern Plant Species. Below is a summary of botanical effects to plant TES and FC, by alternative, discussed in above text:

Table 35. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and forest concern plant species by alternative Species ALTERNATIVE A (No Action) ALTERNATIVE B Federally Listed Plant Species None in BAA No Effect No Effect Region 8 Sensitive Plant Species Buckleya No Impact May impact individual plants (with 50’ distichophylla buffer in place), but is not likely to cause (Piratebush) a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the population Cleistesiopsis bifaria No Impact No Impact (with 50’ buffer in place) (Small Spreading Pogonia) Juglans cinerea No Impact No Impact (with 50’ buffer in place and (Butternut) direction to not cut any trees found) Silene ovata (Ovate No Impact No Impact (with 100’ buffer in place) Catchfly) Forest Concern Plant Species Adlumia fungosa No Impact No Impact (climbing fumitory) (with 50’ buffer in place) Crocanthemum No Impact Beneficial impact propinquum (creeping sunrose) Cypripedium No Impact No Impact parviflorum var. (with 50’ buffer in place) parviflorum (small yellow lady’s- slipper) Dicentra eximia No Impact Beneficial impact (bleeding heart) Draba ramosissima No Impact Beneficial impact (branching draba) Trientalis borealis No Impact Beneficial impact (starflower) Non-Native Invasive Plant Species Many Found in Risk of spread is low Risk of spread is higher, even with Twelve Mile AA treatments Research Natural Areas/Special Interest Areas None in BAA No Impact No Impact

123 Environmental Assessment

Cultural Resources

Existing Condition

The assessment for cultural resources within the Twelve Mile Project included: ownership; historic land use and past project background studies; examination of cultural and historic references and oral histories; consultation with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI), the Cherokee Nation, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Nation, the Muscogee Creek Nation, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and archeological reconnaissance based on LIDAR analysis and NFsNC site predictive models. Archeological survey was in response to Alternative B actions.

The Twelve Mile Project Area of Potential Effect for ground disturbance was surveyed in its entirety through three separate contracts where adequate surveys did not currently exists. Reporting and consultation with SHPO and consulting Tribes is ongoing. A summary of findings will be provided once consultation is completed. Specific site locations are not displayed in this Environmental Analysis to protect these sensitive resources from vandalism.

Protection and Conservation Mitigations

Exclusion areas for the avoidance and protection of significant cultural resources will be developed as a result of archeological survey and consultation with consulting tribes and the NC SHPO. All eligible and unevaluated sites will be avoided and preserved pending National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nomination procedures. All findings are fully documented within standard NHPA reporting procedures and F.S. Heritage Resource project recommendations will have SHPO and THPO concurrence prior to final decision.

In response to cultural resource research, Tribal Consultation, and extensive field surveys, the proposed undertaking will have no effect on historic properties eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The proposed Prescribed Burn portions of the Twelve Mile Project are currently considered an Exempt Undertaking for Heritage Resources as described in the Programmatic Agreement with the N.C. State Historic Preservation Office. Ongoing consultations with the EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office (EBCI THPO) have resulted with additional reconnaissance for rock shelters within prescribed burn units which was completed by contract including the portion on Great Smoky Mountains National Park Lands. Any identified rock shelters will be protected from the effect of prescribed burning by:

1. Photographing shelters identified by Archeologists as sensitive before any preparation work is completed. 2. Physically removing dead fuels from the area immediately in front of shelters and scattering those fuels. 3. Blowing leaves and fine fuels from the shelters and entrances to the shelters. 4. Ensuring burn prescriptions are within parameters where duff layer is not consumed. 5. Utilizing firing patterns which minimize intensity around rock shelters. 6. Documentation of post-burn of results.

124 Environmental Assessment

Additional protective Heritage Resource recommendations include frequent monitoring and increased Law enforcement presence. All road use, rehabilitation, and road closing activities will occur within the existing road beds extending to 12 feet in width unless previously documented and agreed to in the field. Forest Service archeologists will implement a monitoring plan that includes exclusion areas visited up to 4 times during the first year of project implementation and one year after. This monitoring plan will not be available for public review to protect resources from vandalism.

If the implementation of project activities results with the discovery of previously unknown cultural resources, the activity will be immediately curtailed pending archeological documentation and evaluation. This may result with a recommendation to stop, modify, or proceed with the activity using appropriate mitigation measures.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

Archeological sites currently impacted by road/trail use and erosion would continue to deteriorate. Adverse use impacts to traditional culturally significant areas along roads and trails would continue to occur.

Alternative B

Through adherence to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 regulations, as structured by National Environmental Policy Act analysis and documentation, it is determined that there will be no effects to historic properties listed, eligible, or as yet evaluated to the NRHP. Via consultation with Tribal partners in coordination with the NHPA, there will be no effects to Traditional tribal areas of importance as identified by consulting tribes. Additional mitigation measures may be implemented to ensure protection of archeological sites during and after proposed treatments.

With all recommendations being followed, the proposed treatments described in the Twelve Mile Project will have no effect on NRHP listed, eligible or unevaluated cultural resources or historic properties (NHPA) within any of the proposed alternatives.

125 Environmental Assessment

Recreation

Existing Condition

There are four system trails in the Twelve Mile Project Area: TR #301 - Cherry Ridge Trail (.4 mile), TR #303 - Robert Gap Trail (2.5 miles), TR #302 - Cold Springs Creek Trail (3.6 miles), and TR #284 - Horse Camp Loop (.6 mile). Also, the following closed Forest Service System Roads allow horse use in cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission: FSR #453 (1 mile), FSR #3572 (1.1 mile), FSR #3570 (3.7 miles), FSR #3571 (3.6 miles), FSR #3573 (.8 mile), FSR #3526 (3.1 miles), and FSR #3529 (.2 mile). Open Forest Service Roads in this area are frequently used for pleasure driving, hunting access, fishing access, gravel biking, running, hiking, and horseback riding. The major Open Forest Service Roads in the area are: FSR #288 – Twelve Mile Road, FSR #287 – Long Arm Road, FSR #289 – Old Buzzard Roost Road, FSR #148 - Cold Springs Road, FSR #233 - Haynes Road, FSR #286 - Redman Road, and FSR #3567 Hadecek Road. Cold Springs Road is used to access Harmon Den Trail Head and also access to the Appalachian Trail at Brown Gap via FSR# 148A (not in project area). Cold Springs Road is a popular access route to Max Patch and the Appalachian Trail access at that location. Cold Springs Road is also the access for the Harmon Den Day Use Area and Harmon Den Horse Camp. There are three designated dispersed campsites on Cold Springs Road. In addition to the aforementioned recreational uses, Haynes Road, Hadecek Road, and Old Buzzard Roost Road are all experiencing a dramatic increase of high clearance off highway vehicle traffic which is resulting in illegal activity as users create illegal routes and significant resource damage. Many closed roads in the project are also being used occasionally for hiking, gravel riding, horseback riding, running, and hunting access. In much of the project area, closed roads are frequently being used illegally by motorized vehicles, mostly motorcycles. Additionally, there is frequent and increasing creation and use of illegal off road motorcycle trail systems in the project area west of Interstate 40. Developed sites within the Twelve Mile Project Area include Harmon Den Trail Head, Cold Springs Day Use Area, and Harmon Den Horse Camp. In addition to the trails, roads, and developed sites, many National Forest users enjoy activities that are not site-specific. Hunting, fishing, backcountry camping (more than 1,000 feet from roads) birdwatching, nature study, and pleasure driving to view the forest scenery are recreational opportunities that are known to occur within the Twelve Mile Project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

No direct impacts to recreational improvements or trails would occur under this alternative. Resource damage resulting from recreational use of trails and roads would continue to occur at a rate proportional to use rates. Recreation infrastructure including trail tread, bridges, puncheons, fords, waterbars, and other drainage features, signs, fences, and other improvements related to the trail system would not be affected. These improvements would be subject to normal wear and tear over time. Unexpected events such as wildfire, severe thunderstorms, accidents, and vandalism may cause damage or change these improvements. There would be no change in recreational use, experience, or access to trails or roads.

126 Environmental Assessment

Alternative B – Action Alternative

The proposed activities in the Action Alternative will have direct and indirect effects to recreation in the project area and will be discussed below in terms of scenery, access, infrastructure, and recreational use.

Scenery

Alternative B would have a direct effect on the scenery from commercial harvesting activities such as cutting, skidding, and decking logs; piling non-commercial woody material and logging-generated slash; and operating heavy machinery around the vicinity of trails. Similar effects would be associated with non- commercial forest management activities such as slash and operation of heavy equipment. Each of the proposed forest management treatments, including prescribed fire, would change the physical structure of the forest and therefore have an effect on the scenic recreational setting. In the short-term for commercial harvests, there will be evidence of treatment operations including painted trees, unit boundary tags, slash, skid trails, landings, piles, and tracks. These short-term effects will likely affect whether the trails and surrounding areas are as attractive to some users as they had been in the past. Implementation of the action alternative would create a more open landscape with increased visibility and line of sight. Evidence of harvest operations and treatments including stumps would be noticeable for a number of years until vegetation begins to grow back in. Until young trees grow taller, some forest visitors may not find the openness of the area and effects from management activities to be attractive. The long term effects will depend on proposed treatments. Regeneration harvests will create openings with leave trees that will soon change to a young forest with remnants that will follow normal stand dynamic and growth patterns over time. Uneven Aged Management units will create small openings and will have numerous entries that will continue to make small openings resulting in a forest with multiple age classes and structural components. Thinnings will create a more open forest that will likely trend back toward the existing visual condition. Woodlands and prescribed fire will create and likely maintain more open forest conditions with less midstory and understory components and an increase in herbaceous components which some users may find more visually attractive than dense forests. Wildlife fields will permanently change from forests to fields. All actions will adhere to Forest Plan (USDA, 1994) Visual Quality Objectives (VQO) which is discussed in further detail in the Scenery section of this analysis.

Access

Proposed changes to the transportation system will have direct impacts to recreation resources. 20.46 miles of road are proposed to be closed for resource protection and reduction of maintenance costs. These proposed road closures will not affect access to any trails, trail heads, developed recreation infrastructure, or designated dispersed sites. Technically these proposed road closures reduce open road related recreation opportunities such as pleasure driving and access to forest areas for hunting, bird watching, etc. However, in reality, most of these closures are small and the majority of these miles are already being managed as closed roads. The proposed action will make the roads database reflect the current management. Therefore the effects to access and open road based recreation activities are expected to be minimal. The Action Alternative proposes seasonal closures on 12.5 miles of road from December 31st through April 5th to protect the roads from excessive damage during freeze/thaw cycles in the winter season and reduce maintenance costs. This will reduce opportunities for road related recreation opportunities during these months. These seasonal closures were designed not to affect major hunting and fishing seasons. The effect on recreation will be minimal with the most notable effects being on Haynes Road which is frequently used for high clearance off highway vehicles (OHV) recreation, Long Arm Road which

127 Environmental Assessment

connects to the Cataloochee Road and Great Smoky Mountains National Park and gets frequent through traffic by high clearance off highway vehicles, and Sutton Tower Road which has a fairly high use of pleasure driving. Proposed seasonal closures will not affect access to trails, trail heads, developed recreation infrastructure, or designated dispersed sights. This proposed action includes adding 0.63 miles of open road to the system which adds a negligible amount of road based recreation opportunity. The Action Alternative proposes construction or reconstruction of 10 miles of roads for forest management access. These roads are proposed to be closed after use. These roads are not being added as trails and therefore cannot be maintained as such. Approximately 0.5 miles of trail are proposed to be added to the system. This proposed trail is an existing template that will give horseback riders and hikers trail between the Harmon Den Trail Head and the Cold Springs Day Use Area and eliminate the need to use Colds Springs Road between these areas. This adds a small amount of trail based recreation. Trails and roads adjacent to or within commercial harvest units may be closed for safety concerns when active. This will cause a temporary reduction in available trail miles. Trails will be returned to normal after harvest activities.

Recreation Infrastructure

Recreation infrastructure including trail tread, bridges, puncheons, fords, waterbars, and other drainage features, signs, fences, and other improvements related to the trail system would be protected to the extent possible or repaired as described in the resource protection measures. The developed recreation sites at Harmon Den Day Use Area and Harmon Den Horse Camp may be affected by proposed commercial harvest operations within close proximity. These sites will experience minor interruptions and noise associated with the harvesting and hauling of timber. The Horse Camp will be temporarily closed during the harvest of the closest units due to noise concerns and public safety. Hauling of timber through the Horse Camp will be restricted on weekends and holidays.

Recreation Use and Experience

In general, changes in recreation use levels related to the proposed actions would be short-term and localized and there would be no deviation from the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum criteria for any of the sites. Evidence of harvest operations would be noticeable for a number of years until natural vegetation begins to grow back in. Additional direct impacts would be the alteration of the trail conditions in the Harmon Den Area that will be affected by commercial harvesting equipment. Horse trails are likely to be used for access routes in the timber sale design for forwarding logs to landing sites. However, contract specifications will ensure trails will be returned to standard conditions after harvest operations are completed. The largest effect on recreation use would be during active harvesting operations that affect access and/or the quality of the recreation experience (e.g., dust and noise from logging operations). These noise issues would occur at different times depending on when the activities take place. The degree to which user preferences may lead to user displacement based on the short-term effects to the recreational setting is highly variable. In the short-term the visibility of management activities may cause some recreationists to choose to recreate in locations they sense to be less managed or “untouched.” In order to help visitors plan their visit around proposed operations, information on treatment locations and timing may be posted on forest websites. In the mid to long-term, the proposed treatments would lead to a healthy forest condition that would benefit all recreation uses in the area.

128 Environmental Assessment

The watershed improvement projects (i.e. the restoration of declining riparian habitat, the large woody debris enhancement project, and the creation of an aquatic organism passage project) and seasonal closures will improve the experience of fishermen in the area over time. The Action Alternative will lead to healthier fish populations in Hurricane Creek, Cold Springs Creek, and other smaller tributaries, which will enrich the fishing and other water related recreational experiences. The major purpose of this project is to restore ecosystems and provide a diversity of needed wildlife habitat. Inherently, this should affect the amount and quality of wildlife in the area leading to an increase in viewing and hunting opportunities.

The proposed Kiosk installation on FSR 288 will provide road information, recreation opportunities and restrictions, and other interpretive information for forest users which would improve the recreational experience.

Forest Plan Consistency

The standards and guidelines are being met through project design criteria.

Cumulative Effects

A number of projects affecting trails have, are, or will occur in the areas within or surrounding the Twelve Mile Project Area; however, the effects of most of these projects do not overlap in time and space with the proposed project. Past timber harvests, road construction, prescribed burns, and other landscape modifications may be visible from various recreation trails. Implementation of the treatments with the mitigation measures listed below would minimize the cumulative impacts on visual quality, noise impacts, and other impacts from these treatments and none of the effects would be significant.

129 Environmental Assessment

Air Quality

Scope of Analysis

Air pollution is the presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants of a nature, concentration, and duration to be hazardous to human health or welfare. Air quality is a measure of the presence of air pollution. Ambient air quality is defined by the Clean Air Act as the air quality anywhere people have access, outside of industrial site boundaries. National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are standards of air quality designed to protect human health or welfare and are applied to six criteria pollutants. Although the proposed project includes several different activities, not all proposed activities result in air emissions. Thus, this air analysis will only focus on the one proposed activity, prescribed burning, that results in an increase in air emissions.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Emissions from wildland fire include carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide is the most abundant pollutant emitted from wildland fire. It is of concern to human health, because it binds to hemoglobin in place of oxygen and leads to oxygen deprivation and all of the associated symptoms, from diminished work capacity to nausea, headaches, and loss of mental acuity. Carbon monoxide concentrations can be quite high adjacent to the burn unit, but they decrease rapidly away from the burn unit toward cleaner air. Carbon monoxide exposure can be significant for those working the line on a prescribed fire, but due to rapid dilution, carbon monoxide is not a concern to urban and rural areas even a short distance downwind. Nitrogen oxide emissions from wildland fires are very small, and hydrocarbon emissions are moderate. Alone they are not very important to human health, but they are precursors to the criteria pollutant, ozone. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere when nitrogen oxides (NOx) and hydrocarbons combine in the presence of sunlight. Fire-related NOx and hydrocarbon emissions become more important to ozone levels only when other persistent and much larger pollution sources already present a substantial base load of precursors. The most important pollutant from wildland fire emissions is fine particulate matter (PM2.5) due to the amount emitted and the effects on human health and visibility (Hardy, Ottmar, Peterson, Core, & Seaman, 2001). The term fine particulate refers to particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter. Under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes air quality standards to protect public health, including the health of "sensitive" populations such as people with asthma, children, and older adults. EPA also sets limits to protect public welfare. This includes protecting ecosystems, including plants and animals, from harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, vegetation, and buildings. EPA has set national air quality standards for six common air pollutants (also called the criteria pollutants):

• ozone (O3), • particulate matter (PM), • carbon monoxide (CO), • nitrogen dioxide (NO2), • sulfur dioxide (SO2), and • lead (Pb)

130 Environmental Assessment

If the air quality in a geographic area meets or is cleaner than the national standard, it is called an attainment area; areas that don't meet the national standard are called nonattainment areas. If an area is designated as nonattainment, it signifies that the air in the area is unhealthy to breathe. The criteria pollutants of most concern on the Pisgah National Forest are particulate matter and ozone. Fine particulate matter is the leading cause of regional haze (also known as visibility impairment), while ozone can harm sensitive vegetation within the forest. Additionally, at elevated concentrations these two pollutants can impair the health of both employees of and visitors to the National Forest. Air regulators monitor air quality at several locations near the proposed project. Specifically, ozone monitoring is conducted in Haywood County at three locations (Purchase Knob, Frying Pan Mountain, and Waynesville Elementary School). Fine particulate matter monitoring is conducted in nearby Buncombe County to the east and on the Cherokee Indian Reservation to the west. None of these monitors have measured values greater than the air quality standards (NAAQS) set by EPA. The project area is located in Haywood County, North Carolina which is listed as Attainment for all pollutants. While air quality monitoring describes ambient pollution levels, emissions inventories provide information on the contribution of various pollution sources to total emissions for specific geographic areas. Regarding ozone, emissions from prescribed fires are unlikely to be a significant contributor to ambient concentrations. In much of the rural South, ozone formation tends to be NOx-limited and prescribed fires are usually not a major NOx source when compared to others, such as vehicles. Also, the amount of NOx and VOC coming from forestry activities is small compared to other sources. And most importantly, weather and climate conditions in this area tend to preclude prescribed burning from becoming a significant contributor to ozone formation. Most ozone events occur in mid-spring through late summer when hot temperatures and high-pressure air masses may stagnate over an area, and pollution is not dispersed. Prescribed burning is not typically conducted under these types of weather conditions because of the smoke dispersion issues. Conversely, prescribed fire activities emit fine participate matter directly, contributing to ambient levels of the pollutant. Within the county where burning is proposed, prescribed fire emissions currently account for only 5.1% percent of all fine particulate emissions (53 tons/year from prescribed fires compared to 1,030 tons/year total emissions of PM2.5). In the state of North Carolina, prescribed fire emissions account for approximately 13% of all fine particulate matter emissions (10,872 tons/year from prescribed fires compared to 79,906 tons/year total emissions of PM2.5). Other sources of fine particulate emissions include fuel combustion and operations at industrial facilities, waste disposal and recycling operations, construction, and agricultural activities. The source for the above data is EPA’s National Emissions Inventory for 2014, available online at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2014-national-emissions-inventory-nei-data. Calculations of emissions from the proposed project were also conducted to assess the increase in emissions loading in the project area and throughout the state. The emissions were calculated using a range of consumption values (in tons per acre) for the total project based on best available information and professional judgment. Consumption is assumed to be between four and six tons per acre, with an average emission factor of 12 pounds of fine particulate matter per ton of fuel consumed. Calculations of emissions from the proposed project show that the resulting emissions increase as a result of this project range from 33 tons to 49 tons total. Given that the project will be divided into four small units and one larger units, annual emissions will likely be less. Even if the entire project is burned in one year, the resulting increase in emissions is between 3.2% – 4.7% in the county where the project is proposed, and less than 0.1% increase in state-wide emissions. All prescribed burning activities on the Pisgah National Forest, including those proposed in this action, are conducted in accordance with the Region 8 Smoke Management Guidelines in order to alleviate the smoke related impacts outlined above. Smoke management planning in accordance with the Region 8

131 Environmental Assessment

Smoke Management Guidelines has been successful in protecting health and safety during past activities. The Guidelines require that smoke dispersion modeling be conducted for most burn units to ensure that the smoke management objectives are met; if modeling shows potential impacts, adjustments or mitigations will be necessary in order to go forward with the burn. Each burn unit will be planned in accordance with the Guidelines such that specific parameters are met, including wind speeds and directions. While a few larger units have the potential to transport smoke beyond the National Forest, potential impacts will be mitigated by burning with a wind direction away from the Forest boundary. Additionally, the Region 8 Smoke Management Guidelines provide objectives for ensuring protection of visibility in Class I Areas, such as the nearby Shining Rock Wilderness and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Based on existing air quality information, no long-term adverse impacts to air quality standards are expected from the proposed project. The proposed project is designed to ensure that the Regional Smoke Management Guidelines are followed, and as such does not threaten to lead to a violation of any Federal, State or Local law or regulation related to air quality.

132 Environmental Assessment

Scenery

Scope of Analysis

The following analysis describes the visual impact of alterations to the landscape proposed by the Twelve Mile Project. More importantly, it lists and describes the methods which will be used to minimize the visual impacts of those alterations.

Existing Condition

The Twelve Mile Project covers approximately 23,000 acres on the Appalachian Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest. The Great Smoky Mountains National Park bounds the Project area on the west, and the community of Fines Creek lies just to the southeast. Interstate 40 passes through the middle Project area, and the Appalachian National Scenic Trail spans the ridgeline to the north. A largely continuous forested landscape covers most of the Twelve Mile Project, although the area is broken up by an extensive Forest Service road network. Mature deciduous forests dominate the landscape, although younger forests comprised of densely spaced, smaller trees are common as well. Past timber harvests are evident throughout the Project area, although they retain a similar appearance to adjacent older forests. Skid roads and log landings are also evident and common on the landscape. To a lesser extent, wildlife openings (fields), utility corridors, a communication tower, and private inholdings are part of the characteristic landscape. Beyond the boundaries of the Project area, non-forested areas are more common. Many views of the Twelve Mile Project include agricultural lands, residential property, road infrastructure, and industrial development. Developed recreation sites on the Twelve Mile Project include the Harmon Den Horse Camp and the Cold Springs Picnic Area. Use of the area includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, and horseback riding. The Appalachian Trail to the north and the Smoky Mountains to the west are heavily visited recreation areas.

Forest Plan Direction

The Twelve Mile Project includes portions of six different Management Areas that are defined in the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (referred to hereafter as the “Forest Plan”). Each of these Management Areas has different “Visual Quality Objectives” (VQOs) for scenery resources. These VQOs are defined in the Forest Plan and constrain the visual impact of management activities. These are briefly described below:

• The “Retention” VQO only allows for management activities which are not visually evident to average viewers after one growing season. • The “Partial Retention” VQO requires that management activities are visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape after two growing seasons. • The “Modification” VQO allows management activities that might dominate the characteristic landscape, as long as the activities borrow from elements of form, line, color, and texture such that the visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences. The Modification VQO must be met in three growing seasons.

The VQO that a management activity must meet depends on the sensitivity and distance of the viewpoint. Potential viewpoints are defined in the Forest Plan and include open roads, trails, closed roads used as

133 Environmental Assessment

trails, recreation areas, and waterways. All potential viewpoints in and around the Forest have been previously assigned a “Visual Sensitivity Level” between 1 (most sensitive) and 3 (least sensitive) according to Forest Plan direction. Additionally, the Forest Plan defines three “Distance Zones:” the foreground (less than 0.5 miles); middleground (between 0.5 and 5 miles); and background (greater than 5 miles). Table 36 below is a matrix that defines the VQO for each Distance Zone and Visual Sensitivity Level combination. Note that VQOs depend on the Management Area. Management Areas 1B, 3B, and 4D have less restrictive VQOs, and Management Areas 2A, 4A, and 4C have more restrictive VQOs. Table 36. Visual Quality Objectives for each Management Area, Distance Zone, and Visual Sensitivity Level Combination Foreground (<0.5 miles) Middleground (0.5-5 miles) Background (>5 miles) Management Area VSL1 VSL2 VSL3 VSL1 VSL2 VSL3 VSL1 VSL2 VSL3 1B* M M M M M M M M M 2A R PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 3B* M M M M M M M M M 4A R PR PR PR PR PR PR PR PR 4C R R PR R R PR R R PR 4D PR M M PR M M M M M VSL: Visual Sensitivity Level R: Retention VQO; PR: Partial Retention VQO; M: Modification VQO *Areas visible from the Appalachian Trail must meet the Partial Retention VQO in Management Areas 1B and 3B

Analysis

GIS analysis and leaf-off field surveys were used to identify viewpoints and determine the potential visual impacts of the proposed actions. All open roads, trails, closed roads used as trails, public use areas, and waterways in and around the project area were considered. Listed below are the viewpoints considered in the analysis along with the assigned Visual Sensitivity Level (VSL).

1. I-40 (VSL-1) 2. Appalachian Trail (VSL-1) 3. Mt. Sterling and approach trails (VSL-1) 4. Mt. Cammerer (VSL-1) 5. Pigeon River and Waterville Lake (VSL-1) 6. Max Patch Rd (VSL-2) 7. Cold Springs Rd and Cold Springs Picnic Area (VSL-2) 8. Harmon Den Horse Camp (VSL-1) and Trails (VSL-2) 9. Mt. Sterling Rd/Old Cataloochee Turnpike (VSL-2) 10. Brown Gap Rd (VSL-2) 11. Other Forest Service roads and trails in the Project Area (VSL-3)

Other viewpoints around the Project Area were considered, but determined to either not have a view of any proposed action or to be too far away for a proposed action to have a visual impact.

134 Environmental Assessment

Each proposed action was assessed from the appropriate viewpoints to determine whether or not it would meet the VQO required by the Forest Plan. Many factors beyond the project activity itself determine whether or not the activity will meet the required VQO. Some factors affecting the visual impact include:

• The characteristic landscape surrounding the proposed action; • Whether the view is while moving or stationary, and if moving, how fast; • The activity of potential viewers; • The amount of vegetative and topographic screening between the viewer and the proposed action; • The angle and distance of the view; • The slope and aspect of the ground under the proposed action relative to the viewer; and, • The size and shape of the proposed action.

All of these factors were considered when evaluating whether a proposed action would meet the required VQO. Any proposed action with potential visual impacts that would not meet the required VQO will have scenery design features incorporated to mitigate visual impacts and ensure that the VQO is met.

Note that the Forest Plan already prescribes techniques for each Management Area to soften visual impacts of management activities. These Techniques include, for example, creating irregularly shaped openings and compacting logging slash close to the ground. The scenery design features designated here are in addition to the Techniques already outlined in the Forest Plan.

Effects by Alternative

Alternative A (No Action) - Direct & Indirect Effects

The No Action alternative would have no impact on scenery.

Alternative B (Action Alternative) - Direct & Indirect Effects

Improve Stream Crossings: Replacing culverts with fords, bottomless arches, or oversized buried bottom pipes will have no visual impact once the work is complete.

Stream Enhancement: Stabilizing erosion and restoring a natural stream channel will improve scenic quality by removing ragged stream banks and allowing exposed soil to revegetate.

Install Kiosk: Kiosk installation on FSR 288 fits within the character of the area and will have minimal impact on scenery.

Add trail to NFS System: Adding an existing trail to the NFS system will have no visual impact.

Road Daylighting: Daylighting roads will have minimal impact on scenery, and will not be noticed by most viewers. Logging debris might be visible in the foreground, but will be treated according to Forest Plan Standards, and will decay over time. Understory vegetation will also regrow and help obscure logging debris. In near middleground views, daylighting will mostly create a slight break and shadow line in the canopy, but this will not be noticed by most viewers, if at all. Road daylighting activities will be analyzed during implementation to ensure that extensive vegetation removal is not visible sensitive viewpoints.

Change of Road Management Objective: None of the proposed changes to road management objectives will impact scenery resources.

135 Environmental Assessment

Small Patch Old Growth Designation: Managing forests for old growth attributes will have minimal visual impact.

Prescribed Burning: Burned areas may appear black for a few months, but vegetation growth after one growing season will make the burns unnoticeable by most viewers. Firelines installed with hand tools will also not be noticeable by most viewers after one growing season.

Stand Improvement: Treatment of young stands by mechanical or chemical methods has minimal impacts on scenery. There will be some dead and brown vegetation initially, and there is also the potential for a small reduction in canopy density that could result in a change in canopy texture. Dead vegetation will rapidly decay and vegetation growth within the first growing season will make these treatments undetectable to most viewers.

Two-Aged Regeneration Harvest: These treatments remove a large proportion of the canopy trees in a forest stand, leaving some residual canopy trees to provide shade as well as smaller trees in the understory. Harvested areas can appear very different from the adjacent uncut forests immediately after cutting, depending on many factors. Proposed locations include areas that must meet the Modification, Partial Retention, and Retention VQOs. In the foreground Distance Zone, viewers might notice reduced tree density, increased light, logging slash, and stumps. Color and textural contrasts with the adjacent forest, along with shadow lines created by neighboring, taller trees have the potential to make two-aged regeneration harvests visible in middleground views immediately after cutting. Viewers might notice the open canopy and exposed ground. However, expansion of the crowns of residual trees and the growth of understory vegetation can make these areas virtually indistinguishable from adjacent forests in as little as two growing seasons. Skid roads, log landings, and cable yarder sets might also be noticeable in foreground views. This logging infrastructure can also be highly visible in middleground views; this is mostly due to exposing non- vegetated soil and creating contrasts in slope angle (perfectly or nearly horizontal grades stand out to viewers). Vegetation growth and leaf cover over the next two growing seasons will reduce these visual impacts, but they might remain noticeable during leaf-off season. Scenery design features can mitigate visual impacts from two-aged regeneration harvests where needed to meet VQOs. Table 37 lists the design features developed for the Twelve Mile Project along with descriptions of how they mitigate visual impacts. In general, the design features work by:

1) reducing color and textural changes with adjacent forests by retaining a higher residual tree density; 2) softening shadow lines and contrasts with uncut forests by slowly transitioning from higher to lower residual tree density along harvest area boundaries; 3) avoiding changes in canopy silhouettes along ridgelines; 4) minimizing the construction and reconstruction of roads, skid roads, log landings, and cable yarder sets; and 5) retaining trees and vegetation to screen roads, skid roads, log landings, and cable yarder sets.

Typical two-aged regeneration harvests can meet the Modification VQO with few, if any, additional scenery design features. Carefully planned and implemented design features can also allow these harvests to meet the Partial Retention and Retention VQOs. Scenery design features were assigned as needed to each of the proposed actions based on the results of the visual analysis; they are listed in Table 38.

Thinning and Woodland Management: Both these treatments result in a more moderate reduction in canopy cover than two-aged regeneration harvests. Unlike two-aged regeneration harvests, these areas will not be visible to most viewers in the middleground Distance Zone due to the higher residual tree

136 Environmental Assessment

density, less exposed ground, and absence of hard shadow lines. Thinning and woodland management can even improve scenic quality in the foreground by increasing site distance into the forest and creating a park-like structure. Long term maintenance of woodlands through prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, and herbicide application will have similar minimal impacts as previously discussed in the prescribed burning and stand improvement sections. From a vegetation change perspective, thinning and woodland management can meet the Retention VQO at all distance zones. Similar to two-aged regeneration harvests, however, logging slash, skid roads, log landings, and cable yarder sets can impact foreground and middleground views. Design features to address these visual concerns are the same as for two-aged regeneration harvests (Table 37), and were assigned as necessary to meet VQOs (Table 38). Note that the residual trees provide a high degree of screening already.

Permanent Wildlife Fields: Proposed actions on the Twelve Mile Project include both expanding existing wildlife fields and creating new openings. Some of the proposed permanent wildlife fields will be visible from some viewpoints in both the foreground and middleground Distance Zones. These fields will be noticeable due to hard shadow lines along edges and differences in vegetation height, form, line, color, and texture. Depending on the characteristic landscape in the area, new fields might not meet the Retention or Partial Retention VQOs. However, many of the viewpoints already include fields as part of the characteristic landscape, and many of the proposed permanent wildlife fields are not visible from any sensitive viewpoint. Table 37 shows the potential design features that could be used to ensure that the permanent wildlife fields meet the required VQOs. Similar to two-aged regeneration harvests, these design features mitigate visual impacts by softening hard edges, providing vegetative screening, and avoiding changes in ridgetop canopy silhouettes. Table 38 lists the design features for each proposed permanent wildlife field. Maintenance of Existing Wildlife Opening Along Roads: Maintaining existing wildlife openings along roads by seeding, mowing, and road daylighting will have minimal impact on scenery, and will not be noticed by most viewers. Uneven-aged Harvest: Group selection, variable retention, and irregular shelterwood harvesting methods have low to moderate visual impacts on scenery in the foreground and middleground distance zones. The impact is largely contingent on the size of the openings created, and the distance and angle of the viewpoint. Smaller openings can be virtually undetectable even in the near foreground, and even the largest typical openings (1.5 acres) can be hard to distinguish unless they are viewed head on. Most commonly, the harvests create soft shadow lines and slight changes in canopy texture that are unnoticeable to most viewers, especially with the growth of understory vegetation after harvest. A unique visual concern for Uneven-aged harvests is the potential need for an extensive skid road network on steep slopes to access individual openings. Much of the proposed acreage is on moderate slopes and will not require skid road construction. However, it will be necessary to avoid locating groups in some locations to meet VQOs. Additional potential design features for Uneven-aged Harvest (Table 37) are similar to the other proposed actions: visual impacts are mitigated by leaving uncut vegetation and by avoiding changes in ridgetop canopy silhouettes. Table 38 lists the design features for each proposed Uneven-aged Harvest.

Road Construction – Existing Non-System Corridor: Construction needed to improve existing roads will have moderate visual impacts. All of these roads have been previously graded and used for resource management activities. Furthermore, many of these roads remain mostly free of vegetation along the road bed itself. Construction on these roads will include vegetation removal, widening, regrading, and adding gravel. These activities have the potential to be visible, especially in the far-foreground and near- middleground, due to color and texture changes associated with removing vegetation, exposing soil, and

137 Environmental Assessment

adding gravel. A shadow line might also be visible. However, vegetation growth over the next two growing seasons will minimize visual impacts associated with the proposed road construction.

Four of these road construction proposals must meet the Retention VQO; a combination of vegetative screening, topographic screening, and distance will ensure these roads are not visible. With appropriate design features (Table 37) in place, the other proposals will meet the Partial Retention and Modification VQOs. As with the other proposed actions, leaving uncut trees and vegetation can help screen the proposed road construction. Additionally, minimizing the work to the minimum amount necessary – for example, placing gravel in spots as opposed to the entire road length, or widening only to accommodate the equipment needed for wildlife field maintenance – can help minimize the visual impact. Table 39 lists the design features for the proposed road construction.

Road Construction – New Corridor: The construction work needed on these two roads is similar to that discussed above for the existing non-system corridors, as is the visual analysis. Both roads will meet the Partial Retention VQO with appropriate design features in place (Table 39).

138 Environmental Assessment

Table 37. Visual design features that will be used to meet Visual Quality Objectives on the Twelve Mile Project; listed are the design features, potential applicability, and a description

Visual Design Feature Potential Applicability Description

1) Retain a residual basal • Two-Aged Regeneration Retaining a higher residual tree density helps soften contrasts in color area of 40 sq ft/acre. Harvests and texture with the surrounding forest. The prescribed residual density 2) Retain a residual basal depends on the distance and VQO. Note that this is not necessary for area of 30 sq ft/acre. vegetation treatments that leave a higher residual tree density (e.g., 3) Retain a residual basal thinnings and woodland management). area of 20-30 sq ft/acre.

4) Feather sharp ridgetops, • Two-Aged Regeneration Retaining a higher residual tree density on and below ridgetops prevents leaving a higher residual Harvests breaks in the canopy silhouette, which can have a large visual impact. basal area (≥ 40 Note that this is not necessary for vegetation treatments that leave a sq.ft./acre) along ridges higher residual tree density (e.g., thinnings and woodland management). and within one tree height of the ridge top.

5) Feather upper boundaries • Two-Aged Regeneration Retaining a higher residual tree density near the unit boundary and of the unit (retain a Harvests slowly transitioning to the target leave-tree density can reduce the visual higher residual basal area • Permanent Wildlife Fields impact of a hard shadow-line with the adjacent forest. Note that this is along upper unit not necessary for vegetation treatments that leave a higher residual tree boundary). density (e.g., thinnings and woodland management). 6) Feather edges of the unit (retain a higher residual basal area along the edges of the unit).

7) Retain higher residual • Two-Aged Regeneration Used to help screen foreground views. basal area along roads Harvests and trails.

8) Limit the size of openings • Uneven-Aged Harvest Keeping openings smaller makes them harder to see in both the to 1.5 acres. foreground and middleground. 9) Limit the size of openings to ½ acre.

10) Avoid locating openings • Uneven-Aged Harvest Cutting openings on ridgetops has the potential to create a sharp break in on sharp ridgetops. the canopy silhouette, which can have a large visual impact.

11) Retain a residual basal • Uneven-Aged Harvest Used to help screen foreground views. area of 60 sq ft/ac within 100 ft of system trail. Does not apply to gated roads used as trails.

12) Do not construct new • All Vegetation The excavation and grading associated with logging infrastructure can log landings, cable yarder Management Proposals be highly visible in both foreground and middleground views. Designing sets, or benched skid harvests to use existing infrastructure can reduce the visual impact. roads unless no other options exist for timber removal. Minimize the amount of construction if needed. Locate new landings or cable yarder sets where the smallest amount of excavation is necessary; where feasible, locate new landings out of view from roads, trails, and sensitive viewpoints. 13) Minimize the amount of new landing, cable yarder set, and benched skid

139 Environmental Assessment

Visual Design Feature Potential Applicability Description

road construction. Locate new landings or cable yarder sets where the smallest amount of excavation is necessary; where feasible, locate new landings out of view from roads, trails, and sensitive viewpoints.

14) Minimize road • All Vegetation The impacts of road construction and reconstruction can be highly construction and Management and Road visible. Limiting work only to the extent necessary (e.g., only placing reconstruction: minimize Construction Proposals gravel in wet spots or only building the road to support the equipment excavation, width, needed for wildlife field maintenance) can reduce visual impact. vegetation clearing, gravel placement, etc.

15) Screen log landings, • All Vegetation Leaving trees and vegetation can help screen logging infrastructure from cable yarder sets, roads, Management and Road view. and skid roads from view Construction Proposals by leaving uncut trees and vegetation. Leave uncut trees and vegetation above and/or below log landings, cable yarder sets, roads, and skid roads. 16) Minimize cutting of trees and vegetation above and/or below log landings, cable yarder sets, roads, and skid roads.

17) Cover visible skid roads, • All Vegetation Soil exposed when excavating logging infrastructure can be highly log landings, and/or cable Management Proposals visible in the middleground due to changes in color, texture, and yarder sets with slash or shading. Covering these areas with logging slash can reduce this other vegetation contrast. (including cutbanks).

18) Revegetate log landings • All Vegetation Log landings can be highly visible in the foreground due to the exposed and/or cable yarder sets Management Proposals soil. For areas that are used for recreation, this can improve scenic with grass quality.

19) Retain vegetation to • All Vegetation Leaving trees and other vegetation in strategic locations can help block screen sensitive Management Proposals management activities from both foreground and middleground views. viewpoints.

20) Consult with scenery • All Vegetation Some proposed actions require intricate implementation to ensure that analyst to ensure that Management Proposals they meet the VQOs. For example, detailed viewshed mapping can treatments meet VQO’s dictate where to avoid cutting trees and building logging infrastructure. from sensitive viewpoints.

21) Limit the size of • Uneven-aged Harvest Smaller openings would not be as visually noticeable in both the openings to 1 acre foreground and middleground.

140 Environmental Assessment

Table 38. Visual design features for Proposed Actions. Design Features Location Proposed Action MA VQO Visual Concerns Comments (from Table 37)* AT and Harmon Den 0452-10, 12 Wildlife Field 2A PR 14 area roads and trails Two-aged Regeneration AT; Harmon Den area 2, 5, 6, 0452-12 2A PR Harvest roads and trails 13, 16 Ridges and north 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0452-2, 3 3B PR AT and Max Patch Rd and west facing 12, 14, Harvest slopes 15, 17 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0452-2, 7 3B PR AT 12, 14, Harvest 15, 17 Two-aged Regeneration Ridges and north 2, 4, 12, 0452-2, 8 3B PR AT and Max Patch Rd Harvest facing slopes 15, 17 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0452-27 3B PR AT 13, 14, Harvest 16, 17 Harmon Den area roads 13, 16, 0452-5 Thinning 2A PR and trails 18 AT and Harmon Den 0452-5 Wildlife Field 2A PR 14 area roads and trails 2A and Harmon Den area roads 11, 13, 0452-5, 20 Uneven-aged Harvest PR 3B and trails 18, 21 Two-aged Regeneration 2A and Harmon Den area roads 2, 7, 13, 0452-5, 30 PR Harvest 3B and trails 16, 18 Harmon Den area roads 2, 7, 13, Two-aged Regeneration PR and 0452-9 2A and trails; Harmon Den 16, 18, Harvest R Horse Camp 19 0453-24, 25; 3B and PR and 6, 13, 14, Wildlife Field AT 0458-35, 32, 37 4C R 16 Two-aged Regeneration 3B and 2, 4, 13, 0453-25 PR AT Ridgetop Harvest 4C 16 0453-28, 29; 3B and PR and Woodland Management AT and Max Patch Rd 13, 16 0452-19 4C R 2, 4, 7, Two-aged Regeneration 3B and M, PR, 0453-7; 0454-33 Max Patch Rd Screened 13, 15, Harvest 4C R 19 0454-13 Wildlife Field 4C PR Hurricane Creek Rd None. 0455-11 Wildlife Field 4C PR None None. 0455-11 Woodland Management 4C PR None None. Two-aged Regeneration 0456-2 3B PR AT Ridgetop Only 4, 13, 16 Harvest Ridge and 0456-30; 0457- Woodland Management 3B PR AT northwest facing 13 29 slopes 0457-31, 0458- Wildlife Field 3B PR AT 14 42 2, 4, 13, 0458- 20, 21, Two-aged Regeneration Ridge and north 3B PR AT and Cold Spring Rd 14, 16, 22, 26 Harvest facing slope 17 Two-aged Regeneration 2, 4, 13, 0458-39 3B PR AT Ridgetop Harvest 16, 17 Two-aged Regeneration 4, 13, 14, 0458-2 3B PR AT Ridges Harvest 15, 17 Ridges and north 8, 10, 13, 0458-25 Uneven-aged Harvest 3B PR AT facing slopes 14, 16 Two-aged Regeneration Ridges and north 3, 4, 13, 0458-38 3B PR AT Harvest facing slopes 16

141 Environmental Assessment

Design Features Location Proposed Action MA VQO Visual Concerns Comments (from Table 37)* Two-aged Regeneration 4, 13, 14, 0458-4, 9 3B PR AT Ridgetops Harvest 15, 17 0458-41 Thinning 3B PR AT 13, 16 0458-5, 6 Wildlife Field 3B PR AT 14 8, 10, 13, 0458-5, 6, 7 Uneven-aged Harvest 3B PR AT 14, 16 Two-aged Regeneration 0458-8 3B PR AT 2, 13, 16 Harvest Two-aged Regeneration 2, 4, 13, 0462-11, 12, 38 1B PR AT and I-40 Harvest 16 Two-aged Regeneration 3, 4, 13, 0462-14, 42 1B PR AT and I-40 Harvest 16 0462-18, 43 Uneven-aged Harvest 1B PR AT 10 Two-aged Regeneration 0462-20 1B PR AT 3, 4, 13 Harvest Two-aged Regeneration 3, 5, 13, 0462-22 1B PR AT and I-40 Harvest 16 0462-25, 44 Woodland Management 1B PR AT None. Two-aged Regeneration 0462-33 1B PR AT None. Harvest 0462-33 Woodland Management 1B PR AT None. 0463-13, 14, 15, Two-aged Regeneration 3B and M and Hurricane Creek Rd 7 41 Harvest 4C PR 0463-19, 37 Wildlife Field 4C PR None None. 1B and 0464-11, 13 Thinning M None None. 3B PR and I-40 and nearby Forest 14, 16, 0464-17 Wildlife Field 4A Screened R Service roads 19 9, 10, 12, PR and As mapped by the 0464-17, 22, 26 Uneven-aged Harvest 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake 15, 19, R visual analysis 20 9, 10, 12, PR and As mapped by the 0464-17, 22, 26 Uneven-aged Harvest 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake 15, 19, R visual analysis 20 PR and 6, 14, 16, 0464-19, 29 Wildlife Field 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake Screened R 19 1, 4, 12, Two-aged Regeneration PR and 0464-19, 30 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake 15, 19, Harvest R 20 PR and I-40 and nearby Forest 14, 16, 0464-22, 25 Wildlife Field 4A Screened R Service roads 19 Two-aged Regeneration 1B and 0464-23 M None None. Harvest 3B PR and 6, 14, 16, 0464-31, 32 Wildlife Field 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake Screened R 19 PR and 6, 14, 16, 0464-32 Wildlife Field 4A I-40 and Waterville Lake Screened R 19 0464-37, 45; 3B and M and Wildlife Field None None. 0463-18, 40 4c PR Two-aged Regeneration 0464-8, 38 3B M None None. Harvest 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0465-19 4D PR I-40 and Waterville Lake 13, 14, Harvest 16, 17 0465-7 Thinning 4D PR I-40 and Waterville Lake 13, 16 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0465-8, 17 4D PR I-40 and Waterville Lake 13, 14, Harvest 16

142 Environmental Assessment

Design Features Location Proposed Action MA VQO Visual Concerns Comments (from Table 37)* 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration I-40, Waterville Lake, 0466-12 4D PR 13, 14, Harvest and Mt Sterling 15, 17 0466-13; 0467- I-40, Waterville Lake, Woodland Management 4D PR 13, 16 30 and Mt. Sterling 2, 4, 5, Two-aged Regeneration 0466-19 4D PR I-40 and Waterville Lake 13, 14, Harvest 16 I-40, Waterville Lake, 0466-22 Wildlife Field 4D PR 4, 6, 19 and Mt. Sterling 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration I-40, Waterville Lake, 0466-8 4D PR 13, 14, Harvest and Mt. Sterling 15, 17 0467-11 Wildlife Field 4D PR I-40 6, 19 0467-3 Wildlife Field 4D PR I-40 6, 19 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0467-31 4D PR I-40 13, 14, Harvest 16, 17 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0467-5 4D PR I-40 13, 16, Harvest 17 0467-7 Wildlife Field 4D PR I-40 6, 19 2, 4, 5, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0467-8 4D PR I-40 13, 16, Harvest 17 0468-13, 25, 26, 1B and AT, I-40, and Mt Woodland Management PR 13, 16 27, 48, 49 4D Sterling Two-aged Regeneration 0468-14 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling None. Harvest 0468-2, 16, 18, Thinning 1B PR AT 13, 16 19 Two-aged Regeneration 0468-17 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling 3, 13, 16 Harvest 0468-24 Thinning 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling 13, 16 Two-aged Regeneration 0468-30 1B M Mt Sterling 3 Harvest 0468-45, 46 Wildlife Field 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling None. 0468-48 Wildlife Field 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling None. 1B and 0468-49; 0467-7 Wildlife Field PR I-40 and Mt. Sterling 6, 19 4D 0468-8 Thinning 1B M AT 13, 16 Two-aged Regeneration Ridges and slopes 3, 4, 13, 0469-11 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling Harvest facing AT 16 0469-13, 16, 17 Woodland Management 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling None. 0469-19 Woodland Management 1B PR AT None. 0469-22 Woodland Management 1B PR AT 13, 16 Two-aged Regeneration 1B and PR and AT, Mt Cammerer, and 13, 14, 0469-4, 5, 6, 41 Harvest 4C R I-40 15 0469-6, 8, 34, 1B and AT, I-40, Mt Sterling, Mt Wildlife Field PR 6, 19, 20 37 and 0475-22 4C Cammerer 0475-18 Woodland Management 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling 13, 16 1B -- 13, 14, Small PR and AT, Mt Cammerer, Mt 0475-19, 22 Woodland Management 16, 19, portion R Sterling 20 in 4C Two-aged Regeneration 1B and PR and 0475-25, 27 AT and Mt Cammerer 2, 13, 16 Harvest 4C R AT, Mt Cammerer, Mt 0475-29, 30 Woodland Management 1B PR 13, 16 Sterling

143 Environmental Assessment

Design Features Location Proposed Action MA VQO Visual Concerns Comments (from Table 37)* Two-aged Regeneration 1B and PR and 3, 13, 14, 0475-31,33,35 AT and Mt Cammerer Harvest 4C R 16 AT, Mt Cammerer, and 0475-32 Woodland Management 1B PR 13, 16 Mt Sterling 0475-38 Woodland Management 1B PR AT and Mt Sterling 13, 16 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0476-1, 2 4D PR Mt Sterling 13, 14, Harvest 16, 17 0476-2 and 477- Woodland Management 4D PR Mt Sterling 13, 16 20 0477-6, 7, 14, Woodland Management 4D PR Mt Sterling 13, 16 15, 18 2, 4, 6, Two-aged Regeneration 0477-22, 16 4D PR Mt Sterling 13, 14, Harvest 16, 17 *Design features are in addition to Techniques listed in the Forest Plan to meet VQOs. This table does not include roads where the only proposed actions are changes in management objective or daylighting, as these actions will have little or no visual impact. Design features are not necessary for areas that are topographically screened from the locations listed in the Visual Concerns column.

144 Environmental Assessment

Table 39. Visual design features for each Proposed Road Activity Design Proposed/ Features Proposed Road Visual Existing MA VQO Comments (from Activity Concerns Road # Table 37)* 148spur 2A PR FSR148 14 Harmon Den 148spur2 2A PR area roads and 14 trails 286spur 4A R I-40 Screened 15 287ext 4D PR Mt. Sterling 15 287spur 4D PR Mt. Sterling 16 287spur2 4D PR Mt. Sterling 16 AT, Mt Sterling, Mt. 289spur 1B and 4C PR and R Screened 14, 15 Sterling Rd., Mt. Cammerer AT, Mt. 3520spur 1B PR 16 Cammerer AT, I-40, Mt. 3521spur 1B and 4C PR and R Screened 15 Cammerer Road 3529Ext 3B PR AT 14, 15 Construction – AT, Mt. 3537A 1B and 4D PR 16 Existing Non- Sterling, I-40 System Corridor Applies to 3537spur 1B PR AT both actions None on 3537spur 3539ext 4D PR I-40 15 I-40 and 3567spur 4A R Waterville Screened 15 Lake 3569Spur 3B and 4C PR AT 14, 15 3570spur 3B M None 3570spur2 3B PR AT 14, 15 3572ext 3B PR AT None I-40 and 453spur 4D PR Waterville 14, 15, 20 Lake I-40 and 453spur2 4D PR Waterville 14, 15 Lake Prism in 3569spur 3B PR AT 14, 15 Road place Construction – Prism in New Corridor 3572spur 3B PR AT 15 place *Design features are in addition to Techniques listed in the Forest Plan to meet VQOs. This table does not include roads where the only proposed actions are changes in management objective or daylighting, as these actions will have little or no visual impact. Design features are not necessary for areas that are topographically screened from the locations listed in the Visual Concerns column.

145 Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects were analyzed using three different approaches: 1) Cumulative effects of similar actions outside and within the project area over time; 2) cumulative effects of different proposed actions as seen from a single viewpoint; and 3) cumulative effects of proposed actions as seen from different viewpoints along a single travel corridor. The project area itself includes past timber harvests, openings, roads, structures, and other landscape modifications. Today, these management activities are part of and virtually indistinguishable from the characteristic landscape. Some of the viewpoints also include views of recent (less than one year old) timber harvests outside of the project area. These timber harvests were planned with similar design features as this project, and will soon be indistinguishable to most viewers. No foreseeable future actions which may have cumulative impacts to scenery are known within the analysis area. Although multiple proposed actions will be visible from some viewpoints, the cumulative effects will not be so great that VQOs will not be met. Similarly, multiple proposed actions will be visible from different viewpoints along a travel corridor, but again, VQOs will still be met. Project scenery design features were developed with consideration for cumulative effects of proposed and existing landscape modifications; thus allowing assigned VQOs to be met for all proposed activities.

146 Environmental Assessment

Forest Landscape and Ecozones

Scope of Analysis

The intent of this section is to analyze the forest landscape effects in terms of age class distribution, condition class distribution within ecological zones, and the effects on species distribution and stand dynamics. The analysis is based on Forest Plan Standards and the identified purposes and needs of the project. This analysis will focus primarily on the forest management actions included in the action alternative because all other actions will have negligible effects to the forested landscape and the metrics associated with this analysis.

Existing Condition

Nine of the twelve ecological zones (ecozones), forest-wide, are represented within the Twelve Mile Project Area. The Project Area is dominated by rich cove, dry-mesic oak, mesic oak, acidic cove ecological zones, with lesser representation from pine-oak/heath, dry oak, floodplain, shortleaf pine and northern hardwood (Table 40). Compared to the entire Appalachian Ranger District, the Twelve Mile Project Area has more rich cove and dry-mesic oak with less acidic cove, mesic oak, and northern hardwood; the representation of all other ecological zones is similar.

Table 40. Ecological zone and proposed treatment acres for the Twelve Mile Project Area Percent Percent Percent Ecozone of Percent Treatment of App Ecozon Total Proposed Treatment of Total RD e Acres Project Treatment of Ecozone Project Ecological Zone Acres (a) Area (b) Acres (c) Acres (d) Area (e)

Acidic Cove 20% 1,788 10% 297 17% 2% Dry Oak 3% 429 2% 54 13% 0% Dry-Mesic Oak 6% 3,945 22% 685 17% 4% Floodplain 0% 117 1% 1 1% 0% Mesic oak 21% 2,323 13% 732 32% 4% N. Hardwood 11% 16 0% 2 12% 0% Pine-Oak/Heath 10% 1,031 6% 324 31% 2% Rich Cove 19% 8,472 47% 1,288 15% 7% Shortleaf Pine 2% 56 0% 17 30% 0% Grand Total5 100% 18,176 100% 3,482 - 19%

5 Total acres, reported throughout, may double count some acres because multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, prescribed fire may be proposed in conjunction with woodland treatment or a wildlife field may be proposed within a regeneration harvest.

147 Environmental Assessment

Table 41 shows the current departure in the Twelve Mile Project Area. Currently, all ecological zones are deficient (green) in early seral forest and, with the exception of acidic cove and rich cove, lack open conditions for all seral stages. The cove ecological zones do not have a desired condition for old growth- open; therefore, no deficit exists. Most ecological zones also show a surplus (red) of acres in the mid- and late-closed stages; mirroring the greater trend of closed forest conditions across the forest. Only the acidic cove, in the late-closed and old growth-open, and the rich cove, in the old growth-open, currently meet (yellow) some of the desired seral stage conditions.

Table 41. Current departure for each seral stage and ecological zone in the Twelve Mile Project Area. Desired ranges represent natural range of variation Early Mid Closed Mid Open Late Closed Late Open Old Growth Closed Old Growth Open Ecological Zones Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Current Current Current Current Current Current Current Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Northern 0% 17-23% 0% 1.5-2.5% 0% 11-14% 100% 2-3% 0% 40-50% 0% Hardwoods 5-7% 11-14% 0% Acidic Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 89% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 8% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 2% 0% 0% Rich Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 79% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 20% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 1% 0% 0% Flood Plain 6-8% 0% 30-36% 90% 9-14%% 0% 8-9% 6% 3-4% 0% 22-30% 3% 9-13% 0% Mesic Oak 4-5.5% 0% 12-15% 33% 12-16% 0% 8-10% 61% 5-7% 0% 27-34% 6% 20-25% 0% Dry Oak 9-22% 0% 2-7% 18% 12-19% 0% 1-3% 53% 6-9% 0% 5-16% 29% 40-57% 0% Dry Mesic Oak 5-7% 0% 7-9% 25% 13-17% 0% 7-8% 73% 7-9% 0% 22-28% 1% 28-33% 0% Shortleaf Pine 8-13% 0% .5-4% 37% 34-42% 0% .5-4% 53% 22-26% 0% .5-4% 11% 16-29% 0% Pine-Oak Heath 11-19% 0% .5-5% 26% 34-42% 0% .5-5% 69% 20-27% 0% .5-3% 6% 11-26% 0%

The Twelve Mile Project Area is dominated by stands over 80 years old, accounting for greater than 67% of the Project Area (Figure 5). Stands between 81 and 100 years old, alone, make up more than 47% of the acres, whereas stands less than 20 years old account for just 1% of the Project Area. Young forest is an important component for wildlife species that depend on early successional habitat by temporarily providing soft mast, grasses and browse, structure, and edge. The small number of acres (<8%) in the 21 to 30 year-old range represent the stands that were harvested in the 1990’s as part of the Wilkins Branch (1990), Sterling Creek (1993), Cataloochee (1993), Mt. Sterling (1993), Lower Hurricane (1996), and Salt Bin (1997), Timber Sales. The Upper Hurricane (1999), Messer Gap (2001) and Hurricane (2006) Timber Sales created the very small proportion of acres in the 11 to 20 year range. These harvests created young forest temporarily, but these maturing forests no longer provide early successional habitat.

148 Environmental Assessment

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 Acres 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Age Class

Figure 5. Current age class distribution for the Twelve Mile Project Area

Ecological Zone Current Conditions

The following ecological zone descriptions define the composition and conditions across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests and are taken directly from the ecological zone descriptions used for the Nantahala/Pisgah Forest Plan Revision. The Twelve Mile Project Area is representative of the conditions across the forest.

Pine-Oak Heath

The pine-oak heath ecozone is dominated by pitch pine (Pinus rigida), a combination of pitch pine and table mountain pine (P. pungens), or a mix with shortleaf pine (P. echinata) at low elevations. Varying amounts of chestnut oak (Quercus montana), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), black oak (Q. velutina), white oak (Q. alba), red maple (Acer rubrum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and white pine (P. strobus) also occur (Schafale & Weakley, 1990) (NatureServe, 2013). Ericaceous shrubs dominate this xeric community, particularly those sites without periodic wildfires. Mountain laurel is the dominant shrub with lesser amounts of flame azalea and bear huckleberry. Hillside blueberry is dominant with mountain laurel at low elevation sites. In the absence of fire the shrub thickets can be quite dense.

Herbaceous diversity can be quite sparse within the denser shrub thickets. Species richness varies across the zone from quite low counts of 10 to over 55 species (Ulrey, 1999). The greatest diversity is present within those examples with recurrent fire and a more open structure.

Periodic pine beetle outbreaks as well as wind events provides the greatest influence on the canopy creating small and large gaps. Recurrent wildfires maintain a partially open structure and influence the species composition. Deep, poorly decomposing duff layers plus dead wood from pine beetles outbreaks and inflammable shrubs contribute to a fire-prone plant community. Fire suppression during the last 50-70 years has resulted in changing the canopy to a more even-aged structure and the dominance of more mesic midstory and canopy species and increased hardwoods to the detriments of pines.

149 Environmental Assessment

Pre-settlement forests, fire history analysis, and recent dendrochronology studies indicate a fire return interval with the predominance of low intensity fires every 4-7 years, and occasional more intense fires would help to maintain and regenerate the fire tolerant oaks (Aldrich, Lafon, Grissin-Mayer, DeWeese, & Hoss, 2010) (Harrod, Harmon, & White, 1998) (Fost, 1998). Historical evidence of fires in the early twentieth century indicates that large fires were more common during below-average precipitation years (Harmon, 1982). In the Great Smoky Mountains effective pine regeneration was not present in mature pine stands until the canopy was reduced by 40% and the shrub layer by 80% (Jenkins, Klein, & McDaniel, 2011). The pine-oak zone has more than 63% with greater than 50% shrub cover, and is likely a consequence from a lack of recurrent burns. Current openings within this type are low, slightly more than 5% with less than 40% cover and slightly less than 9% between 40-60% canopy cover. Repeated burns effectively reduced overstory hardwood density as well as shrub density. Within the last seven years a little more than 4% of this ecozone has had a prescribed burn conducted.

Shortleaf Pine

The forest is dominated by shortleaf pine with less amounts of southern red oak (Quercus falcata), pitch pine, chestnut oak, scarlet oak, blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), post oak (Quercus stellata), white oak, pignut hickory (Carya glabra), red hickory (C. ovalis), and red maple within the shortleaf pine subtype (Schafale, 2012), (Simon, Collins, Kauffman, McNab, & Ulrey, 2005). Shortleaf pine is not dominant within the montane and mixed pine-oak subtypes, rather co-dominant with pitch pine in the former and with numerous oaks in the later.

Many sites with these subtypes, particularly those with no recent fire occurrences, have a dense shrub layer, this typically dominated by ericaceous species such as mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), low bush blueberry (Vaccinium pallidum) or bear huckleberry (Gaylussacia ursina). Herbaceous diversity can be sparse under the densest shrub layer and can account for sites recorded with 20 vascular plant species (Ulrey, 1999). However a more open fire-maintained habitat can have as many as 70 plants (G. Kauffman, pers. obs.).

Openings within this forest are generally driven by insect occurrences, in particular southern pine beetle, wind events and fire. The last southern pine beetle infestation occurred across both forests in the late 1990s. Patch sizes can vary dramatically depending on insect outbreaks and if they are followed by fire events, which can lead to large openings. Fire is considered an important factor in maintaining this habitat with a fire return frequency as low as 4 years (LandFire, 2009). The absence or infrequency of fire can result in more canopy oak dominance, an increase in fire intolerant trees such as red maple, and an increase in shrub density.

Based on LiDAR analysis of the shrub canopy density, more than 50% shrub coverage extends across about 45% for the ecozone. This closed portion would represent areas with infrequent or no recent burns, wildfires or prescribed.

Rich Cove

Hardwood tree diversity is the highest within this ecological zone. Common species include yellow- poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), basswood (Tilia americana), white ash (Fraxinus americana), cucumber magnolia (Magnolia acuminata), Carolina silverbell (Halesia tetraptera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), and sweet birch (Betula lenta). Sugar maple (A. saccharum), black maple (A. nigrum), and yellowwood (Cladrastis kentuckea) can be prevalent within the montane rich subtype (Schafale, 2012). Within the open understory a diverse number of deciduous shrubs can occur including wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), sweet shrub (Calycanthus floridus), spicebush

150 Environmental Assessment

(Lindera benzoin), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). Leatherwood (Dirca palustris) and mock–orange (Philadelphus hirsutus), can be present within the montane rich subtype while wild gooseberry (Ribes cynosabati) is present within the boulderfield subtype (Schafale, 2012).

Herbaceous diversity typically is higher within this ecozone in comparison to any other ecozone across western North Carolina. Spring ephemeral herbs are abundant. This subtype provides the greatest densities for American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) across the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs. In the richer habitats the vascular species diversity can reach 135 (Ulrey, 1999) (Peet & Roberts, 2013). Epiphytic bryophyte, mosses and liverworts, diversity is high within this ecozone, particularly on middle age to older trees. In older forests moss and liverwort covered downed woody debris is abundant.

Gap-phase dynamics, driven by wind and ice storms, allow for tree regeneration within this habitat and tree fall gaps have been shown to regenerate intolerant species, particularly in older forests (Lorimer, Age Structure and Disturbance History of a Southern Appalachian Virgin Forest, 1980) (Runkle, 1982). Patch sizes can vary from single trees to more numerous trees, depending on the level and frequency of disturbance.

Historically, this zone was subject to very infrequent fires with surface fires at an average frequency of about 88 years (LandFire, 2009) (Wade, et al., 2000). Typically this zone, and in particular where shrub density is high, is moist and a fire with low flame height is spotty through the community. Mixed severity fires are rare, occurring at greater than a 500 year return frequency and typically occurring following a large scale insect defoliation and/or drought event (LandFire, 2009).

Northern Hardwood

The forest is dominated by closed canopy yellow birch (B. allegheniensis), sugar maple, yellow buckeye (Aesculus flava), or American beech (Fagus grandifolia) for the rich subtype. The typic subtype tends to be more dominated by yellow birch and beech. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra) becomes more prevalent within this subtype also. The northern hardwood rich subtype generally has an open understory while the typic subtype can be open to having a moderately dense shrub layer, which is often dominated by deciduous shrubs or small trees. In contrast the acidic subtype typically has a tall, over 2 meters in height, dense, from 50-100% cover, shrub layer dominated by great laurel (Rhododendron maximum) and doghobble (Leucothoe fontansiana). Shrubs within the other two subtypes include hobblebush (Viburnum lantanoides), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa var. pubens), mountain holly (Ilex montana), serviceberry (Amelanchier laevis), blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), and striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum). Herbaceous diversity is sparse under the densest shrub layer and would account for those sites recorded with only 14 vascular plant species (Ulrey, 1999).

The northern hardwood typic subtype is typically dominated by Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica) and white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima) within the herb layer. Herbaceous diversity is much greater in the rich subtype. This subtype provides the greatest densities for ramps (Allium tricoccum) across the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs. In the richer habitats the vascular species diversity can exceed 80 individuals (The Carolina Vegetation Survey, 2019). As within spruce-fir forest, epiphytic bryophyte, mosses and liverworts, diversity is high within the most mesic portion of this zone.

Canopy gaps and openings are generally driven by wind events and ice storms, although eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) dieback from hemlock wooly adelgid may have recently increased the number of openings. Patch sizes can vary from single trees to numerous trees, particularly with the recent impacts to eastern hemlock. Historically this zone was only subject to occasional fires (Konopik & Fowler, 2007). Surface fires are considered rare with a greater than 1000 year fire return frequency (LandFire, 2009). Typically the cove portion of the zone is moist enough to extinguish any fires originating from the

151 Environmental Assessment

uplands. In contrast catastrophic fires can be more frequent, at a 300 to 1000 year interval, and typically occurring following a large scale wind event followed by an historic drought.

Mesic Oak

Two main plant community associations are included within this zone, an acidic subtype and a basic subtype (NatureServe, 2013) (Schafale, 2012). This ecozone is dominated by white oak, northern red oak, and chestnut oak, with varying amount of red maple, pignut hickory, red hickory, mockernut hickory (C. tomemtosa), or yellow-poplar.

Shrub density varies across the two subtypes. Within the acidic subtype, shrub density can be moderate to dense, typically with many deciduous species such as bear huckleberry, buffalo-nut (Pyrularia pubera) and mountain holly. Herb species can be sparse in the acidic type. This compares to the basic subtype, which has much higher herb diversity and less shrub cover, more reminiscent of rich cove forest. Herbaceous diversity is highly variable even within the two subtypes. A range from 29-115 species has been recorded within the acidic subtype (NatureServe, 2013) with the same high number in the rich subtype (Ulrey, 1999).

American chestnut (Castenea dentata) occurred throughout this ecozone and its loss has influenced the present dominance of its canopy species. Without fire, gap-phase regeneration is the greatest influence on the canopy creating small gaps while occasional ice storms or extreme wind events can result in larger canopy openings. Pre-settlement forests suggest a fire return interval with the predominance of low intensity fires every 15-25 years, and occasional more intense fires would help to maintain and regenerate the fire tolerant oaks (LandFire, 2011). Various researchers believe oaks need recurrent fire for their long- term stability and regeneration (Lorimer, 1985). Fire may have a beneficial influence on oaks by reducing competition from more fire-sensitive tree species in the sapling layer (Lorimer, 1985). Fire reduces the amount of litter under a stand, which, according to Lorimer, may discourage rodent predation of acorns. Fire may indirectly influence rodent populations as well, by reducing available nest sites and food availability. Fire disturbance can play a role in selecting against thin barked mesic hardwoods.

Fire suppression during the last 50-70 years has resulted in changing the canopy to a more even-aged structure and the dominance of more mesic midstory and canopy species, in particular red maple, blackgum and possibly tulip poplar within this ecozone. Given the abundance of this zone and its adjacency to other more fire-adapted types, the likelihood of this zone experiencing periodic surface fires is high. Within the oak dominated ecozones the mesic oak zone has a more open shrub layer (53% with less than 50% shrub cover), likely a result of intense shade from well-developed overstories and midstories.

Floodplain

Canopy composition is varied but often includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar, white ash (Fraxinus americana), sweet and yellow birch, eastern hemlock, and white pine. Musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) is often present as a small tree in the subcanopy. Within both types the shrub layer can be dense consisting of doghobble and great laurel extending throughout the forest while black alder (Alnus serrulata), yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginiana) and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum) cover the river banks. Shrub density with greater than 50% cover occurs across 42% of national forest lands.

Herbaceous species composition varies from site to site, and herbaceous strata can be quite patchy on the rocky substrate. The herbaceous layer is dominated by many rich cove mesic loving species that are

152 Environmental Assessment

floodplain adaptive. Vascular plant counts have varied from 13 to 123 across sites within this ecozone. The low diversity sites were dominated by evergreen shrubs.

Openings are generally restricted to single trees or small groups and generally not affected by flooding, more so by beaver activity. Large winds from major hurricanes can result in larger gaps, these occurring on a 20 plus year frequency (Batista & Platt, 2003). In sites with dead or dying eastern hemlocks the gaps could be larger. Flooding typically does not affect the overstory, rather opening up those sites with denser shrub layers, depositing sediments and nutrients, and transporting plant propagules. Fire is a very infrequent disturbance mechanism in this ecozone with a fire return frequency of surface fires unknown and speculated from 120-200 years (LandFire, 2009).

Dry Oak

This ecozone is dominated by chestnut oak and scarlet oak with varying amounts of black oak, white oak, red maple, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, blackgum, Virginia pine (P. virginiana), and shortleaf pine (Schafale & Weakley, 1990) (Simon S. A., 2011). White pine is common in the white pine subtype but may be tied to the long absence of fire (LandFire, 2009) (NatureServe, 2013). Ericaceous shrubs dominate this xeric community. Bear huckleberry, black huckleberry (G. baccata), lowbush blueberry and mountain laurel are common. Herbaceous diversity is quite sparse across the dry heath and white pine subtypes with cow-wheat (Melampyrum lineare), various Dichanthelium species, yellow stargrass (Hypoxis hisutus), trailing arbutus (Epigaea repens), spotted wintergreen (Chimaphilia maculata), Carolina lily (Lilium michauxii), wild indigo (Baptisia tinctoria) and bellwort (Uvularia puberula) most prevalent. Within the herb subtype shrub density is typically less than 20% cover and consists of short shrubs such as low bush blueberry or maple-leaf Viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium). Herb diversity within this subtype is moderate and more similar to dry-mesic oak types. Species richness varies across the zone from a low of 28 to over 65 species (Ulrey, 1999).

American chestnut occurred throughout this ecozone and its loss has influenced the present dominance of its canopy species as well as influenced the spread of aggressive mesic species such as white pine and red maple. Gap-phase regeneration is the greatest influence on the canopy creating small gaps while occasional ice storms or extreme wind events can result in larger canopy openings. Fire suppression during the last 50-70 years has resulted in changing the canopy to a more even-aged structure and the dominance of more mesic midstory and canopy species, in particular white pine across the Blue Ridge Escarpment. As with the dry-mesic white pine subtype with the variant in this ecological zone, it is uncertain what the natural occurrence of white pine was given the long history of fire suppression in the 1900’s (NatureServe, 2013) (Schafale, 2012). Pre-settlement forests suggest a fire return interval with the predominance of low intensity fires every 7-10 years, and occasional more intense fires would help to maintain and regenerate the fire tolerant oaks (LandFire, 2011). The dry oak zone would have less competition from mesic species in comparison to other oak zones and may more easily regenerate oaks in the absence of fire. The dry oak zone has more than 61% with greater than 50% shrub cover, and is likely a consequence from a lack of recurrent burns. Within the last seven years a little less than 4.5% of this ecozone has had a prescribed burn conducted.

Dry-Mesic Oak

This ecozone is dominated by white oak, mockernut hickory, northern red oak, southern red oak, scarlet oak, and black oak with varying amount of red maple. Northern red oak dominates is low montane, white pine in its subtype, and scarlet oak and southern red oak in the low dry subtype. A heath shrub layer is often present, in particular bear huckleberry, sweet-shrub, mountain laurel, or white laurel for either the montane red oak or the white pine subtype. Low bush blueberry and flame azalea (Rhododendron

153 Environmental Assessment

calendulaceum) are often present in the low dry subtype. Greater than 53% of the forests in the zone have a shrub density higher than 50% cover.

Herb diversity is highly variable across the three communities and dependent on the shrub density. Typically the diversity is sparse to moderate but can be relatively high. Vascular plant counts within the community have varied from a low of 33 to a high of 103 (Ulrey, 1999). Fern diversity can be high within the zone. On the low dry subtype grasses such as little bluestem, Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), and needle grass (Piptochaetium avenaceum) can be abundant if maintained with more frequent fire.

American chestnut occurred throughout this ecozone and its loss has influenced the present dominance of its canopy species as well as influenced the spread of aggressive mesic species such as white pine and red maple. Gap-phase regeneration is the greatest influence on the canopy creating small gaps while occasional ice storms or extreme wind events can result in larger canopy openings. Fire suppression during the last 50-70 years has resulted in changing the canopy to a more even-aged structure and the dominance of more mesic midstory and canopy species, in particular white pine across the Blue Ridge Escarpment. While the white pine subtype is the dominant forest in this ecological zone, it is uncertain what the natural occurrence of white pine was given the long history of fire suppression in the 1900’s (NatureServe, 2013) (Schafale, 2012). Pre-settlement forests suggest a fire return interval with the predominance of low intensity fires every 10-15 years, and occasional more intense fires would help to maintain and regenerate the fire tolerant oaks (LandFire, 2011). As previously mentioned for the mesic oak zone, fire would help to regenerate oak and allow the saplings to capture the overstory in single tree or larger gaps. The dry-mesic oak zone has more than 53% with greater than 50% shrub cover, and is likely a consequence of fire suppression. Within the last seven years a little more than 5% of this ecozone has had a prescribed burn conducted.

Acidic Cove

Yellow-poplar, sweet birch, and eastern hemlock dominate the more protected portion of typic acidic cove forests’ overstory (Schafale & Weakley, 1990). Codominants include Fraser's magnolia (Magnolia fraseri), yellow buckeye and northern red oak. Typic eastern hemlock subtype is dominated by eastern hemlock, although with the impact of wooly hemlock adelgid the overstory may resemble typic acidic cove with a lower tree canopy density. White pine eastern hemlock subtype is dominated by eastern hemlock and white pine. The silverbell subtype is dominated by Carolina silverbell and eastern hemlock (NatureServe, 2013). Northern red oak and chestnut oak are dominant on steeper north-facing slopes and comprise the chestnut oak Rhododendron subtype. Midstory shrub species include witch hazel, sweet pepperbush (Clethra acuminata) and great laurel. Great laurel is by far the most common member of this layer in portions consisting of a 10-15 foot tall thicket. Some sites can have a more open shrub density.

Few herbaceous species are present within this community with a dense shrub component. Occurrences tend to be widely scattered. Bryophyte diversity, particularly near streams and in steep gorges, is very high within this ecological zone. Vascular species richness varies greatly across the subtypes within this zone from a low of seven for dense great laurel-dominated types to greater than 100 species for the more open examples, where grading into the rich cove ecological zone (Ulrey, 1999) (Peet & Roberts, 2013). Those subtypes dominated by eastern hemlock have the lowest species diversity of the five subtypes.

Gap-phase dynamics, driven by wind and ice storms, allow for tree regeneration within this habitat and tree fall gaps have been shown to regenerate intolerant species, particularly in older forests (Lorimer, 1980) (Runkle, 1982). Patch sizes can vary from single trees to more numerous trees, depending on the level and frequency of disturbance. Larger tree gaps may form considering recent impacts to eastern hemlock.

154 Environmental Assessment

LiDAR analysis of canopy cover has been completed over the majority of the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, only excluding the Grandfather Ranger District since the collected data resolution is less robust. Existing canopy coverage up to 40%, which would provide young forest in various gap sizes, occurs across about 3% of the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs in the acidic cove ecological zone. This contrasts with 19% of the landscape with up to 40% canopy coverage across the other lands in the assessed area. About 91% of this zone has a closed canopy (> 60% cover) on the national forest while the private lands have slightly less than 70%.

Historically this zone was subject to very infrequent fires with surface fires at an average frequency of about 88 years (LandFire, 2009) (Wade, et al., 2000). Typically this zone, and in particular where shrub density is high, is moist enough to extinguish any fires originating from the uplands. Mixed severity fires are rare, occurring at greater than a 500 year return frequency and typically occurring following a large scale insect defoliation and drought event (LandFire, 2009).

Direct and Indirect Effects

For the purposes of this analysis the direct and indirect effects boundary is the same as the Twelve Mile project boundary.

No Action

Under the no action alternative, the Twelve Mile Project Area will continue to age and grow without intervention. There will continue to be a lack of young forest, in addition to an overabundance of closed conditions in the mid- and late-seral stages. There would continue to be a lack of early successional habitat and young forest for wildlife species, such as golden-winged warblers, ruffed grouse, eastern towhee, white-tailed deer, elk and black bear, that utilize the food, structure and edge that these conditions provide.

Hard mast producing trees such as oaks and hickories would be maintained, but on a trajectory toward long-term decline as trees succumb to insects, disease, and age related mortality. Without larger or more frequent disturbance events it is unlikely that sufficient oak regeneration and recruitment would occur to replace the older oak trees in the main canopy (Hart & Grissino-Mayer, 2008; Rentch, Fajvan, & Hicks Jr., 2003).

Proposed Action

General Effects

Overall, the proposed action would create about 1,464 acres6 (1,011 acres of two-aged regeneration harvest, 126 acres of permanent wildlife fields, and 327 acres of uneven-aged harvest) of early successional habitat and young forest over the life of the project. The young forest created by two-aged and uneven-aged regeneration harvests would be ephemeral as the young forest would quickly grow back and transition to mid-seral stage within 10 to 20 years. However, because uneven-aged harvests would create small openings (roughly 0.25 to 1.5 acres) over the course of several harvest entries, the young

6 All acres proposed for treatment represent an estimate of the maximum. During implementation unit boundaries shrink to protect resources and account for logging feasibility.

155 Environmental Assessment

forest created would be gradual, but reoccurring. Early successional habitat created by wildlife fields would be permanently maintained in an early seral stage and, in areas suitable for timber production, would be taken out of production.

Both two-aged and uneven-aged harvest would initiate tree regeneration. The new species composition would be dependent on the composition of the previous stand (stump sprouts and seed), the site quality and ecozone. In general, two-aged harvests would encourage intolerant species such as yellow-poplar, shortleaf pine and pitch pine. Uneven-aged harvests would encourage both intolerant and mid-tolerant species such as oaks and hickories. Furthermore research suggests that oak recruitment into the main canopy requires either large openings and/or temporally frequent smaller openings or gaps (Rentch, Fajvan, & Hicks Jr., 2003), which is constant with the uneven-aged management proposed.

Woodland treatments would create open conditions on about 496 acres. Prescribed fire across about 1,136 acres would maintain woodlands and promote species diversity and structural complexity. Thinning about 327 acres would improve the health and vigor of the residual stand. Although not a primary objective, woodland, prescribed fire and thinning would also initiate regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant tree species, as cut or damaged stems resprout and increased sunlight initiates seedling germination (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004; Iverson, Hutchinson, Peters, & Yaussy, 2017). Stand improvement treatments would improve species diversity and stand health on about 650 acres.

The proposed action designates about 1,560 acres of small patch old growth. Prescribed fire, thinning and uneven-aged treatments in the late closed and late open seral states may contribute to stand structural complexity and to the development of old growth structure. Due to the commercial nature of thinning and uneven-aged regeneration treatments, contributions to large (>8” in diameter) woody debris, would be minimal. Prescribed fire, thinning and uneven-aged management would occur in about 674 acres of late seral stages, but would not appreciably accelerate the development of old growth conditions at the stand level.

Table 42 shows the projected departure under the proposed action. Most ecological zones would continue to show a surplus (red) of acres in the mid- and late-closed stages, though regeneration and wildlife field treatments would convert some acres to early seral forest and permanent openings. Within the Project Area, desired conditions for early seral forest would be met (yellow) in the acidic cove and dry-mesic oak ecological zones. The creation of young forest would surpass (red) the desired conditions for the northern hardwoods, rich cove, mesic oak, and shortleaf pine; this increase would be limited to the Project Area and would be short-lived for all treatments, except permanent wildlife field creation, as young trees grow and age. Because this project area contains mostly management areas of active forest management, the surplus of young forest in this project accounts for those areas that will not be actively managed, such as the adjacent backcountry area, which is not well displayed in the project level departure analysis.

Most ecological zones continue to show deficits (green) in mid- and late-open conditions. The creation of open conditions in late seral forest would meet (yellow) desired conditions in only the mesic oak, but small increases would be seen in the dry oak, dry-mesic oak, shortleaf pine and pine-oak heath. In the mid seral forest, open conditions would increase marginally in the acidic cove, rich cove, mesic oak, dry- mesic oak, and pine-oak heath ecological zones. Woodland treatments would create old growth-open conditions in a small percentage of the mesic oak ecological zone.

156 Environmental Assessment

Table 42. Projected departure under the proposed action for each seral stage and ecological zone in the Twelve Mile Project Area Early Mid Closed Mid Open Late Closed Late Open Old Growth Closed Old Growth Open Ecological Zones Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired PA PA PA PA PA PA PA Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Northern 13% 17-23% 0% 1.5-2.5% 0% 11-14% 88% 2-3% 0% 40-50% 0% Hardwoods 5-7% 11-14% 0% Acidic Cove 4-5% 4% 27-32% 85% 4-6% 1% 9-10.5% 8% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 2% 0% 0% Rich Cove 4-5% 6% 27-32% 74% 4-6% 1% 9-10.5% 18% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 1% 0% 0% Flood Plain 6-8% 0% 30-36% 90% 9-14%% 0% 8-9% 7% 3-4% 0% 22-30% 3% 9-13% 0% Mesic Oak 4-5.5% 10% 12-15% 27% 12-16% 2% 8-10% 49% 5-7% 7% 27-34% 5% 20-25% 1% Dry Oak 9-22% 7% 2-7% 16% 12-19% 0% 1-3% 46% 6-9% 1% 5-16% 29% 40-57% 0% Dry Mesic Oak 5-7% 7% 7-9% 23% 13-17% 1% 7-8% 67% 7-9% 1% 22-28% 1% 28-33% 0% Shortleaf Pine 8-13% 39% .5-4% 16% 34-42% 0% .5-4% 32% 22-26% 3% .5-4% 11% 16-29% 0% Pine-Oak Heath 11-19% 8% .5-5% 24% 34-42% 1% .5-5% 55% 20-27% 7% .5-3% 6% 11-26% 0%

The majority of proposed treatment (Table 40 (c) and (e)) occurs within the rich cove, dry-mesic oak, and mesic oak ecological zones, therefore, the effects are concentrated in these zones. Some ecological zones have higher proportion of proposed treatment (Table 40 (d)) when compared to the representation with in the Project Area (Table 40 (b)). This is true for the dry oak, mesic oak, northern hardwood, pine- oak/heath shortleaf pine ecological zones. In the case of shortleaf pine (17 treatment acres), northern hardwood (2 acres), floodplain (1 acre), and dry oak (54 acres) the impacts to the ecological zone at the district and forest levels are limited. The impacts to each ecological zone are discussed in more detail below.

The age class distribution, 2 years post-harvest, is shown in Figure 6. Forest Vegetation Simulator was used to model regeneration, uneven-aged management, woodland and thinning treatments. Prescribed fire and wildlife field creation and expansion were not modeled due to the variability of impacts and the overlap with other treatments. All treatments, with the exception of uneven-aged management, were assumed to occur in the same year, 2020; uneven-aged management was modeled over 4 entries, 2020, 2040, 2060 and 2080.

Figure 6. Comparison of age class distribution in 2022, two years post-harvest

157 Environmental Assessment

Regeneration harvest will increase the 0 to 10 age class from 1 to 7% of the Project Area. This will be augmented with wildlife fields and 1 to 1.5 acre openings created by uneven-aged management. Young forest would be short-lived, but spread out as timber sales and uneven-age management entries occur.

Ecozone Effects

Pine-Oak Heath

The majority of proposed treatments in the pine-oak heath would occur in the mid- and late-closed seral stages, temporarily creating early seral and more open conditions. Table 43 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the pine-oak heath ecological zone.

Table 43. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the pine-oak heath ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 10 0 59 0 0 0 69 Harvest

Woodland 0 7 0 71 0 0 0 78

Wildlife 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 Field

Thinning 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 18

Uneven-aged 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 Management

Prescribed 0 43 0 107 0 1 0 151 Fire

Total* 0 61 0 262 0 1 0 324

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest (69 acres) and uneven-aged management (2 acres) within the pine-oak heath would open the forest canopy, allowing shade intolerant pitch and Virginia pine to regenerate. Because shrub cover in this ecozone can be dense, prescribed fire, site preparation and release treatments may be necessary to allow young trees to establish. In addition to southern yellow pines, site preparation and release treatments will favor oak species. Appropriate lower-elevation sites within the pine-oak heath may provide opportunities to plant shortleaf pine. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 10 to 20 years post-harvest, to improve the species composition and growth.

Thinning treatments would create 18 acres of late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees. Woodland treatments (78 acres) coupled with prescribed fire (151 total acres) would create open forest conditions and facilitate the development of a mixed herbaceous and heath understory. Without prescribed fire, woody species would quickly fill the available growing space.

158 Environmental Assessment

After thinning and woodland treatments, tree crowns will expand and diameter growth will increase. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood species (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004; Iverson, Hutchinson, Peters, & Yaussy, 2017). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak species) and intolerant (southern yellow pine species) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (white pine, red maple, blackgum and sourwood).

All treatments that create more open conditions within the pine-oak heath ecozone would reduce southern pine beetle hazard by promoting intra-stand air flow and improve the health and vigor of the residual trees (Clarke & Nowak, 2009).

Shortleaf Pine

Proposed treatments in the shortleaf pine ecozone would only occur on 17 acres. However, due to the limited representation, this accounts for 30% of ecozone within the Twelve Mile Project Area. The majority of the proposed treatments in the shortleaf pine ecozone occur in the mid- and late-closed seral stages, with wildlife field creation and expansion occurring on 10 acres. Table 44 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the shortleaf pine ecological zone.

Table 44. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the shortleaf pine ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 Harvest

Woodland 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Wildlife 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 10 Field

Thinning 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Uneven-aged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management

Prescribed 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Fire

Total* 0 9 0 8 0 0 0 17

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest on 5 acres within this ecozone would create young forest by allowing regeneration of shortleaf pine (natural and artificial) and pitch pine. Hardwood species associated with the ecological zone would also respond. To promote desired tree species composition and to limit the shrub layer, site preparation, planting and release would occur following harvest. Woodland and fire treatments would

159 Environmental Assessment

have little impact. Proposed wildlife fields account for the most treatment acres in the shortleaf pine as this ecozone often occurs on ridges, where topography allows for field creation and maintenance.

Rich Cove

The largest percentage (38%) of the proposed treatments fall within the rich cove ecozone because rich cove accounts for 47% of the Twelve Mile Project Area (Table 40). However, when considering the acres of proposed treatment within the rich cove compared to the total acres of rich cove with the project, only 15% are proposed for treatment. Proposed treatments are focused in the mid- and late-closed seral stages. Table 45 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the rich cove ecological zone.

Table 45. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the rich cove ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 287 0 154 0 9 0 450 Harvest

Woodland 0 80 0 9 0 12 0 101

Wildlife 0 29 0 2 0 0 0 31 Field

Thinning 0 129 0 37 0 0 0 166

Uneven-aged 0 100 0 13 0 0 0 113 Management

Prescribed 0 356 0 48 0 23 0 427 Fire

Total* 0 981 0 263 0 44 0 1,288

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest (450 acres) and uneven-aged management (113 acres) would create young forest by initiating regeneration of intolerant and mid-tolerant trees. The regeneration response is dependent both on (1) the composition of the pre-harvest overstory and advance regeneration layer and (2) intensity of harvest. Larger group openings and heavier shelterwood cuts would encourage regeneration of intolerant species such as yellow-poplar, sweet birch and black cherry (on richer sites). Elliot and Swank (2008) show that the dominance (basal area) of northern red oak and the dominance and frequency (stems per acre) of yellow-poplar in this ecozone are associated with the loss of American chestnut. This change in species diversity represents an unstable positive feedback loop which promotes yellow-poplar. The success of oak regeneration and subsequent presence of oak in the overstory depends largely on the existing advance regeneration layer. In the rich cove ecozone, oak species do not compete well against faster growing species and need to be present as large seedlings prior to harvest (Loftis, 1990). Regeneration and uneven-aged management treatments would remove some northern red oak, but retain a component to maintain hard mast and to serve as ecological memory into the future.

160 Environmental Assessment

Following harvest, site preparation and release would be necessary to encourage appropriate species composition. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 7 to 15 years post-harvest, to improve the species composition and growth. Although there are 9 acres of regeneration harvest planned in the old growth-closed seral stage, no acres of regeneration harvest are planned within designated old growth; old growth, in this context, is based solely on age (>141 years) and does not take into account necessary old growth characteristics such as downed woody debris, decadent trees, or complex forest structure.

Thinning treatments would create 166 acres of mid- and late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees. Woodland treatments (101 acres) would create open forest conditions and facilitate the development of an herbaceous understory. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood species (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak species) and intolerant (yellow-poplar, sweet birch) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (sugar maple, yellow buckeye, cucumber magnolia and American basswood). Although fire is not a major disturbance within the rich cove, prescribed fire is proposed across 427 total acres. These acres are likely to burn at very low intensity as part of larger prescribed fires targeted in different ecological zones.

Northern Hardwoods

Only 2 acres of regeneration harvest is proposed in the northern hardwoods ecozone; with the exception of follow-up treatments to culture desired species composition, no other treatments would occur in this ecozone. Removing the overstory trees in the northern hardwoods would allow regeneration to occur. Species composition depends on the composition of the overstory and the existing regeneration layer, but may include northern red oak, American beech, black cherry, and yellow birch. Such limited treatments would have little to no effect on this ecozone.

Mesic Oak

About 22% of the proposed treatments fall within the mesic ecozone; mesic oak is one of the more dominant ecozones in the Twelve Mile Project Area. Proposed treatments are focused in the mid- and late- closed seral stages and would affect 32% of the ecozone within the Project Area (Table 40). Table 46 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the mesic oak ecological zone.

161 Environmental Assessment

Table 46. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the mesic oak ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 65 0 97 0 7 0 169 Harvest

Woodland 0 38 0 157 0 18 0 213

Wildlife 0 25 0 12 0 0 0 37 Field

Thinning 0 9 0 38 0 0 0 47

Uneven-aged 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Management

Prescribed 0 78 0 156 0 29 0 263 Fire

Total* 0 215 0 463 0 54 0 732

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest (169 acres) and uneven-aged management (3 acres) would create young forest by initiating regeneration of intolerant and mid-tolerant trees. The regeneration response is dependent both on (1) the composition of the pre-harvest overstory and advance regeneration layer and (2) intensity of harvest. Larger group openings and heavier shelterwood cuts would encourage regeneration of intolerant species such as yellow-poplar. The success of oak regeneration and subsequent presence of oak in the overstory depends largely on the existing advance regeneration layer; on the more productive sites, oak species do not compete well against faster growing species and need to be present as large seedlings prior to harvest (Loftis, 1990). Regeneration and uneven-aged management treatments would remove some northern red oak, but maintain a component to maintain hard mast and to serve as ecological memory into the future.

Following harvest, site preparation and release would be necessary to encourage appropriate species composition. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 7 to 15 years post-harvest to improve the species composition and growth. Although there are 7 acres of regeneration harvest planned in the old growth-closed seral stage, no acres of regeneration harvest are planned within designated old growth; old growth, in this context, is based solely on age (>131 years) and does not take into account necessary old growth characteristics such as downed woody debris, decadent trees, or complex forest structure.

Thinning treatments would create 47 acres of mid- and late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees. The majority (213 acres) of the proposed woodland treatments occur in the mesic oak ecozone, creating open forest conditions and facilitate the development of an herbaceous understory. Eighteen acres of woodland treatments in the old growth-closed state will create more structural diversity, which is a desired old growth condition. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the

162 Environmental Assessment

regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood species (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004; Iverson, Hutchinson, Peters, & Yaussy, 2017). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak and hickory species) and intolerant (yellow-poplar) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (red maple and blackgum).

Floodplain

Only 1 acre of wildlife field creation is proposed in the floodplain ecozone; no other treatments would occur in this ecozone. Such limited treatment would have little, to no effect on this ecozone.

Dry Oak

The majority of the proposed treatments within the dry oak ecozone would occur in the mid- and late- closed seral stages. Table 47 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the dry oak ecological zone.

Table 47. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the dry oak ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 7 0 18 0 0 0 25 Harvest

Woodland 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 7

Wildlife 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 Field

Thinning 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Uneven-aged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Management

Prescribed 0 2 0 12 0 1 0 15 Fire

Total* 0 10 0 43 0 1 0 54

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest would occur on 25 acres creating young forest and initiating the regeneration of intolerant and mid-tolerant species. The regeneration response is dependent both on (1) the composition of the pre-harvest overstory and advance regeneration layer and (2) intensity of harvest. Heavier shelterwood cuts may encourage regeneration of intolerant species such as yellow-poplar, but in this ecozone, oaks are able to better compete and this effect would be minimized. The success of oak regeneration and subsequent presence of oak in the overstory still depends on the existing advance regeneration layer (Loftis, 1990), but oaks and hickories are expected to respond well. Other intolerant species such as Virginia and shortleaf pine, where present, may respond too.

163 Environmental Assessment

Following harvest, site preparation and release would be necessary to encourage appropriate species composition. This is especially true in areas with abundant white pine advance regeneration. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 10 to 20 years post-harvest, to improve the species composition and growth.

Thinning treatments would create 2 acres of mid- and late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees. Woodland (7 acres) and prescribed fire (15 acres) would create open forest conditions and facilitate the development of an herbaceous/ericaceous understory; without fire, shrubs or white pine may fill the available growing space. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood species (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004; Iverson, Hutchinson, Peters, & Yaussy, 2017). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak and hickory species) and intolerant (Virginia and shortleaf pine) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (white pine).

Dry-Mesic Oak

About 20% of the proposed treatments fall within the dry-mesic ecozone. Dry-mesic oak is the second- most dominant ecozone in the Twelve Mile Project Area. Proposed treatments are focused in the mid- and late-closed seral stages and would affect 17% of the ecozone within the Project Area (Table 40). Table 48 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the dry-mesic oak ecological zone.

Table 48. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the dry-mesic oak ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 42 0 192 0 0 0 234 Harvest

Woodland 0 34 0 38 0 0 0 72

Wildlife 0 13 0 14 0 0 0 27 Field

Thinning 0 28 0 14 0 0 0 42

Uneven-aged 0 58 0 87 0 0 0 145 Management

Prescribed 0 37 0 127 0 1 0 165 Fire

Total* 0 212 0 472 0 1 0 685

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

164 Environmental Assessment

Regeneration harvest (234 acres) and uneven-aged management (145 acres) would create young forest by initiating regeneration of intolerant and mid-tolerant trees. The regeneration response is dependent both on (1) the composition of the pre-harvest overstory and advance regeneration layer and (2) intensity of harvest. Larger group openings and heavier shelterwood cuts would encourage regeneration of intolerant species such as yellow-poplar, though oaks on drier sits may be able to compete. The success of oak regeneration and subsequent presence of oak in the overstory depends largely on the existing advance regeneration layer (Loftis, 1990). Regeneration and uneven-aged management treatments would remove some individual oaks, but maintain a component to maintain hard mast and to serve as ecological memory into the future. Following harvest, site preparation and release would be necessary to encourage appropriate species composition and promote tree species where robust shrub layers occur. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 10 to 15 years post-harvest, to improve the species composition and growth.

Thinning treatments would create 42 acres of mid- and late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees. Woodland (72 acres) and prescribed fire (165 acres) treatments would create open forest conditions and facilitate the development of a mixed herbaceous and heath understory; however, in the absence of fire, shrubs and other woody species may dominate. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the regeneration of tolerant and mid-tolerant hardwood species (Iverson, Hutchinson, Peters, & Yaussy, 2017; Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak and hickory species) and intolerant (yellow-poplar) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (red maple).

Acidic Cove

Only 9% of the proposed treatments fall within the acidic cove ecozone. Proposed treatments are focused in the mid- and late-closed seral stages and would affect 17% of the ecozone within the Project Area (Table 40). Table 49 displays the proposed treatment for each seral stage of the acidic cove ecological zone.

165 Environmental Assessment

Table 49. Proposed treatment acres for each seral stage in the acidic cove ecozone Old Old Proposed Mid Mid Late Late Growth Growth Treatment Early Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Total

Regeneration 0 52 0 3 0 2 0 57 Harvest

Woodland 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 24

Wildlife 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Field

Thinning 0 26 0 3 0 0 0 29

Uneven-aged 0 58 0 6 0 0 0 64 Management

Prescribed 0 113 0 1 0 0 0 114 Fire

Total* 0 282 0 13 0 2 0 297

*Total acres may double count some acres as multiple treatments may be proposed for the same piece of ground. For example, a woodland treatment may be proposed with prescribed fire.

Regeneration harvest (57 acres) and uneven-aged management (64 acres) would create young forest by initiating regeneration of intolerant and mid-tolerant trees. The regeneration response is dependent both on (1) the composition of the pre-harvest overstory and advance regeneration layer and (2) intensity of harvest. Larger group openings and heavier shelterwood cuts would encourage regeneration of intolerant species such as yellow-poplar and sweet birch. Elliot and Swank (2008) show that the dominance (basal area) of northern red oak and the dominance and frequency (stems per acre) of yellow-poplar in this ecozone are associated with the loss of American chestnut. This change in species diversity represents an unstable positive feedback loop which promotes yellow-poplar. The success of oak regeneration and subsequent presence of oak in the overstory depends largely on the existing advance regeneration layer; in the rich cove ecozone, oak species do not compete well against faster growing species and need to be present as large seedlings prior to harvest (Loftis, 1990). Regeneration and uneven-aged management treatments would remove some northern red oak, but retain a component to maintain hard mast and to serve as ecological memory into the future.

Following harvest, site preparation and release would be necessary to encourage appropriate species composition; this is especially true in areas dominated by great laurel, which has increased in presence following the decline of eastern hemlock, and poses a challenge to tree regeneration. Stand improvement release and cleaning may be necessary 7 to 15 years post-harvest, to improve the species composition and growth. Although there are 2 acres of regeneration harvest planned in the old growth-closed seral stage, no acres of regeneration harvest are planned within designated old growth; old growth, in this context, is based solely on age (>141 years) and does not take into account necessary old growth characteristics such as downed woody debris, decadent trees, or complex forest structure.

Thinning treatments would create 29 acres of mid- and late-open conditions, allowing filtered light to reach the forest floor, capture mortality and improve the growth, health and vigor of the remaining trees.

166 Environmental Assessment

Woodland treatments (24 acres) would create open forest conditions and facilitate the development of an herbaceous understory. Although the intent of thinning/woodland/fire is not regeneration, cut or damaged hardwood stems may resprout and increased light to the forest floor may initiate the regeneration of hardwood species (Lockhart, Michalek, Lowe, & Williams, 2004). The overstory trees and treatment intensity will determine which species respond; heavier thinning treatments will encourage mid-tolerant (oak species) and intolerant (yellow-poplar, sweet birch) species where lighter treatments will encourage tolerant species (yellow buckeye, Carolina silverbell, eastern hemlock and American basswood). The regeneration of eastern hemlock will be short-lived due to impacts from hemlock wooly adelgid. Although fire is not a major disturbance within the acidic cove, prescribed fire is proposed across 114 total acres. These acres are likely to burn at very low intensity as part of larger prescribed fires targeted in different ecological zones.

Forest Plan 0 to 10 Effects

The Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1994) regulates the amount of 0 to 10 age class allowed at multiple scales: the Project Area, the Management Area and the Compartment. Table 50 shows the most restrictive of these scales. Note the few instances (designated with asterisks) where the Proposed Action conflicts with the 0 to 10 analysis. These discrepancies are explained in more detail below.

In compartment 0452, the planned treatment for stand 0452-09 is characterized as a regeneration harvest; however, this stand was regenerated in 1989 and the proposed treatment equates to a final removal of the overstory, which would leave the 30 year old stand intact. Therefore, the proposed silvicultural treatment in stand 0452-09 would not contribute to the 0 to 10 age class in this management area (MA). Additionally, the 44 acres proposed for regeneration harvest in compartment 0452 includes 2 acres over the maximum, 42 acres allowed in MA 2A. During implementation, treatment acres shrink due to logging feasibility and resource protection; the actual 0 to 10 created will be much less than the 44 acres proposed.

In compartment 0453, there are an additional 39 acres of regeneration harvest planned in 4C and 3B. There is not enough 3B in compartment 0453 (less than 250 acres) to be included in the 0-10 analysis and the majority of the compartment is 4C which is not suitable for timber production. Management direction for areas not suitable for timber production indicates that cutting trees is allowed to meet wildlife habitat objectives. These regeneration treatments were identified by the collaborative team to create habitat for golden-winged warbler.

There is a lack of 0 to 10 age class proposed in compartments 0457 and 0464 due to limited access and poor logging feasibility.

167 Environmental Assessment

In compartment 0466, the 112 acres proposed for regeneration harvest in MA 4D includes 15 acres over the maximum 97 acres allowed. During implementation, treatment acres shrink due to logging feasibility and resource protection; the actual 0 to 10 created will be much less than the 112 acres proposed.

Table 50. The planned and allowed acres of 0 to 10 age class for each compartment by Management Area MA 2A MA(s) 1B & 3B MA(s) 4A & 4D MA 4C Planned Planned Compart- Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current Planned Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current Planned Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current (Action (Action ment Acres (5%) (10%) 0-10 Need (Action Alt) Acres (5%) (15%) 0-10 Need (Action Alt) Acres (0%) (10%) 0-10 Need Alternative) Alternative) 452 418 21 42 0 21-42 44* 834 42 125 0 42-125 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 3 9 0 3-9 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 37** 454 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 3 9 0 3-10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 456 0 0 0 0 0 0 639 32 96 0 32-96 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 457 12 1 1 0 1 0 694 35 104 22 35-82 0*** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 458 0 0 0 0 0 0 962 48 144 0 48-144 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 0 0 0 0 0 0 736 37 110 0 37-110 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 447 22 67 0 22-67 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 464 0 0 0 0 0 0 878 44 132 0 44-132 39*** 421 0 42 0 0-42 32 0 465 00000 000000 0 519 0 52 0 0-52 34 0 466 00000 000000 0 965 0 97 0 0-97 112**** 0 467 00000 000000 0 880 0 88 0 0-88 50 0 468 0 0 0 0 0 0 1077 54 162 0 54-162 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 759 38 114 0 38-114 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 475 0 0 0 0 0 0 606 30 91 0 30-91 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476 00000 000000 0 633 0 63 0 0-63 23 0 477 00000 000000 0 668 0 67 0 0-67 16 0

*Regeneration harvest in stand 0452-09 will not create 0 to 10 age class as it was regenerated in 1989. The two acres over the maximum limit in MA 2A will be much less in implementation.

** MA 4C is not suitable for timber production and therefore does not have young forest goals or standards; timber harvest to meet wildlife habitat objectives is allowed on unsuitable lands, these units were identified by the project collaborative team to improve golden-winged warbler habitat.

***Did not meet minimum goals due to access issues and/or feasibility.

****This analysis concludes 15 acres over the maximum limit as planned but will be much less in implementation. A project design feature was included that states that total acres will not exceed 97.

Use of Herbicides

Intermediate and follow-up treatments would use approved herbicides applied at the lowest effective rates. These treatments would target the stump sprouts, saplings, and small trees of undesirable tree species to release oaks and other hard to regenerate tree species. Treatments would also target vines to release young trees. Non-native invasive plant treatments with herbicide may occur simultaneously, but are analyzed under the 2009 Decision and Environmental Analysis titled Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Non-native Invasive Plant Control. Herbicide treatments would result in the brown-up and top-kill of the targeted vines, stump sprouts, saplings, and small trees. The latest risk assessment conducted for the Forest Service was done by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates in May of 2011 and may be viewed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml.

Herbicides would be selectively applied with the use of backpack sprayers and/or spray bottles. In this way, the herbicide can be applied without killing non-target trees. It also does not kill grasses and forbs that may exist near the target. Some approved herbicides, such as triclopyr, translocates in stems, and accumulates in the root collar and roots. It is not mobile in the soil; thus, no off-site movement through the soil would be expected. Triclopyr ester is degraded by soil microbes and by phytolysis (sunlight). This chemical has a moderately-short half-life of 30-60 days. This is the amount of time it would take ½ of the applied chemical to become inactive in the treated plant and vine roots.

168 Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects

For the purposes of this analysis the cumulative effects boundary is the same as the Twelve Mile project boundary. Past cumulative effects were discussed as part of the current conditions section. Future projects considered for the cumulative effect analysis include only the Duke Energy Powerline Expansion. This project would expand the existing powerline right-of-way by an additional 25 feet on either side and allow for the removal of hazard trees within 100 feet that have the potential to impact the powerline.

Table 51 shows the acres of the right-of-way expansion and hazard tree buffer for each ecozone affected. The right-of-way expansion is about 55 additional acres of forest clearing, within the Project Area, only 36 acres of which are on Forest System Lands. This area would be maintained in an open/shrubby condition and would and, in areas suitable for timber production, would be taken out of production. The hazard tree removal would occur on 88 acres of Forest System Lands, or 133 total acres within the Project Area. Only trees with the potential to impact the powerline would be removed. Overall, this project would not contribute significantly to the effects of the Twelve Mile proposed action.

169 Environmental Assessment

Table 51. Powerline right-of-way (ROT) expansion and hazard tree acres for each ecozone Powerline ROT Expansion Ecozone Hazard Tree Acres Acres

Acidic Cove 4 9

Dry Oak 2 4

Dry-Mesic Oak 6 13

Floodplain 0 1

Mesic oak 6 16

Pine-Oak/Heath 5 14

Rich Cove 13 31

Total 36 88

Limitations of the Analysis

This analysis uses Ecological Zones of the Southern Blue Ridge, 3rd Approximation (Simon S. A., 2011) to organize and analyze the various vegetation communities within the Twelve Mile Project Area. Ecological zones are spatially mapped across the landscape and represent the vegetation communities that may occur based on environmental factors that influence vegetation distribution in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains (Simon S. A., 2011). Ecological Zones are equivalent to LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings (BpS) which represent the vegetation that may have been dominant on the landscape prior to Euro-American settlement and are based on both the current biophysical environment and an approximation of the historical disturbance regime. Ecological Zones are mapped at a higher resolution than BpS and have more vegetation categories; however, the Pisgah and Nantahala NFs combined the 20 ecological zones defined by Simon (2011) into 12 broad planning categories.

Ecological zones may or may not represent existing vegetation, but instead represent the vegetation that could occur on a site with historical disturbance regimes (Simon S. A., 2011). Therefore, the accuracy of ecological zones, especially the small acres reported here, may not reflect what exists on the ground. Overall accuracy of the ecological zones across the Pisgah National Forest is estimated at 79%. Table 52 shows the accuracy for each ecological zone. Treatment unit boundaries and acres are also subject to minor changes during implementation to correct mapping errors that occurred during planning; additional survey needs will be addressed prior to implementation.

170 Environmental Assessment

Table 52. Percent accuracy of the ecological zones on the Pisgah National Forest Pisgah Pisgah and Nantahala NFs Simon’s Ecological Zones National Planning Ecological Zones Forest

Size (1000s’ of acres-rounded) 508,280

Reference field plots (total #) 1,562

% Accuracy

Grassy Bald 68 Grassy/Heath Bald Heath Bald -

Spruce-fir Spruce-Fir 90

Northern Hardwood (slope) 69 Northern Hardwood Northern Hardwood (cove) 73

Rich Cove Rich Cove 83

Acidic Cove 82 Acidic Cove Mixed Oak / Rhododendron 64

Alluvial Forest 81 Floodplain Floodplain 100

High Elevation Red Oak High Elevation Red Oak 87

Montane Oak (rich) 0

Mesic Oak Montane Oak (slope) 71

Montane Oak (upper cove) 66

Dry-Mesic Oak Dry-Mesic Oak 63

Dry Oak Evergreen Heath 73 Dry Oak Dry Oak Deciduous Heath 43

Shortleaf Pine-Oak 92 Shortleaf Pine-Oak SL Pine- Tblmt. Pine Oak Heath 82

171 Environmental Assessment

Pine-Oak Heath Pine-Oak Heath 82

OVERALL accuracy 79

Accuracy of the most fire-adapted 91 category (below double line)*

*Heath bald is fire adapted.

172 Environmental Assessment

Economics

The overall volume removed through timber harvest is estimated at 30,776 hundred cubic feet (CCF) and 11,955 CCF for sawtimber and pulpwood, respectively. Volumes are estimated via the Forest Vegetation Simulator-Southern Variant (FVS-SN) and account only for initial timber sale entries. All entries are assumed to occur in 2020 for ease of analysis. Volumes reported include defect deductions, based on a 2014 analysis that averaged defect across 20 recent timber sales on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. Table 5 shows the estimated volume removed and net value for each species group and size class as defined by the NFsNC supplement to Forest Service Handbook FSH2409.18.

Standard net value and average costs for timber removal are taken directly from the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Transaction Evidence (TREV) database, which represents actual timber values and road work costs for timber sales sold between October 2017 and March 2018. Average cost of removal ($66.65/CCF and $110.30/CCF for sawtimber and pulpwood, respectively) includes road maintenance, haul to the mill, and erosion control, and is factored into the net value reported in Table 53.

Table 53. Estimated volume removed and net value for each species group. Numbers are based on the most recent TREV and FVS-SN modeled simulations of the proposed action Total Volume Net Value Total Net Value* Removed ($/CCF) (CCF) ($) Sawtimber (>12") Mixed Hardwoods $33.94 5,492 $186,398 White Pine $36.94 6,265 $231,429 Southern Yellow Pine $9.13 164 $1,497 Low Grade Hardwoods $12.69 4,043 $51,306 Mixed Oak $62.63 2,626 $164,466 Poplar-Cucumbertree-Basswood $53.24 12,186 $648,783 Net Sawtimber Value 30,776 $1,283,879 Pulpwood (8 to 11.9") Hardwood $13.97 11,222 $156,771 Softwood $8.30 733 $6,084 Net Pulpwood Value 11,955 $162,855

*Average cost of removal ($66.65/CCF and $110.30/CCF for sawtimber and pulpwood, respectively) includes road maintenance, haul to the mill, and erosion control, and is factored into the net value.

Follow-up and intermediate treatments, which include site preparation, third-year release, stand improvement release, vine control, pre-harvest oak shelterwood and non-native invasive species treatment would all be implemented non-commercially. These treatments represent a cost to the government of about $1,005,040. Follow-up and intermediate treatment costs were estimated based on cost of herbicide and a review of past contracts, but are not reported in detail to protect the bid process. Treatments, such as site preparation, planting, and third-year release, that ensure successful reforestation after timber harvest, will be paid for with timber receipts, as required by law. Intermediate treatments and other resource improvement projects may be funded by the revenue generated by the timber harvest. Based on these estimates, implementing the Twelve Mile proposed action represents a benefit-cost ratio of 1.44, indicating a net financial benefit.

173 Environmental Assessment

Climate Change

Scope of Analysis

Climate change is discussed here in terms of how the project area alternatives affect climate change. The scope of this analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on climate change includes the 18,096 acres of national forest lands that comprise the Twelve Mile Project Area and specifically addresses the regeneration harvest portion of the action alternative as that is the primary concern regarding effects to climate change in terms of carbon sequestration and storage. The timeframe used in this analysis is up to ten years after completion of the project activities.

Existing Condition

Existing conditions are typical of the southern Appalachians, with a range of elevations from approximately 2,000 feet to 4,000 feet. Climate change models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate-change conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States). Both models indicate warming in the southern region of the United States. However, the models differ considerably. One predicts little change in precipitation until 2030, followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years, followed by increased precipitation.

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

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

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

Alternative B

It is not expected that Alternative B (Action Alternative) would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The regeneration in the areas to be harvested would provide more structural diversity to the area and establish young, vigorous stands that may be more resilient to the changes in climate than those ages 61 and older. In addition, it is anticipated that the existing forest types in the

174 Environmental Assessment

stands to be regenerated would, under uninterrupted natural disturbance regimes, regenerate naturally to these similar forest types; changes in climate will make little difference.

Alternatives B would remove biomass as a result of timber harvest. This would reduce the amount of carbon stored in the treated stands. A portion of the carbon removed would remain stored for a period of time in wood products. Regeneration harvests would reduce existing carbon stocks at the harvest sites. The harvest of live trees, combined with the increase in down dead wood, would temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. These stands would remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions from decomposing dead organic material. The stands would likely remain a carbon source for several years depending on the amount of dead biomass left onsite and new trees’ growth rates once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the carbon source would change to a carbon sink. The strength of the carbon sink would increase until peaking at approximately 85 years of age (Bolstad & Vose, 2005) and then would gradually decline but remain positive.

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

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

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

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

The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage. The currently large carbon sink in US forests is a result of past land use changes, including the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. harvest in the 19th and 20th centuries, and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey, Pregitzer, & Lucier, 2006). The

175 Environmental Assessment

continuation of this large carbon sink is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline and projected increases in disturbance rates such as fire and large-scale insect mortality may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala & al., 2007) (Canadell, et al., 2007).

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

Cumulative Effects

The contribution of the proposed project activities to the carbon cycle is extremely small under Alternatives B. Conducting regeneration harvesting on approximately 1,028 acres would result in new young forests on approximately 5.7% of the 18,096 acres of Forest Service Lands in the analysis area.

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

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

176 Environmental Assessment

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Richard Thornburgh Appalachian District Ranger Jason Herron Project Leader/Pisgah Zone Environmental Coordinator Rachael Dickson Pisgah Zone Silviculturist Darlene Cook Pisgah Zone Silviculture Forester Scott Ashcraft Pisgah Zone Archaeologist Ghazal Majidi-Weese NFofNC Forest Transportation Engineer Marcus Wood Forester Sue Fruchey Pisgah Zone Botanist Matt Keyes Pisgah Zone Timber Manager David McFee Appalachian Ranger District Developed Recreation and Roads Lorie Stroup Pisgah Zone Fisheries Biologist Chris Stroehrel Acting Zone Wildlife Biologist/Botanist Amber Vanderwolf Pisgah Zone GIS Matt Eldridge Pisgah Zone Forester Brady Dodd NFofNC Forest Soil Scientist Linda Aiken Pisgah Zone Special Uses Matt Diskin Pisgah Zone Forester/Visuals Melanie Pitrolo Region 8 Air Quality Specialist

Other Forest Service Employees that have had significant contributions to this project are: Gary Kauffman, NFofNC Forest Ecologist; Sheryl Bryan, NFofNC Forest Wildlife Biologist; Jason Rodrigue, NFofNC Forest Silviculturist; Cleve Fox, Former Appalachian District Fire Management Officer; Chris Williams, Former Pisgah Zone Wildlife Biologist; Seong Hopkins, Former Appalachian District Forester, Chad Keyser, Acting Pisgah Zone Silviculturist; Hollister Hurt, Acting Pisgah Zone Silviculturist; Matt McCombs, Former Appalachian District Ranger.

Tribal Governments, Government Agencies, and Collaborative Groups Contacted

Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Haywood County Commissioners; Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians; National Forests in North Carolina; Natural Resources Conservation Service; North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service; North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources; North Carolina Department of Natural Resources; North Carolina Department of Transportation; North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; Southern Research Station; United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians; Muscogee Creek Nation; Cherokee Nation; United States Army Corps of Engineers; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Duke Energy, The Nature Conservancy, Mountain True, Wilderness Society, Carolina Mountain Club, Back Country Horsemen, Ruffed Grouse Society, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Society, Canton Sawmill,

177 Environmental Assessment

French Broad River Keeper, National Parks Conservation Association, Defenders of Wildlife, Southern Environmental Law, Southern Off Road Biking Association, Root Cause, National Wild Turkey Federation, Jeep Crew, and various landowners.

Others Contacted

This project was first published in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on April 1, 2016. The proposed action was available on the public website and 63 interested people were contacted directly by email for scoping efforts on May 5, 2018. Additionally, 156 adjacent and nearby land owners were contacted by mail. A complete list of individuals and their comments is located in the project record.

178 Environmental Assessment

Bibliography AFS. (1992). American Fisheries Society Standardized Sampling Guidlines for Wadeable Trout Streams. American Fisheries Society. Aldrich, S., Lafon, C., Grissin-Mayer, H., DeWeese, G., & Hoss, J. (2010). Three Centuries of fire in montane pine-oak stands on a temperate forest landscape. Applied Vegetation Science 13, 36-46. Anderson, C. J., & Lockoby, G. B. (2011). The Effectiveness of Forest Best Managment Practices for Sediment Control in the Southeastern US. A Literature Review. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 35(4). Batista, W. B., & Platt, W. J. (2003). Tree Population Responses to Hurricane Disturbance: Syndromes in a South-Eastern USA Old-Growth Forest. Journal of Ecology Vol. 91, No. 2 , 197-212. Birdsey, R. A., Jenkins, J. C., Johnston, M., Huber-Sannwald, E., Amiro, B., de Jong, B., . . . Johnsen, K. (2007). North American Forests. In A. King, L. Dilling, G. Zimmerman, D. Fairman, R. Houghton, G. Marland, . . . T. Wilbanks, The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle (pp. 117-126, 173-176). Asheville, NC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center. Birdsey, R. A., Pregitzer, K., & Lucier, A. (2006). Forest Carbon Management in the United States: 1600- 2100. Journal of Environmental Quality 35, 1461-1469. Bolstad, P. V., & Vose, J. M. (2005). Forest and Pasture Carbon Pools and Soil Respiration in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Forest Science 51(4), 372-383. Burch, J., & Pearce, T. (1990). Terrestrial Gastropoda. In D. L. Dindal, Soil Biology Guide (pp. s01-309). Caceres, M., & Barclay, R. (2000). Myotis septentrionalis. In Mammalian Species (pp. 634:1-4). Canadell, J., Pataki, D., Gifford, R., Houghton, R., Lou, Y., Raupach, M., . . . Steffen, W. (2007). In J. Canadell, D. Pataki, & L. Pitelka, Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World (pp. 59-78). Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: IGBP Series. Springer-Verlag. (1994). Changes in Hydric Soils of the United States. Federal Register. Chapin, F., Woodwell, G., Randerson, J., Rastetter, E., Lovett, G., Baldocchi, D., . . . McGuire, A. (2006). Reconciling Carbon-cycle Concepts, Terminology, and Methods. Ecosystems 9, 1041. Clarke, S. R., & Nowak, J. T. (2009). Southern Pine Beetle. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet. Portland OR: USDA Forest Service. Danley, D. (1995). Botanical Report of the Witness Rock Timber Sale. Mars Hill, NC: Unpublished. Danley, D., & Kauffman, G. (2000). A List of Vascular Plants of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, NC: Unpublished. Dodd, B. (2014, January 12). Personal Communication. (L. Stroup, Interviewer) Dodd, B. N. (2011). Two decades of Forestry Best Management Practices. Monitoring Report. Asheville, NC. Dodd, B. N. (2018). 2018 Executive Summary of Best Mangement Practices. Dunne, T., & Leopold, L. B. (1978). Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman and Company. Durkin, P. R. (2003). Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report. Fayetteville, NY: Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. Durkin, P. R. (2003b). Triclopyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report. Fayetteville, NY: Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. Durkin, P. R., & Follansbee, M. (2004). Imazapyr - Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. Fayetteville, NY: Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. Elliot, K. J., & Swank, W. T. (2008). Long-term Changes in Forest Composition and Diversity Following Early Logging (1919-1923) and the Decline of American Chestnut (Castenea dentata). Plant Ecology, 197, 155-172. Flebbe, P. A. (1999). Trout Use of Woody Devris and Habitat in Wine Spring Creek, North Carolina. Forest Ecology and Management 114, 367-376.

179 Environmental Assessment

Fost, C. (1998). Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: a first approximation. In T. Pruden, & L. Brennan (Ed.), Fire in ecosystem management: shifting the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 20 (pp. 70- 81). Tallahassee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. Gibson, J. R., Haedrich, R. L., & Wernerheim, M. C. (2005). Loss of Fish Habitat as a Consequence of Inappropriagely Constructed Stream Crossings. Fisheries Vol. 30. Goff, G. F., Dawson, G. A., & Rochow, J. J. (1982). Site Examination for Threatened and Endangered Species. Environmental Management, 307-316. Golden-winged Warbler Working Group. (2013). Best Management Practices for Golden-winged Warbler Habitats in the Great Lakes Region. Cornell Lab of Ornighology. Hardy, C. C., Ottmar, R. D., Peterson, J. L., Core, J. E., & Seaman, P. (2001). Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire. National Wildfire Coordination Group. Retrieved from http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf Harmon, M. (1982). Fire history of the westernmost portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club Vol. 109, pp. 74-79. Harrod, J., Harmon, M., & White, P. (1998). Changes in xeric forests in western Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Catanea 63, pp. 346-360. Hart, J. L., & Grissino-Mayer, H. D. (2008). Vegetation Patterns and Dendroecology of a Mixed Hardwood Forest on the Cumberland Plateau: Implications for Stand Development. Forest Ecology and Management, 225, 1960-1975. Harvey, M., Altenbach, J., & Best, T. (1999). Bats of the United States. Arkansas game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Helms, J. A. (1998). The Dictionary of Forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters. Hillard, E. (2013). Elk (Cervus elaphus L.) Habitat Secection in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Cullowhee, NC: Western Carolina University. Iverson, L. R., Hutchinson, T. F., Peters, M. P., & Yaussy, D. A. (2017). Long-term Respose of Oak- Hickory Regeneration to Partial Harvest and Repeated Fires: Influence of Light and Moisture. Ecosphere, 8(1), 1-24. Jenkins, M., Klein, R., & McDaniel, V. (2011). Yellow pine regeneration as a function of fire severity and post-burn stand structure in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 262, 681-691. Johnson, C., & King, R. (2018). Beneficial Forest Management Practices for WNS-affected Bats: Voluntary Guidance for Land Managers and Woodland Owners in the Eastern United States. White-nose Syndrome Conservation and Recovery Working Group estblished by the White-nose Syndrome National Plan. Retrieved from www.whitenosesyndrome.org Kauffman, G. (2019, January 28). (S. Fruchey, Interviewer) Knoepp, J. D., & Swank, W. T. (1994). Long-Term Soil Chemistry Changes in Affrading Forest Ecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58(3), 325-331. Knoepp, J. D., & Swank, W. T. (1997). Forest Management Effects on Surface Soil Carbon and Nitrogen. Soil Science Society of America Journal 61(3), 928-935. Konopik, E., & Fowler, C. (2007). The History of Fire in the Southern United States. Ecology Review Vol. 14, No. 2, 165-176. LandFire. (2009). Using the LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings Model Descriptions. Retrieved from LandFire: https://www.landfire.gov/documents/UsingBpSDescrips_2009_03_25.pdf LandFire. (2011). Biophysical Settings Model update for Southern Blue Ridge. Workshop. Asheville, NC. Leahy, M. J., Curtis, H. J., & Clarke, P. A. (2006). The Composition and Structure of Woody Vegetation with Piratebush, Buckleya distichophylla (Nutt.) Torr., on Poor Mountain, Virginia. Castanea 71(1), 31-44. Leisso, R., & Hudelson, B. (2008). Butternut Canker. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin - Extension.

180 Environmental Assessment

Lockhart, B. R., Michalek, A. J., Lowe, M. W., & Williams, R. A. (2004). Regeneration Development 3 Years After Thinning and Fertilization in an East Texas Bottomland Hardwood Stand (To Manage or Regenerate: Can We Do Both?). Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-71. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. 594 p. Loftis, D. L. (1990). A Shelterwood Method for Regnerating Red Oak in the Southern Appalachians. Forest Science, 36(4), 917-929. Lorimer, C. (1980). Age Structure and Disturbance History of a Southern Appalachian Virgin Forest. Ecology 61(5), 1169-1184. Lorimer, C. (1985). The role of fire in the perpetuation of oak forests. In J. E. Johnson (Ed.), Challenges in Oak Management and Utilization (pp. 8-25). University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service. Moorehead, D., & Douce, G. (2015, September 01). Oak Decline. Retrieved from Forest Encyclopedia Network: http://articles.extension.org/pages/73186/oak-decline Musselman, L. J., & Mann, W. F. (1979). Haustorial frequency of some root parasites in culture. New Phytologist 83, 479-483. National Audubon Society. (2019). Retrieved from National Audubon Society Field Guide to Birds: www.audubon.org/birds NatureServe. (2013). Retrieved from NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life: http://explorer.natureserve.org NatureServe. (2015). NatureServe Explorer: An Online encyclopedia of life. Retrieved July 2, 2015, from NatureServe: http://explorer.natureserve.org NatureServe. (2018). 7.1. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life: http://explorer.natureserve.org NCDWQ. (2007, December 14). Assessing and Controlling Acid Rock Drainage on Projects Requiring Section 401 Water Quality Certification. NCDWR. (2018). NC Division of Water Resources. Retrieved from NCDWR Stream Classifications Hydrologic Order: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources- rules/npdes-regulations NCNHP. (2014). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Bioiligical Conservation Data. NC: Digital Databse. Neary, D. G., Swift, L. W., Manning, D. M., & Burns, R. G. (1986). Debris Avalanching in the Southern Appalachians: An Influence on FOrest Soil Formation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50, 465-471. Newell, C. L., & Peet, R. K. (1998). Vegetation of Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Castanea 63(3), 275-322. Nickert, D. L. (2016). Buckleya. In F. o. Committe, Flora of North America North of Mexico 20+ Vols. (pp. Vol. 12 ppl 356-357). New York and Oxford. North Carolina Forest Service. (2006). North Carolina Forestry Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Forest Service. North Carolina Forest Service. (2016). An Assessment of Forestry Best Management Practices in North Carolina, 2012-2016. Raliegh, NC: North Carolina Forest Service. Retrieved from https://www.ncforestservice.gov/water_quality/pdf/12_18executive_summary.pdf North Carolina Geological Survey. (1985). Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Sections. Oakley, S. C. (2005). An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas of McDowell County, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natrual Heritage Program. Oakly, S. C. (2009). An Inventory of Significant Natural Areas of Yancyl County, North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. O'Keefe, J. (2011). Personal communication on Indiana bats and teh use of ephemeral roost trees. (C. Stoehrel, Interviewer)

181 Environmental Assessment

O'Keefe, J. (2012). Person communication on new Indiana bat maternity colonies on the Cherokee National Forest. (C. Stoehre, Interviewer) Okeefe, J. M., & Walters, B. L. (2016). Analysis of Acoustic Data from the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina. Terre Haute, Indiana: Indiana State University. Oswalt, C. M. (n.d.). Broad Scale Inventory of Shortleaf Pine. Retrieved from Shortleaf Pine Initiative: http://shortleafpine.net/why-shortleaf/fia-data Pacala, S., & al., e. (2007). The North American Carbon Budget Past andPpresent . In A. W. al. (Ed.), The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR) (pp. 26-29). Asheville, NC: NOAA Natl. Clim. Data Cent. Peet, R. K., & Roberts, D. W. (2013). Classification of Natural and Semi-natural Vegetation. In E. v. Franklin (Ed.), Vegetation Ecology, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Pregitzer, K. S., & Euskirchen, E. S. (2004). Carbon Cycling and Storage in World Forests: Biome Patters Related to Forest Age. Global Change Biology (10), 2052-2077. Pritchett, W. L. (1979). Properties and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Raliegh, L. (2018). Twelve Mile Botanical Report. Helia Environmental, Asheville, NC. Rentch, J. S., Fajvan, M. A., & Hicks Jr., R. R. (2003). Oak Establishment and Canopy Accession Strategies in Five Old-Growth Stands in the Central Hardwood Forest Region. Forest Ecology and Management, 184, 285-297. Rissler, L. J., Karowe, D. N., Cuthbert, F., & Scholtens, B. (1995). The Influence of Yellow-Bellied Sapsuckers on Local Insect Community Structure. The Wilson Bulletin 107, no. 4, 746-52. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44163615 Royal BC Museum. (2006). Terrestrial Gastropods fo the Colombia Basin: Distribution of Terrestrial Gastropods. Retrieved from http://www.livinglandscapes.bc.ca/cbasin/molluscs Runkle, J. R. (1982). Patterns of Disturbance in Som Old-Growth Mesic Forests of Eastern North America. Ecology 63(5), 1533-1564. Schafale, M. P. (2012). Natural Communities of North Carolina, 4th Approximation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Schafale, M. P., & Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Schroeder, R. L. (1985). Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pine Warbler. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Schweitzer, C. J., Clatterbuck, W. K., & Oswalt, C. M. (2016). Species Composition and Succession in Yellow Pine Stands Following Souther Pine Beetle Outbreaks in Tennessee - Preliminary Results. Proceedings of the 18th biennial southern silviculture conference. e-Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS 212 (p. 614). Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Reasearch Station. Simon, S. A. (2011). Ecological Zones in the Southern Blue Ridge: 3rd Approximation. Asheville NC: Ecological Modeling and Fire Ecology, Inc. Simon, S. A., Collins, T. K., Kauffman, G. L., McNab, W. H., & Ulrey, C. J. (2005). Ecological Zones in the SOuthern Appalachians: First Approximation. Asheville, NC, USA. Smith, A. T., Alves, P. C., & Hacklander, K. (2018). Lagomorphs: Pkas, Rabbits, and Hares of the World (2018.01.07, ISBN 1421423405 ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, J. E., & Heath, L. S. (2004). Carbon Stocks and Projections on Public Forestlands in the United States, 1952-2040. Environmental Management 33(4), 433-442. Swank, W. T., & Vose, J. M. (1988). Effects of Cutting Practices on Microenvironment in Relation to Hardwood Regeneration. Guidelines for Regenerating Appalachian Hardwood Stands. Morgantown, WV: Society of American Foresters. Swank, W. T., Vose, J. M., & Elliott, K. J. (2001). Long-Term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Applachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management, 163-178.

182 Environmental Assessment

Swank, W., DeBano, L., & Nelson, D. (1989). Effects of TImber Management Practices on Soil and Water. From the Scientific Basis for Silvicultural and Management Decisions in National Forest Systems. Washington D.C. : USDA. Swift, L. W. (1984). Gravel and Grass Surfacing Reduces Soil Loss From Mountain Roads. Forest Science 30, 657-670. The Carolina Vegetation Survey. (2019, April 26). Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 2, 3, 4, 6. Ulrey, C. (1999). Classification of the Vegetation of the Southern Appalachians. Report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Asheville, NC. University of California. (2019). Retrieved February 12, 2019, from AmphibiaWeb: https://amphibiaweb.org USDA. (1989). Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains Final Environmental Impact Statement. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest Service. USDA. (1994). Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Asheville, NC: USDA. USDA. (1994). Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment #5. Asheville, NC: USDA. USDA. (2005). Amendment 17. Changing the List of Management Indicator Species. Groups to be Monitored, and Associated Changes to Forest Plan Direction. Asheville, NC: USDA. USDA. (2009). Nantahala and PIsgah National Forests Non-native Invasive Species Control. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service. USDA. (2017). An Assessment of Departure and the Natural Range of Variation for 11 Ecozones Across the Nantahala and Pisgah Naional Forests. Asheville, NC: USDA, FOrest Service, DRAFT report. USDA Forest Service. (1994). Land and Resource Management Plan Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Amendment 5). Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service. USDA. (n.d.). Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards. USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. (1989). Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest Service Southern Region. USDAFS. (2012). FY 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. National Forests of North Carolina. Asheville, NC. USDAFS. (2018). Best Management Practices Monitoring, Ten Year Summary Report (2009-2018). National Forests in North Carolina. USDAFS. (2018). Forestry Best Management Practices Monitoring. National Forests in North Carolina. USDAFS. (2019). Panther Branch Road Deocommissioning Monitoring Report. National Forests in North Carolina. Vaughan, D. (2002). Potential Impact of Road-stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. USDA Forest Service. Wade, D. D., Brock, B. L., Brose, P. H., Grace, J. B., Hoch, G. A., & Patterson, W. A. (2000). Fire in eastern ecosystems. In J. K. Smith, Wildland fire in ecosystems:effects of fire on flora. General Technical Report RMRS-42. Ogden, Utah: U.S.Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Waters, T. F. (1995). Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, 251. Weakley, A. (2015). Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Chapel HIll, NC: Universtiy of North Carolina . Williams, L. (2019, March 25). NC Wildlife Resources Commission biologist/Herpetolotist. (L. Stroup, Interviewer)

183 Environmental Assessment

Appendix A – 0-10 Year Age Class Analysis Table 54. Management area (MA) and analysis area geographic area scales maximum 0-10 year age class

MA Acres Max % 0-10 Max 0-10 acres Current 0-10 Acres Max Need 1B 3660 0.15 549 0 549 2A 430 0.1 43 0 43 3B 4098 0.15 615 22 593 4A 421 0.1 42 0 42 4C 5823 0 0 0 0 4D 3664 0.1 366 0 366 Total Analysis Area 18096 1615 22 1593

Table 55. Management area (MA) and analysis area geographic scales minimum 0-10 year age class

MA Acres Min % 0-10 Min 0-10 acres Current 0-10 Acres Min Need 1B 3660 0.05 183 0 183 2A 430 0.05 22 0 22 3B 4098 0.05 205 22 183 4A 421 0 0 0 0 4C 5823 0 0 0 0 4D 3664 0 0 0 0 Total Analysis Area 18096 409 22 387

Table 56. Compartment geographic scale maximum 0-10 year age class by management area (MA) Compart- MA MA MA MA MA MA Total Greatest % Max 0-10 ment 1B 2A 3B 4A 4C 4D MA % MA 0-10 per ACRES Compart- ment 452 0 418 834 0 9 0 1261 3B 0.15 189 453 0 0 63 0 1045 0 1108 4C 0 0 454 0 0 57 0 782 0 839 4C 0 0 455 1 0 5 0 814 0 820 4C 0 0 456 0 0 639 0 256 0 895 3B 0.15 134 457 0 12 694 0 101 0 807 3B 0.15 121 458 0 0 962 0 0 0 962 3B 0.15 144 462 736 0 0 0 530 0 1266 1B 0.15 190 463 0 0 447 0 763 0 1210 3B 0.15 182 464 481 0 397 421 0 0 1299 1B 0.15 195 465 0 0 0 0 159 519 678 4D 0.1 68 466 0 0 0 0 322 965 1287 4D 0.1 129 467 0 0 0 0 145 880 1025 4D 0.1 103 468 1077 0 0 0 0 0 1077 1B 0.15 162

184 Environmental Assessment

Compart- MA MA MA MA MA MA Total Greatest % Max 0-10 ment 1B 2A 3B 4A 4C 4D MA % MA 0-10 per ACRES Compart- ment 469 759 0 0 0 663 0 1422 1B 0.15 213 475 606 0 0 0 235 0 841 1B 0.15 126 476 0 0 0 0 0 633 633 4D 0.1 63 477 0 0 0 0 0 668 668 4D 0.1 67

Table 57. Compartment 0-10 year age class needs analysis

MA 2A MA(s) 1B & 3B MA(s) 4A & 4D Compart- Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current Min 0-10 Max 0-10 Current ment Acres (5%) (10%) 0-10 Need Acres (5%) (15%) 0-10 Need Acres (0%) (10%) 0-10 Need 452 418 21 42 0 21-42 834 42 125 0 42-125 0 0 0 0 0 453 0 0 0 0 0 63 3 9 0 3-9 0 0 0 0 0 454 0 0 0 0 0 57 3 9 0 3-10 0 0 0 0 0 455 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0-1 0 0 0 0 0 456 0 0 0 0 0 639 32 96 0 32-96 0 0 0 0 0 457 12 1 1 0 1 694 35 104 22 35-82 0 0 0 0 0 458 0 0 0 0 0 962 48 144 0 48-144 0 0 0 0 0 462 0 0 0 0 0 736 37 110 0 37-110 0 0 0 0 0 463 0 0 0 0 0 447 22 67 0 22-67 0 0 0 0 0 464 0 0 0 0 0 878 44 132 0 44-132 421 0 42 0 0-42 465 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 519 0 52 0 0-52 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 965 0 97 0 0-97 467 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 880 0 88 0 0-88 468 0 0 0 0 0 1077 54 162 0 54-162 0 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 0 0 0 759 38 114 0 38-114 0 0 0 0 0 475 0 0 0 0 0 606 30 91 0 30-91 0 0 0 0 0 476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 633 0 63 0 0-63 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 668 0 67 0 0-67 430 7758 4086

185 Environmental Assessment

Appendix B –Project Area Ecological Departure Analysis Table 58. Age range, acres, and current percentages of condition classes by ecological zone Early Mid Late Old Growth

Ecological Total Age Age Age Age Zones Acres Range Acres % Range Acres % Range Acres % Range Acres %

Northern 16 0-15 0 0 16-75 0 0 76-130 16 100 131+ 0 0 Hardwoods 101- 1704 0-10 0 0 11-100 1525 89 144 8 141+ 35 2 Acidic Cove 140 101- 8183 0-10 14 0 11-100 6442 79 1635 20 141+ 92 1 Rich Cove 140 101- 87 0-10 0 0 11-100 78 90 6 7 141+ 3 3 Flood Plain 140 Mesic Oak 2224 0-10 7 0 11-80 733 33 81-130 1357 61 131+ 127 6 Dry Oak 403 0-20 0 0 21-70 72 18 71-100 213 53 101+ 118 29

Dry Mesic 3821 0-15 8 0 16-75 953 25 76-130 2804 73 131+ 56 1 Oak

Shortleaf 38 0-15 0 0 16-70 14 37 71-100 20 53 101+ 4 11 Pine

Pine-Oak 977 0-20 0 0 21-70 251 26 71-130 671 69 131+ 55 6 Heath

Table 59. Condition class departure analysis by ecological zone Early Mid Closed Mid Open Late Closed Late Open Old Growth Closed Old Growth Open Ecological Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Desired Zones Current Current Current Current Current Current Current Range Range Range Range Range Range Range Northern 0% 17-23% 0% 1.5-2.5% 0% 11-14% 100% 2-3% 0% 40-50% 0% Hardwoods 5-7% 11-14% 0% Acidic Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 89% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 8% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 2% 0% 0% Rich Cove 4-5% 0% 27-32% 79% 4-6% 0% 9-10.5% 20% 1-2% 0% 46-54% 1% 0% 0% Flood Plain 6-8% 0% 30-36% 90% 9-14%% 0% 8-9% 6% 3-4% 0% 22-30% 3% 9-13% 0% Mesic Oak 4-5.5% 0% 12-15% 33% 12-16% 0% 8-10% 61% 5-7% 0% 27-34% 6% 20-25% 0% Dry Oak 9-22% 0% 2-7% 18% 12-19% 0% 1-3% 53% 6-9% 0% 5-16% 29% 40-57% 0% Dry Mesic 0% 7-9% 25% 13-17% 0% 7-8% 73% 7-9% 0% 22-28% 1% Oak 5-7% 28-33% 0% Shortleaf 0% .5-4% 37% 34-42% 0% .5-4% 53% 22-26% 0% .5-4% 11% Pine 8-13% 16-29% 0% Pine-Oak 0% .5-5% 26% 34-42% 0% .5-5% 69% 20-27% 0% .5-3% 6% Heath 11-19% 11-26% 0%

186 Environmental Assessment

Table 60. Need to meet lower ranges (NRV) of early forest conditions expressed in acres for the project area (PA) Total Lower Range of Ecological Acres in Desired Early Need Zone PA Forest (percentage) (Acres) Northern Hardwoods 16 0.05 0.8 Acidic Cove 1704 0.04 68.16 Rich Cove 8183 0.04 327.32 Flood Plain 87 0.06 5.22 Mesic Oak 2224 0.04 88.96 Dry Oak 403 0.09 36.27 Dry Mesic Oak 3821 0.05 191.05 Shortleaf Pine 38 0.08 3.04 Pine-Oak Heath 977 0.11 107.47

187 Environmental Assessment

Appendix C –Details of Proposed Watershed Improvement Projects

188 Environmental Assessment

Appendix A referenced in the slide above - Cold Springs Creek Stream Enhancement Project – Specifications: Structure Stone The work covered by this section consists of furnishing, stockpiling, placing and maintaining approved stone to be utilized to construct rock and log vanes, root wad structures, the step-pool structures, stream crossings, sediment, and erosion control measures for use in locations as directed by the Designer. The quantity of stone may be increased, decreased, or eliminated entirely at the direction of the Designer. Such variations in quantity will not be considered as alterations in the details of construction or a change in the character of the work. Log Vane This structure serves to decrease stress in the near-bank region while promoting scouring in the downstream pool. Logs are placed at an angle to the stream bank, gradually inclining in elevation until they are located near ½ bankfull elevation directly adjacent to the stream bank. Water flowing downstream is forced over these logs towards the middle of the channel, effectively scouring out a pool below. The quantity of log vanes may be increased, decreased, or eliminated entirely at the direction of the designer. Such variations in quantity will not be considered as alterations in the details of construction or a change in the character of the work.

189 Environmental Assessment

Toe-wood/Sod mat (bankfull bench) This structure serves to protect a length of stream bank by biulding a new bank with a bankfull area where one did not exist before due to unstable conditions (See Toe-wood/Sod mat detail below). The structure creates a large undercut bank providing an abundance of aquatic cover type habitat.

190 Environmental Assessment

Stabilization of Vertical Banks on outside Meander Bend Terrace elevation Construction of Bankfull Bench using TOE WOOD/SOD MAT DETAIL

EXCAVATED BANK MATERIAL

CONSTRUCTION ITEMS AND SEQUENCE: • Excavate high bank to construct a 2:1 slope from bankfull to terrace Bankfull Elevation elevation • Excavate & construct toe wood bench and new channel pool SOD MAT feature based on reference pool dimensions • Place trees/logs/tops on toe wood bench & in toe of bank below low Low flow Elevation flow • Place willow cuttings/bundles on toe wood • Excavate sod mats (using a front TOE WOOD end loader) or shrub transplants Pre-construction (e.g. alder, willow) and place on toe Channel Bottom

wood up to bankfull elevation Toe Wood bench • Seed bank with native grass seed FOOTER LOGS • Cover sod mat and sloped bank with coir erosion control matting Channel Bottom • Plant willow/silky dogwood/elderberry cuttings into relocated sod mat and bank to help Brady Dodd NFNC Hydro “pin” sod into bank EROSION CONTROL SPECIFICATIONS Seeding shall occur within 24 hours of ground disturbing activities. Seed shall be applied by hand or with a cyclone seeder and on steep slopes be immediately covered with leaf litter , raked in from the surrounding area. On stream banks, biodegradable matting/blanket shall be placed to keep seed and soil in place. Below are native grass species to be sown and their seeding density of pure live seed. Community Type: Riparian Scientific Name Common Name Planting Density Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 22 lbs/acre Festuca rubra Creeping red fescue 5 lbs/acre Dichanthelium clandestinum Deertongue 2 lbs/acre Aster sagittifolius Arrow Leaved Aster 2 lbs/acre Rudbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan 2 lbs/acre Eupatorium fistulosom Joe Pye Weed 1 lbs/acre Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset 1 lbs/acre Plantings Plantings shall be specified in each contract as to type e.g., container, bare root, and live staking. Plantings from containers shall be from one gallon containers and can be planted throughout the year. Live staking and bare root planting shall occur during plant dormancy. Bare root seedlings shall be 6 to 12 inches tall. Below is a list of woody vegetation species to be planted on stream banks and floodplains.

191 Environmental Assessment

Scientific Name Common Name Percent of plantings Spacing (feet) Container & Bare Root Species: Alnus serrulata Tag Alder 20% 3 Calycanthus floridus Sweetshrub 10% 3 Clethra acuminata Cinnamon Bark Clethra 10% 4 Hamamelis virginiana Witch Hazel 10% 4 Hypericum densiflorum Bushy St. Johns 10% 4 Itea virginica 10% 4 Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellowroot 10% 2.5 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 20% 6 Live Stake Species: Cornus ammonum silky dogwood 10 3 Salix nigra black willow 20 3 Salix sericea silky willow 20 3 Salix humilis prairie willow 10 3 Sambucus canadensis common elderberry 30 3 Physocarpus opulifolius ninebark 10 3

192 Environmental Assessment

Appendix D – Aquatic Rare Species List for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Federally-listed (PET) Species List: aquatics NC US Group Scientific Name Common Name Stat NC Rank Global Status us Freshwater fish Erimonax monachus spotfin chub T T S1 G2 Mollusk: Alasmidonta Appalachian elktoe E E S1 G1 freshwater raveneliana bivalve Mollusk: Pegias fabula littlewing E E S1 G1 freshwater pearlymussel bivalve Mollusk: Villosa trabalis Cumberland bean SR E S1 G1 freshwater bivalve R8 Sensitive (S) Species List: aquatics and terrestrial wildlife NC US Group Scientific Name Common Name Stat NC Rank Global Status us Caecidotea Bennett's Mill Cave Crustacean carolinensis water slater E FSC S1 G2G3 Cambarus Crustacean chaugaensis Chauga crayfish SC S2 G2 Little Tennessee Crustacean Cambarus georgiae River crayfish SC S2S3 G2 Hiwassee Crustacean Cambarus parrishi headwaters crayfish SC FSC S1 G2 French Broad Crustacean Cambarus reburrus crayfish SR FSC S3 G3 Stygobromus Yancey Crustacean carolinensis sideswimmer SR FSC S1 G1 Freshwater fish Etheostoma acuticeps sharphead darter T FSC S1 G3 Etheostoma Freshwater fish vulneratum wounded darter SC FSC S1 G3 Freshwater fish Percina burtoni blotchside logperch E FSC S1 G2G3 Percina Freshwater fish macrocephala longhead darter G3 Freshwater fish Percina squamata olive darter SC FSC S2 G3 mountain river Insect: dragonfly Macromia margarita cruiser SR FSC S1S2 G3 Ophiogomphus Insect: dragonfly edmundo Edmund's snaketail SR FSC S1 G1G2 Insect: dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei pygmy snaketail SR FSC S1 G3

193 Environmental Assessment

Ophiogomphus Appalachian Insect: dragonfly incurvatus snaketail W2 S3 G3 Mollusk: freshwater bivalve Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater E FSC S1 G3 Mollusk: freshwater Fusconaia bivalve barnesiana Tennessee pigtoe E S1 G2G3 Mollusk: freshwater Tennessee bivalve Lasmigona holstonia heelsplitter E FSC S1 G3 Forest Concern (FC) Species List: aquatics NC US Group Scientific Name Common Name Stat NC Rank Global Status us Amphibian Cryptobranchus hellbender SC FSC S3 G3G4 alleganiensis Amphibian Necturus maculosus common mudpuppy SC S1 G5 Crustacean Cambarus acanthura thornytail crayfish SR S1 G4G5 Crustacean Cambarus Grandfather SR S1 G1 eeseeohensis Mountain crayfish Crustacean Cambarus nodosus knotty burrowing SR S2 G4 crayfish Crustacean Cambarus tuckasegee Tuckasegee stream SR S1S2 G1G2 crayfish Crustacean Orconectes sp. 3 a crayfish SR S2? GNR Crustacean Skistodiaptomus Carolina SC S1? GNR carolinensis skistodiaptomus Freshwater Fish Aplodinotus freshwater drum SC S1 G5 grunniens Freshwater Fish Carpiodes carpio river carpsucker SC S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Carpiodes cyprinus quillback SR S2? G5 Freshwater Fish Carpiodes sp. cf. a carpsucker SR S2 GNR cyprinus Freshwater Fish Carpiodes sp. cf. Atlantic highfin SC S1 GNR velifer carpsucker Freshwater Fish Clinostomus sp. 1 Smoky dace SC FSC S3 G3Q Freshwater Fish Cottus carolinae banded sculpin T S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Erimystax insignis southern blotched SR FSC S2 G4TNR eristigma club Freshwater Fish Etheostoma turquoise darter T S1 G4 inscriptum Freshwater Fish Etheostoma Tennessee darter SC S1 G3G4 simoterum Freshwater Fish Hiodon tergisus mooneye SC S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Hybopsis rubrifrons rosyface chub T S1 G4

194 Environmental Assessment

Freshwater Fish Ichthyomyzon Ohio lamprey SR S1 G3G4 bdellium Freshwater Fish Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo SR S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Ictiobus niger black buffalo SR S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Lampetra appendix American brook T S1 G4 lamprey Freshwater Fish Luxilus striped shiner SC S2 G5 chrysocephalus Freshwater Fish Micropterus coosae redeye bass SR S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Moxostoma breviceps smallmouth redhorse SR S2 G5 Freshwater Fish Moxostoma sp. 2 sicklefin redhorse T C S1 G2Q Freshwater Fish Notropis lutipinnis yellowfin shiner SC S1 G4Q Freshwater Fish Notropis micropteryx hghland shiner SR S2 G5 Freshwater Fish Notropis volucellus mimic shiner SR S2 G5 Freshwater Fish Noturus eleutherus mountain madtom SC S1 G4 Freshwater Fish Noturus flavus stonecat E S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Percina caprodes logperch T S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Percina nigrofasciata blackbanded darter T S1 G5 Freshwater Fish Percina williamsi sickle darter SC FSC SX G2 Freshwater Fish Polyodon spathula paddlefish E FSC SH G4 Freshwater Fish Sander canadensis sauger SR S2? G5 Insect: Caddisfly Beraea gorteba a caddisfly SR S1S2 G1G2 Insect: Caddisfly Brachycentrus a caddisfly SR S2 G3 etowahensis Insect: Caddisfly Ceraclea slossonae a caddisfly SR S1 G4 Insect: Caddisfly Goerita flinti a caddisfly SR S1 G2G3 Insect: Caddisfly Homoplectra a caddisfly SR S1 G2G3 monticola Insect: Caddisfly Hydropsyche a caddisfly SR S1 G2G3 carolina Insect: Caddisfly Manophylax altus Mount Mitchell SR S1 G2G3 caddisfly Insect: Caddisfly Oropsyche howellae a caddisfly SR S2 G2 Insect: Caddisfly Palaeagapetus celsus a caddisfly SR S2 G5 Insect: Caddisfly Polycentropus colei a caddisfly SR S1 G3G4 Insect: Caddisfly Rhyacophila accola a caddisfly SR S1S2 G1G2 Insect: Caddisfly Rhyacophila a ryhacophilian SR S2 G3 appalachia caddisfly Insect: Caddisfly Rhyacophila celadon celadon caddisfly SR S2 G2G3 Insect: Caddisfly Rhyacophila mycta a caddisfly SR S2S3 G3 Insect: Damselfly Lestes congener spotted spreadwing SR S1 G5 Insect: Dragonfly Aeshna tuberculifera black-tipped darner SR SH G4

195 Environmental Assessment

Insect: Dragonfly Aeshna verticalis green-striped darner SR S1 G5 Insect: Dragonfly Cordulia shurtleffii American emerald SR S1 G5 Insect: Dragonfly Gomphus adelphus mustached clubtail SR S1S2 G4 Insect: Dragonfly Gomphus borealis beaverpond clubtail SR SH G4 Insect: Dragonfly Gomphus consanguis Cherokee clubtail SR FSC S1? G3 Insect: Dragonfly Gomphus descriptus harpoon clubtail SR SH G4 Insect: Dragonfly Gomphus rapids clubtail SR S1? G3G4 quadricolor Insect: Dragonfly Ladona julia chalk-fronted SR S1 G5 corporal Insect: Dragonfly Neurocordulia stygian SR S1? G5 yamaskanensis shadowdragon Insect: Dragonfly Ophiogomphus brook snaketail SR S1 G4 aspersus Insect: Dragonfly Ophiogomphus rusty snaketail SR S1 G5 rupinsulensis Insect: Dragonfly Stylurus scudderi zebra clubtail SR S2? G4 Insect: Mayfly Ameletus tertius a mayfly SR S2 G4 Insect: Mayfly Attenella margarita a mayfly SR S1 G5 Insect: Mayfly Baetpous trishae a mayfly SR S1 G1G2 Insect: Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Benfield's bearded SR S1 G2G4 small minnow mayfly Insect: Mayfly Ephemerella a mayfly SR S2 G3Q floripara Insect: Mayfly Maccaffertium Wilson Creek SR S1 GNR wudigeum "Stenonema" Insect: Mayfly Macdunnoa brunnea a mayfly SR S2 G3G4 Insect: Stonefly Megaleuctra Williams' rare SR S1 G2 williamsae winter stonefly Insect: Stonefly Pteronarcy comstocki spiny salmonfly SR S2 G3 Insect: Stonefly Rasvena terna Vermont sallfly SR S2 G4 Insect: Stonefly Zapada chila Smokies forestfly SR S1S2 G2 Mollusk: Alasmidonta viridis slippershell mussel E S1 G4G5 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Elliptio dilatata spike SC S1 G5 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Fusconaia long-solid SR S1 G3 Freshwater subrotunda Bivalve Mollusk: Lampsilis fasciola wavy-rayed SC S1 G5 Freshwater lampmussel Bivalve

196 Environmental Assessment

Mollusk: Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell E FSC S1 G2G3 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Potamilus alatus pink heelsplitter SR S1 G5 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Strophitus undulatus creeper T S2 G5 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Villosa iris rainbow SC S1 G5Q Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Villosa vanuxemensis mountain creekshell T S1 G4 Freshwater Bivalve Mollusk: Elimia christyi Christy's elimia E FSC S1 G2 Freshwater Gastropod Mollusk: Leptoxis dilatata seep mudalia T S1 G3 Freshwater Gastropod

NFsNC list updated 2018

197 Environmental Assessment

Appendix E – Wildlife Rare Species List for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Amphibian Desmognathus Santeetlah W2 S3S4 G3G4 stream Haywood Current santeetlah Dusky Q headwaters Salamand and seepage er areas; southwestern mountains

Amphibian Desmognathus Southern SR S2S3 G3 mid to high Haywood Current wrighti Pygmy elevation Salamand forests, often er in spruce-fir; west of the French Broad River

Amphibian Eurycea Longtail SC S1S2 G5T5 moist woods Haywood Current longicauda Salamand and longicauda er floodplains; small ponds for breeding

Amphibian Plethodon Red- W3 S3 G4 rich forests in Haywood Current jordani cheeked the Salamand southwestern er mountains, essentially restricted to Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Amphibian Plethodon Southern SC S1 G4 moist areas of Haywood Current ventralis Zigzag talus slopes or Salamand rock outcrops er in hardwood forests

Bird Aegolius Northern T S2B, G5 spruce-fir Haywood Current acadicus Saw-whet S2N forests or Owl mixed hardwood/spru ce forests (for nesting) [breeding season only]

198 Environmental Assessment

Bird Catharus Hermit SR S2B, G5 spruce-fir Haywood Current guttatus Thrush S5N forests; sparingly in northern hardwood forests [breeding evidence only]

Bird Certhia Brown SC S3B, G5 high elevation Haywood Current americana Creeper S5N forests, favoring spruce-fir mixed with hardwoods [breeding evidence only]

Bird Coccyzus Black- SR S2B G5 deciduous Haywood Current erythropthalm billed forests, mainly us Cuckoo at higher elevations [breeding evidence only]

Bird Dolichonyx Bobolink SR S1B G5 meadows and Haywood Current oryzivorus other grasslands [breeding evidence only]

Bird Empidonax Alder SR S2B G5 high elevation Haywood Current alnorum Flycatcher shrub/sapling thickets [breeding evidence only]

Bird Falco American E S1B, G4T4 cliffs Haywood Current peregrinus Peregrine S2N (nesting); anatum (syn. Falcon coastal ponds Falco and mudflats peregrinus) (foraging in winter) [breeding evidence;�re gular wintering sites]

199 Environmental Assessment

Bird Haliaeetus Bald T BG S3B, G5 mature forests Haywood Current leucocephalus Eagle PA S3N near large bodies of water (nesting); rivers, lakes, and sounds (foraging) [breeding evidence only]

Bird Loxia Red SC S2 G5 coniferous Haywood Current curvirostra Crossbill forests, preferably spruce-fir

Bird Poecile Black- SC S3 G5 high elevation Haywood Current atricapillus capped forests, mainly Chickadee spruce-fir [breeding evidence only]

Bird Setophaga Cerulean SC S2B G4 mature Haywood Current cerulea (syn. Warbler hardwood Dendroica forests; steep cerulea) slopes and coves in mountains, natural levees in Coastal Plain [breeding evidence only]

Bird Setophaga Yellow- SR S1B, G5 spruce-fir Haywood Current coronata rumped S5N forests, Warbler especially in immature stands [breeding evidence only]

Bird Setophaga Magnolia SR S2B G5 spruce-fir Haywood Current magnolia Warbler forests, especially in immature stands [breeding evidence only]

200 Environmental Assessment

Bird Sphyrapicus Yellow- SR S2S3 G5 mature, open Haywood Current varius bellied B,S5 hardwoods Sapsucker N with scattered dead trees�[breed ing evidence only]

Bird Thryomanes Bewick's E SXB G5 woodland Haywood Historic bewickii Wren borders or al openings, farmlands or brushy fields, at high elevations [breeding evidence only]

Bird Vermivora Golden- SC S2S3 G4 old fields and Haywood Current chrysoptera winged B successional Warbler hardwoods [breeding evidence only]

Bird Vermivora Blue- SR S2B G5 low elevation Haywood Current cyanoptera winged brushy fields Warbler and thickets [breeding evidence only]

Butterfly Autochton Golden SR S2 G4 moist woods Haywood Current cellus Banded- near streams; Skipper host plant -- wild bean (Phaseolus polystachios)

Butterfly Celastrina Dusky SR S2 G4 rich, moist Haywood Current nigra Azure deciduous forests; host plant -- goat's- beard (Aruncus dioicus)

Butterfly Erora laeta Early SR S2S3 GU deciduous Haywood Current Hairstreak forests, especially along edges of

201 Environmental Assessment

rich forests; host plants -- mainly American beech (Fagus grandifolia )

Butterfly Euphydryas Baltimore SR S2 G5 bogs, marshes, Haywood Current phaeton Checkersp wet meadows; ot rarely in upland woods; host plants -- turtlehead (Chelone) and false foxglove (Aureolaria )

Butterfly Phyciodes Appalachi SR S2 G5T3 woodland Haywood Current batesii an Tawny openings, maconensis Crescent glades, and road banks at higher elevations; host plants -- asters, mainly Symphyotr ichum undulatum

Butterfly Polygonia Green SR S1S2 G5 spruce, fir, or Haywood Current faunus Comma hemlock forests, where mixed with hardwoods; host plants -- mainly birches (Betula )

Butterfly Speyeria diana Diana W2 S3S4 G3G4 montane and Haywood Current Fritillary foothill forest edges and openings; host plants --

202 Environmental Assessment

violets (Viola)

Freshwater Fumonelix Engraved T S1 G1 spruce-fir and Haywood Current or orestes Covert northern Terrestrial hardwood Gastropod forests; Plott Balsam mountains (endemic to this area)

Freshwater Inflectarius Velvet SC S2S3 G2 central Haywood Current or subpalliatus Covert mountains Terrestrial (Watauga to Gastropod Haywood counties)

Freshwater Patera clarki Dwarf SC S3 G3T3 forested Haywood Current or clarki Proud mountainsides Terrestrial Globe Gastropod

Mammal Corynorhinus Rafinesqu T S2 G3G4 roosts in Haywood Current rafinesquii e's Big- T3 caves, mines, rafinesquii eared Bat and hollow trees, usually near water

Mammal Microtus Southern SC S3 G5T3 rocky areas at Haywood Current chrotorrhinus Rock Vole high carolinensis elevations, forests or fields

Mammal Mustela Least SR- S2 G5 fields and Haywood Current nivalis Weasel G forests, mostly at high elevations

Mammal Myotis leibii Eastern SC S2 G4 roosts in Haywood Current Small- hollow trees footed Bat and in rock crevices (warmer months), in caves and mines (winter)

203 Environmental Assessment

Mammal Myotis Little SR S2 G3 roosts in Haywood Current lucifugus Brown buildings Bat (summer), in caves and mines (winter)

Mammal Myotis Northern T T- S2 G1G2 roosts in Haywood Current septentrionalis Long- 4(d hollow trees eared Bat ) and buildings (warmer months), in caves and mines (winter); mainly in the mountains

Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana E E S1S2 G2 roosts in Haywood Current Bat hollow trees or under loose bark and snags (warmer months), in caves (winter)

Mammal Sorex dispar Southern SR S3 G4T3T high elevation Haywood Current blitchi Rock 4 forests with Shrew talus or rocky slopes

Mammal Sorex palustris Southern SR S3 G5T3 stream banks Haywood Current punctulatus Water in montane Shrew forests

Mammal Spilogale Eastern SR- S2 G4 forests with Haywood Current putorius Spotted G rocks, cliffs, Skunk and other den sites

Mammal Sylvilagus Appalachi SR- S3 G4 dense cover of Haywood Current obscurus an G montane Cottontail woods and thickets

Reptile Crotalus Timber SC S3 G4 wetland forests Haywood Current horridus Rattlesnak in the Coastal e Plain; rocky, upland forests elsewhere [NHP tracking only

204 Environmental Assessment

den/hibernacul a sites and selected isolated populations]

Amphibian Cryptobranchu Eastern SC S3 G3G4 large and clear Haywood Current s alleganiensis Hellbende T2 fast-flowing alleganiensis r streams

205 Environmental Assessment

Appendix F – Haywood County TES Plants List

FEDERALLY LISTED, THREATENED, REGIONALLY SENSITIVE or FOREST CONCERN PLANT SPECIES WITHIN HAYWOOD CO. NC. ON USFS LANDS Occurrence Code:

1) Not known to occur in botanical AA. No known, or very limited, potential habitat in botanical AA. Not further analyzed.

2) Not known to occur in botanical AA. Habitat and species may occur in botanical AA. Not further analyzed because proposal will not affect potential habitat or known populations.

3) Species is known to occur in botanical AA but not activity area.

4) Species is known to occur in botanical AA and activity area(s)

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Abies fraseri Fraser Fir Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest 1

Aconitum reclinatum Trailing Sensitive Northern Hardwood Cove 2 Wolfsbane Forest, Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation Seep, Rich Cove Forest

Adlumia fungosa Climbing Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane 4 Fumitory concern Acidic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff

Alectoria fallacina Bubbling Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest 1 Witch's-hair

Anzia americana A Black-foam Forest On bark of trees in humid 1 Lichen concern gorges, Acidic Cove

Botrychium Daisy-leaf Forest Rich Cove Forest, Meadow, 2 matricariifolium Moonwort concern Grassy Bald

Botrychium simplex Least Forest Meadow, Roadside, Grassy 1 var. simplex Moonwort concern Bald

Brachyelytrum Northern Forest Serpentine Forest, Northern 2 aristosum Shorthusk concern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest

Brachythecium Rota's Feather Forest Acidic Cove Forest 2 rotaeanum Moss concern

206 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Bromus ciliatus Fringed Forest High Elevation Seep, Grassy 1 Brome concern Bald, Meadow

Buckleya distichophylla Piratebush Sensitive Hemlock Hardwood Forest, 4 Acidic Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Mesic Oak- Hickory, Dry Slopes, Forests on lower slope

Campanula Marsh Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 3 aparinoides Bellflower Concern Wet Meadow

Campylopus atrovirens Black Fish Forest crevices and seepage zones on 1 var. atrovirens Hook Moss concern exposed granite, High elevation Granitic Dome Cardamine clematitis Mountain Sensitive Boulderfield Forest, Northern 1 Bittercress Hardwood Cove Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest, High Elevation Seep Carex baileyi Bailey's Forest bogs, seeps 2 Sedge concern

Carex oligocarpa Few-fruited Forest Rich Cove Forest 2 Sedge concern

Carex roanensis Roan Sedge Forest Rich Cove Forest, Montane 4 concern Oak-Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak

Cephaloziella A Liverwort Sensitive High Elevation Rocky 2 spinicaulis Summit, seeps on rock at low elevation Chamerion platphyllum Purple Forest Meadow, Grassy Bald 1 Willowherb Concern

Chelone obliqua Red Sensitive swamp forests bog complex, 1 Turtlehead bogs

Cleistesopsis bifaria * Small Sensitive Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine- 4 (New Record for Spreading Oak Woodland, Shortleaf Pine Haywood County) Pogonia

Coniarthonia Hot Dots Sensitive Old-Growth Spruce-Fir on 1 kermesina mature Picea bark

Coreopsis latifolia Broadleaf Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Northern 2 Coreopsis Hardwood Cove Forest

Crocanthemum Plains Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 bicknellii Sunrose concern Calcareous Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome

207 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Crocanthemum Creeping Forest Glade, Southern Appalachian 3 propinquum Sunrose Concern Fen, Montane Acidic Cliff

Cypripedium Small Yellow Forest ? 4 (ADDED – not parviflorum var. Lady Slipper Concern in Haywood CO?) parviflorum***

Danthonia epilis Bog Oatgrass Forest High Elevation Granitic 1 Concern Dome, Seep

Delphinium exaltatum Tall Larkspur Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Grassy 2 Bald, Glade, Montane Oak- Hickory, mafic rock

Dendrolycopodium Tree Ground- Forest Grassy Balds, Spruce-Fir, 1 dendroideum pine Concern Northern Hardwood

Dicentra eximia Bleeding Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, 3 Heart concern Montane Mafic Cliff

Dodecatheon meadia Eastern Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 var. meadia Shooting Star concern Cedar-Hardwood Forest

Draba ramosissima Branching Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 3 Draba concern Calcareous Cliff

Drepanolejeunea A Liverwort Sensitive Acidic Cove, Montane Oak- 2 appalachiana Hickory, Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Epilobium ciliatum Purpleleaf Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 2 Willowherb concern Seep

Euphorbia commutate Cliff Spurge Forest Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 concern Calcareous Cliff

Euphorbia purpurea Glade Spurge Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 2 Rich Cove Forest, Mesic oak- hickory

Filipendula rubra Queen-of-the- Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 2 Prairie Concern Wet Meadow

Gentiana latidens Balsam Sensitive moist, often seeps, rocky 1 Mountain slopes at high elevation Gentian

208 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Geum radiatum Cliff Avens Endangered High Elevation Rocky Summit 1

Glyceria nubigena Smoky Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 Mountain Boulderfield Forest, High Mannagrass Elevation Seep, Spruce-Fir Forest

Graphis sterlingiana Sterling Lips Sensitive Old-growth Betula 1 alleghaniensis in Spruce-Fir and Northern Hardwood Forests

Gymnoderma lineare Rock Gnome Endangered High Elevation Rocky 1 Lichen Summit, Moist Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove in Gorge, High Elevation Granitic Dome, Spruce-Fir Forest

Hackelia virginiana Virginia Forest Woods and thickets, 3 (ADDED – not Stickseed Concern circumneutral soils in Haywood CO?)

Heterodermia A Foliose Sensitive On bark in humid older 1 appalachensis Lichen forests, possibly old growth

Heterodermia erecta A Centipede Sensitive Hardwood Trees in high 1 Lichen elevation forests

Heuchera pubescens Downy Forest Rock outcrops 3 (ADDED – not Alumroot Concern in Haywood CO?)

Hydrastis canadensis Goldenseal Forest Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 2 Concern Hickory, mafic rock

Hypotrachyna virginica Virginia Sensitive rock or bark of Spruce-fir 1 Square Forest, Northern Hardwood Britches Forest

Ilex collina Long-stalked Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 Holly Boulderfield Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest Bog Complex

Isotria medeoloides Small Threatened White Pine Forest, Mesic 2 Whorled Oak-Hickory, Acidic Cove Pogonia Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Dry- Mesic Oak Forest

209 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Juglans cinerea Butternut Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 4 Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest

Lecanora masana Masa's Disc Sensitive Northern Hardwood & 1 Lichen Spruce-Fir Forests, heath balds Lilium canadense var. Yellow Forest Wet Meadow, Southern 3 (ADDED – not canadense Canada Lily Concern Appalachian Bog in Haywood CO?)

Lilium grayi Gray's Lily Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Wet Meadow, Beech Gap Lilium philadelphicum Wood Lily Forest Grassy Bald, Meadow, Glade 1 var. philadelphicum concern

Lobaria scrobiculata Textured Forest High Elevation Forest 1 Lungwort concern primarily Spruce-Fir

Lonicera canadensis American Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 Fly- concern High Elevation Seep, honeysuckle Boulderfield Forest

Lycopodiella inundata Bog Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 2 Clubmoss concern Seep

Meehania cordata Meehania Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, 3 concern Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Melanelia stygia A Foliose Forest High Elevation Rocky Summit 1 Lichen concern

Metzgeria violacea A Liverwort Forest High elevation tree bark 1 concern

Micranthes caroliniana Carolina Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 Saxifrage Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Rocky Summit Monotropsis odorata Sweet Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 2 Pinesap Hickory, Dry Oak-Hickory, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest, Pine- Oak/Heath Forest Packera millefolium Divided-leaf Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff, 1 Ragwort Montane Cedar-Hardwood Woodland, High Elevation Granitic Dome

210 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Parnassia grandifolia Large-leaved Sensitive Seep, Fen, Serpentine 2 Grass-of- Woodland, Roadside, mafic parnassus rock

Pedicularis lanceolata Swamp Forest Serpentine Woodland, 2 Lousewort Concern Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet Meadow Phegopteris connectilis Northern Forest Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest, 1 Beech Fern Concern High Elevation Seep

Pilophorus fibula Appalachian Sensitive Non-calcareous rocks 1 Matchsticks associated with waterfalls and riparian corridors

Platanthera flava var. Northern Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 1 herbiola Green Orchid Concern Swamp Forest Bog Complex

Plathynidium Long-beaked Forest moist hardwood forest, 1 riparioides Water Feather Concern coniferous swamps Moss

Poa saltuensis A Bluegrass Forest Serpentine Woodland, 3 Concern Serpentine Forest

Pycnanthemum Tennessee Forest rock outcrops, dry rocky 2 curvipes Mountain- Concern woodlands mint

Rhododendron Cumberland Forest Grassy Bald, Heath Bald, 2 cumberlandense Azalea Concern High Elevation Red Oak Forest

Rhododendron vaseyi Pink-shell Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, 2 Azalea High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog, Meadow, Roadside, Mesic Oak Forest, Granitic Riccardia jugata A Liverwort Sensitive Rotten Logs in Acidic Cove 3 Forest in Gorge

Robinia hispida var Kelsey's Forest High Elevation Red Oak 2 kelseyi Locust concern Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff

Rubus idaeus ssp. Red Forest Northern Hardwood Forest, 1 strigosus Raspberry concern Boulderfield Forest, Spruce- Fir Forest

Rugelia nudicaulis Rugel's Forest Spruce-Fir Forest 1 Ragwort concern

211 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Scopelophila ligulata Copper Moss Forest Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides 1 concern

Silene ovata Mountain Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 4 Catchfly Hickory, Roadside, mafic rock

Solidago uliginosa Bog Forest High Elevation Seep, Southern 3 Goldenrod concern Appalachian Bog

Sphagnum Orange Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 3 subsecundum Peatmoss concern Fen, Spray Cliff, Grassy Bald, High Elevation Rocky Summit

Sphenolobopsis A Liverwort Sensitive Fraser-Fir Forest 1 pearsonii

Stereocaulon Tennessee Sensitive High elevation non- 1 tenesseense Twist calcareous, typically wet, rocks surrounded, shaded, by many different habitat types

Stewartia ovata Mountain Forest Acidic Cove Forest, Montane 2 Camellia concern Alluvial Forest, Dry-Mesic Oak Forest

Sticta limbata Powdered Sensitive High Elevation Forest 1 Moon Lichen

Streptopus White Forest High Elevation Seep, Northern 1 amplexifolius Mandarin concern Hardwood Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest, Boulderfield Forest

Thermopsis villosa Aaron’s-rod Sensitive Roadside, openings, 2 woodlands

Tortula papillosa Papillose Forest Hardwood Trees 2 Tortula concern

Triantha glutinosa Sticky Bog Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 2 Asphodel concern Seep

Trichophorum Deerhair Forest Montane Acidic Cliff, High 1 cespitosum Bulrush concern Elevation Granitic Dome

Trillium simile Sweet White Sensitive Rich Cove Forest 3 (Added – not in Trillium Haywood CO?)

212 Environmental Assessment

SPECIES COMMON STATUS HABITAT OCCURRENCE NAME

Trientalis borealis Starflower Forest Rich Cove Forest, Northern 3 concern Hardwood Forest

Usnea angulate Old Man's Sensitive juniper branches on high 1 Beard, Edgy elevation granitic domes, Beard Lichen riparian areas

Vaccinium Cranberry Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, 2 macrocarpon concern Seep

213 Environmental Assessment

Appendix G – NC Watchlist Plants List

These species are not tracked or analyzed by USFS NEPA/FMP standards, nor are they tracked spatially by the State Natural Heritage Program, but they are recognized by the State of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as “Watch List” species, defined as: “…an NCNHP designation for any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state but not warranting active monitoring at this time.” The following species have further designation as either W1 or W7 (Robinson, 2018).

W1: Rare but Relatively Secure: “Species whose status in N.C. is relatively well known and appear to be relatively secure at this time. While still notably rare, these species do not currently require site-specific monitoring and so are not on the Rare List. Many of these species were formerly on the Rare List; they are retained in this category because they require a lower level of continued monitoring to ensure their long-term security.”

W7: Poorly Known in NC: “Species with inadequate information about their distribution and rarity in N.C. These are generally species not previously listed as rare in N.C. but which appear to be so based on herbarium or museum records and field experience of NCNHP staff, consultants, and cooperating scientists. Further information is needed to determine the true status of these species in N.C.”

Known state watch list plant species within the Botanical Analysis Area (not tracked or analyzed by USFS NEPA/FMP standards

Watch Species (Common Natural Community or List Type Occurrence Name) Habitat Type* Heuchera longiflora W7 Vascular rich and rocky cove Unit 13, 15, 20, 42 (Regeneration Harvest) (Long-flower Alumroot) Plant forests, especially over Unit 49 (UEA Management) calcareous or mafic rocks Units 36, 81 (Stand Improvement) Isotria verticillata W1 Vascular Forests Unit 13, 52 (Regeneration Harvest) (Large Whorled Pogonia) Plant Unit 25 (Stand Improvement) Unit 49 (UEA Management) Unit 41, 59, 85 (Woodland) Lathyrus venosus W1 Vascular rich bottomlands and Unit 44 (Regeneration Harvest) (Smooth Peavine) Plant rocky slopes, generally over mafic rocks Panax quinquefolius W1 Vascular cove forests, other rich Unit 25 (Stand Improvement) (Ginseng) Plant forests Unit 39 (UEA Management) Units 51, 67 (Commercial Thinning) Units 33, 56, 58, 70, 83, 102 (Regeneration Harvest) Units 82, 95, 96 (Woodland) Populus grandidentata W7 Vascular dry ridges and rocky Units 24, 25 (Stand Improvement) (Bigtooth Aspen) Plant woods Unit 56, 58 (Regeneration Harvest) (Tree) Additional locations found outside of proposed action areas Scutellaria ovata ssp. W1 Vascular rich woods on Unit 15 (Regeneration Harvest) ovata var. ovata Plant circumneutral soil (Heartleaf Skullcap) Symphyotrichum novae- W1 Vascular wet meadows, bogs, Unit 104 (Commercial Thinning) angliae Plant prairies (New England Aster)

214 Environmental Assessment

Appendix H – Map Corrections

Maps and GIS files were frozen during effects analysis. After effects analysis was completed, a few minor corrections were needed on the map. Locations of roads in Compartments 0452, 0453, and 0458 were changed to more accurately reflect the usable templates that existed on the ground. In Compartments 0469 and 0457, unit boundaries were adjusted to better match on the ground conditions, see figure below. These changes were reviewed by IDT but metrics in the analysis (acres, miles) do not reflect these minor changes.

215 Environmental Assessment

216