United States Department of Agriculture
Armstrong Creek Project Environmental Assessment
Forest Service Pisgah National Forest Grandfather Ranger District February, 2016
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 Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction ...... 2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 Proposed Action ...... 9 Descriptions of Proposed Actions ...... 12 Associated Actions ...... 16 Issues and Alternatives ...... 18 Public Involvement ...... 18 Issues ...... 18 Range of Alternatives ...... 18 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 19 Alternative A – No Action ...... 19 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 19 Alternative C ...... 19 Alternative D ...... 19 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 19 Alternative 1 ...... 19 Project Design Features and Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives ...... 20 Monitoring ...... 21 Summary Comparison of Actions by Alternative ...... 22 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 24 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat ...... 25 Scale of Analysis ...... 25 Effects Analysis ...... 28 Determination of Effect ...... 40 Mitigation Measures & Project Design Features ...... 41 Soil/Geology Resources ...... 42 Scope of the Analysis ...... 42 Existing Conditions ...... 42 Hydric Soils Listing ...... 43 Prime Farmland Soils Listing ...... 43 Desired Condition of the Soils ...... 44 Direct & Indirect Effects Analysis ...... 44 Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 53 Wildlife ...... 55 Introduction ...... 55 Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods ...... 55 Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition ...... 56 Potential Effects and Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources ...... 58 Specific Effects to TES, and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species ...... 60 Effects to Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Habitat ...... 62 Effects to Management Indicator Species and Habitat ...... 62 Effects by Alternative ...... 71 Summary of Effects ...... 72 Botanical ...... 73 Introduction ...... 73 Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods ...... 73
i Name of Project
Existing Botanical Condition ...... 74 Effects Analysis of Botanical Resources ...... 82 Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species ...... 83 Effects to Potential Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Forest Concern Plant Species ...... 87 Effects of Non-Native Invasive Plant Species within the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 89 Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas ...... 93 Summary of Effects ...... 93 Forest Vegetation ...... 94 Existing Condition ...... 94 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 95 Cumulative Effects ...... 97 Cultural Resources ...... 98 Existing Condition ...... 98 Protection and Conservation Mitigations ...... 99 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 99 Recreation ...... 100 Existing Condition ...... 100 Analysis Methods ...... 100 Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 101 Cumulative Effects ...... 103 Mitigation Measures ...... 104 Scenery ...... 105 Existing Condition ...... 105 Analysis...... 105 Effects by Alternative ...... 106 Cumulative Effects ...... 109 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 110 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 110 Government Agencies and Collaborative Groups Contacted ...... 110 Others Contacted ...... 110 Bibliography ...... 111 Appendix A - Stream Bank Stabilization Design ...... 113 Appendix B –McDowell County Wildlife TES List ...... 114 Appendix C – McDowell County TES Plants List ...... 115 Appendix D – Old Growth Analysis ...... 121 Appendix E – Vegetation Analysis ...... 125 Appendix F – Appropriateness of Harvest Methods ...... 132 Appendix G – Commercial Timber Harvest Financial Analysis ...... 140 Appendix H – List of Cultural Sites...... 144
ii Environmental Assessment
List of Tables
Table 1. Project area acreage by ownership and management areas ...... 2 Table 2. Need for 0-10 year age class in the project area ...... 5 Table 3. Need for 0-10 year age class by management area ...... 6 Table 4. Need for 0-10 year age class by compartment ...... 6 Table 5. Proposed actions and locations, size descriptions, access, management area, inventoried roadless, and need(s) ...... 9 Table 6. Proposed changes to the transportation system ...... 17 Table 7. Comparison of Actions by Alternative ...... 22 Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by objectives and issues ...... 23 Table 9. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Armstrong Creek Analysis Area ...... 24 Table 10. Aquatic resources analyzed for the Armstrong Creek Project, Forest Plan Watershed 51 ...... 27 Table 11. Stream crossing locations by action alternatives for the Armstrong Project ...... 30 Table 12. Effects on forest-wide aquatic habitat ...... 37 Table 13. Threatened and endangered species, sensititve species, and forest concern species in McDowell County (considered further in this analysis) ...... 38 Table 14. Activity areas by alternative for the Armstrong Creek Project ...... 42 Table 15. Soils in proposed activity areas ...... 43 Table 16. Estimated short and long term effects to soil productivity by alternative ...... 45 Table 17. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by the alternatives...... 46 Table 18. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and interpretation of hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails for Alternatives B, C, and D in the Armstrong Creek Project ...... 51 Table 19. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and interpretation of hazard of soil loss from areas off roads and off trails for Alternatives B, C, and D in the Armstrong Creek Project...... 52 Table 20. Cumulative effects to long term soil productivity by alternative for the project area ...... 54 Table 21. Terrestrial wildlife threatened, endangered, and regional forester's sensitive and forest concern species known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed activities ...... 57 Table 22. Terrestrial wildlife threatened, endangered, and regional forester's sensitive species and forest concern species known to occur within the Armstrong analysis area ...... 57 Table 23. Estimated quantity of communities wihin terrestrial wildlife analysis area, Forest Service land ...... 58 Table 24. Summary of effects to TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species known in the analysis area ...... 61 Table 25. Management indicator species and associated habitat descriptions ...... 71 Table 26. Summary of effects to terrestrial wildlife TES and FC species by alternative ...... 71 Table 27. Known TES plant species in the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 75 Table 28. Known and potential forest concern plant species within the Botanical Analysis Area ...... 75 Table 29. Natural communities and plants that are sensitive or forest concern species by unit or stand ....76 Table 30. Estimated quantity of communities within the Botanical Analysis Area, Forest Service land ...80 Table 31. Non-native invasive plant species in the Armstrong Botanical Analysis Area ...... 81 Table 32. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species known in the botanical analysis area ...... 84 Table 33. Summary of effects to known and potential forest concern plant species in the botanical analysis area ...... 86 Table 34. Effects (alternative B) to potential havitat for threatened, endagered, sensitive, and forest concertn species within the botanical analysis area ...... 87 Table 35. Summary of cumulative effects (alternative B) of activities to potential suitable habitat for known threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species within the botanical analysis area ...... 88 Table 36. Summary of cumulative effects (alternative B) of activities to potential suitable habitat for known forest concern species within the botanical analysis area ...... 88
iii Name of Project
Table 37. Non-native invasive plant species relative risk of spread to adjacent areas...... 90 Table 38. Non-native invasive plant species within Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests by natural community ...... 90 Table 39. Summary of potential spread of non-native invasive plant species (Alternative B) ...... 91 Table 40. Comparison of possibly habitat ccreation of non-native invasive species by alternatives ...... 92 Table 41. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and forest concern plant species by alternative ...... 93 Table 42. Scenery design features...... 108
List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map ...... 1 Figure 2. Armstrong management area map with inventoried roadless areas and designated old growth ... 3 Figure 3. Age class distribution of Armstrong Creek Project Area as of 2015 ...... 94
iv Environmental Assessment
Purpose and Need Introduction This document was edited in February, 2016 in response to the comment period input.
The Armstrong Creek Project Area (Project Area) is comprised of the entire Armstrong Creek Watershed HUC #03050101020. This watershed is located approximately 10 miles Northwest of Marion, NC. See Figure 1for a vicinity map of the project area. The watershed area is approximately 16,270 acres of which 8,500 acres are in Forest Service ownership. The watershed is further divided into 11 sub-watersheds, also known as compartments. There are 11 compartments in the project area numbered: 0240, 0241, 0242, 0243, 0244, 0246, 0247, 0248, 0261, 0262, and 0272.
The Armstrong Watershed was selected for analysis and project development due to several key issues identified in the Watershed Condition Framework. This watershed has also not been analyzed for vegetation management in over 15 years.
Figure 1. Vicinity map
1 Armstrong Creek Project
Nantahala and Pisgah Forest Plan Direction This EA tiers (40 CFR 1502.20) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Nantahala & Pisgah National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, 1994). This EA also incorporates by reference the project record. The project record contains specialist resource reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. This EA incorporates by reference the Nantahala and Pisgah Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report (USDA, 2005). This report along with Monitoring and Evaluation Reports for the National Forests in North Carolina contains the most current information about Nantahala and Pisgah Forest population trends for MIS species.
Within the forest service ownership, there are several management areas (MA) as defined by the Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Forest Plan) (USDA, 1994). In addition, the management areas are overlaid by an estimated 187 acres of MA 18 (Riparian Areas) and 4,512 acres of inventoried roadless area (See Figure 2, Project Area Management Map). The following table (Table 1) is a breakdown of the management areas within the project area.
Table 1. Project area acreage by ownership and management areas Forest Armstrong Watershed Private MA 2C MA 3B MA 4C MA 4D MA 5 Service
Total Acres 7,782 8,487 81 2,948 510 453 4,459
Acres Overlaid by Inventoried 0 4,512 0 1,011 0 172 3,329 Roadless Area
2 Environmental Assessment
Figure 2. Armstrong management area map with inventoried roadless areas and designated old growth The general directions and goals for each MA are as follows:
MA 2C – Provides visually pleasing scenery. Roads are generally open with adjacent forest land managed to provide a quality visual experience. This land is not suitable for timber production because either timber activities could not be conducted in a manner to assure a highly visual experience, or the land is not cost efficient in the long term for timber production. The area, providing for motorized recreation, will favor wildlife species which prefer older forest conditions and yet can tolerate some human disturbance (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).
3 Armstrong Creek Project
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 - In Management Area 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 5 – Emphasis is on providing large blocks of backcountry where there is little evidence of other humans or human activities other than recreation use. A sizable block of land is necessary to ensure relative freedom from the sights and sounds of modern man. An unroaded forest environment and natural appearing forests with large old trees are desirable (USDA, 1994, pp. III-89). Roadless areas that overlay MA 5 are only managed to enhance ecosystem structure and function and within the limitations of the roadless area rule.
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). Purpose and Need for Action
This project was developed for two purposes:
1) Maintain and improve the existing condition of the Armstrong Watershed by addressing Key Watershed Issues identified in the Armstrong Creek Watershed Condition Framework.
2) Implement the General Direction and Standards for Management Areas (MA) 2C, 3B, 4C, 4D, 18 and 5 in the Forest Plan.
Needs Identified:
The Armstrong Creek Watershed Condition Framework identified the following needs to improve watershed conditions.
1) There is a need to restore aquatic passage on Caney Creek at culvert on Forest Service Road (FSR) 469
2) There is a need to increase the amount of large woody debris (LWD) in Armstrong Creek. Streams in this region are nutrient poor. LWD provides nutrients and also provides additional habitat within a stream by creating riffles and pools. Typically, healthy stream habitat would have a pool to riffle ratio of 1:1. This is not the existing condition of Armstrong creak which can be attributed to the lack of LWD. Providing
4 Environmental Assessment
healthy watersheds and stream habitat is also consistent with the values associated with the Inventoried Roadless Area.
3) There is a need to reduce sedimentation from Bee Rock Creek to the downstream fish hatchery and reduce erosion and sedimentation from Armstrong Trail #223.
4) There is a need to begin viability testing for re-establishing American chestnut.
5) There is a need to restore native species diversity in cove, pitch pine/oak, and upland oak forests.
The following needs were identified to meet Forest Plan direction by comparing current conditions with desired and future conditions for each management area.
a) There is a need to create 0-10 year age class at the stand level. MA 3B and MA 4D refer to forest-wide direction for age class distribution. 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).
b) Analysis area – For every analysis area with at least 250 acres in MA’s 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and/or 4D, the amount o262f 0-10 year age class allowed in the analysis area is calculated as follows: for MA’s 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and 4D multiply the number of acres in each MA by the maximum percent allowed. The sum of these is the amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in the analysis area. 1b & 3B acres x 15%, 2A, 4A, & 4d acres x 10% (USDA, 1994, pp. III-29).
MA 3B: 2,946 acres x 15% = 442 acres
MA 4D: 444 acres x 10% = 44 acres
486 acres
Minimum allowed 0-10 age class is defined in forest-wide direction, Vegetation Management 1.c for MA 1B and MA 3b at least 5% of the analysis area (USDA, 1994, pp. III-31)
MA 3B: 2,946 acres x 5% = 147 acres
There are currently 0 acres of 0-10 year age class in MA’s 3B and 4D. The following table (Table 2) displays the need for 0-10 year age class in the analysis area.
Table 2. Need for 0-10 year age class in the project area Need for 0-10 Year 0-10 Year Age-Class1 MA’s Age class Analysis 3B and Minimum Maximum Area 4B acres Allowed Allowed Existing Minimum Maximum Armstrong 3390 147 486 0 147 486
5 Armstrong Creek Project
1 – Minimum and maximum 0-10 allowed cannot exceed levels allowed under Compartment analysis, thus the lower number than 5%-15% allowed in each Analysis Area. Existing 0-10 age class is based on year 2013.
c) Management area – For every management area with at least 250 acres in the analysis area, the amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in the management area is calculated as follows: for management areas 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and 4D, multiply the number of acres of each MA in the analysis area by the maximum (USDA, 1994, pp. III-31). The following table (Table 3) displays the need for 0-10 year age class by MA.
Table 3. Need for 0-10 year age class by management area Need for 0-10 Year 0-10 Year Age-Class Age Class Management Forested Minimum Maximum Area Acres Allowed Allowed Existing Minimum Maximum 3B 2946 147 442 0 147 442 4D 444 0 44 0 0 44 Totals 3390 147 486 0 147 486
d) Compartment - For every compartment with at least 250 acres in MA 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and/or 4D, the amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in each compartment is calculated as follows: for each compartment, determine which of the MA’s has the most acres in the compartment – 1B & 3B, 2A, or 4A & 4D. If 1B & 3B is the most, then the maximum allowed 0-10 year age class is 15% of all acres in the compartment. If 2A or 4A & 4D is the most, then the maximum allowed 0-10 year age class is 10% of all acres in the compartment. Also, Minimum allowed 0-10 age class is defined in forest-wide direction, Vegetation Management 1.c for MA 1B and MA 3b at least 5% of the compartment (USDA, 1994, pp. III-31) The following table (Table 4) displays the need for 0-10 year age class by compartment.
Table 4. Need for 0-10 year age class by compartment 0-10 Age-Class Harvest Goals FS MA 3B MA 4D Minimum Maximum Existing Compartment Acres Acres Acres Allowed Allowed 0-10 Yr. Minimum Maximum 0240 853 0 122 0 12 0 0 12 0241 942 0 322 0 94 0 0 94 0242 819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0243 485 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0244 867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0246 815 532 0 41 122 0 41 122 0247 1229 1054 0 61 184 0 61 184
6 Environmental Assessment
0248 930 246 0 12 37 0 12 37 0261* 21 21 0 1 3 0 0 0 0262 1285 1093 0 64 193 0 64 193 0272 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 8487 2946 444 180 645 0 179 642 *only one stand is included in compartment 0261
6) There is a need to commercially thin overstocked units. Currently there are stands in the Project Area that are overstocked and structurally simple. 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 4D – Thin to maintain or improve wildlife habitat, visual conditions, or desired number and mix of tree species. (Forest Plan, page III – 86)
7) There is a need for non-commercial stand improvement to reduce stocking 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. MA 5 – Stand improvement should create future stands that meet habitat objectives, primarily for black bear (USDA, 1994, pp. II-92). MA 3B – Thin on a schedule that maintains optimum growth and desired mix of tree species for sawtimber production. (Forest Plan, page III-75) 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 PNV based on economic analysis (USDA, 1994, pp. III-36). In MA 5, provide for habitat improvements and encourage oak or other hard and soft mast producing species (Forest Plan, page III-32 and III-37). Within the inventoried roadless area (IRA), stand improvement meets the objective of restoring the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. In IRA, these treatments are needed to move conditions towards reference landscapes and providing for a diversity of plant and animal communities, per the nine values characterizing IRAs. Stand improvement will cut generally small diameter stems for the objective of restoring the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure.
8) There is a need to designate at least 50 acres of small patch old growth in compartment 0241. 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). Currently there are 843 acres of small patch old growth designated in the project area. However, there is no designated old growth within compartment 0241.
9) There is a need to create small patch openings in MA 5. This management area responds to the need for large blocks of wildlife habitat relatively undisturbed by human developments that some species prefer. Wildlife such as ovenbird, black bear, and cerulean warbler are likely to be present (USDA, 1994, pp. III-89). Provide conditions for the large group of game and non-game animals that benefit from older forests and do not tolerate vehicular disturbance. Emphasize habitat for specific Management Indicator Species which represent this group…. primarily for black bear (USDA, 1994, pp. III-92). Small patch openings are important habitat components that encourage growth of species
7 Armstrong Creek Project
that provide soft mast for black bear and edge effect for cerulean warbler. Currently, MA 5 in the project area has very few patch openings to provide these benefits. Likewise, in inventoried roadless areas (IRA), these treatments are needed to move conditions towards reference landscapes and providing for a diversity of plant and animal communities, per the nine values characterizing IRAs.
10) There is a need to create, maintain, and improve semi-permanent wildlife openings in MA 3B and 4D. Use a desired density of 3% for permanent grass and forb openings (USDA, 1994, pp. III-74). 3% of MAs 3B and 4D are 88 acres and 14 acres respectively. There is currently a total of 12.1 acres of semi-permanent wildlife openings in MA 3B and 9.8 acres in MA 4D in the form of patches and linear strips. This is excluding some openings that are being maintained on administratively closed roads. Therefore, there is a need to create up to 78.6 acres of semi-permanent wildlife openings in MAs 3B and 4D. To maintain and improve exiting wildlife openings, there is a need to increase sunlight to the grass forb area and create a brushy interface between the opening and the forest. Additionally, there is a need to add road segments to the transportation system with D1 or D5 RMOs to continue to maintain existing semi-permanent wildlife openings and strips that are located on non-system roads.
8 Environmental Assessment
Proposed Action The proposed action has been slightly amended as it was originally scoped. After reviewing scoping comments and further field review, the proposed Shelterwood with Reserves treatment in stand 0248-1 and the proposed Pre-harvest Oak Shelterwood treatments in stands 0248-19, 0262- 45, and 0262-16 were removed from the proposed action.
The following table (Table 5) displays the actions proposed to meet the purpose(s) and need(s) of this project. See Attached Maps at the end of this document for a map of the proposed actions. More detailed descriptions of proposed actions can be found below the table.
Table 5. Proposed actions and locations, size descriptions, access, management area, inventoried roadless, and need(s) Access Needs Additional Acres/ (T=Temporary Road, Inventoried Need(s) Location Proposed Action MA Information Size S=System Road Roadless * Addition or Change) Skyline/Rubber Stand Shelterwood with Tired Skidder T-0/S-0.8 - 9999 Road 36 acres 3B No 6, 5 0246-08 Reserves (RTS) Logging Roaring Branch System Shelterwood with Stand Skyline/RTS Reserves, Plant 27 acres T-0/S-0 Access Via 469 3B No 6, 5 0246-12 Logging System Northern Red Oak
Shelterwood with Stand Skyline/RTS Reserves, Plant N. 34 acres T-0/S-0 Access Via 469 3B No 6, 5 0262-07 Logging System Red Oak
Stands Shelterwood with Skyline Logging T-0.5/S-0 Access Via 40 acres 3B No 6, 5 0262-13 Reserves System 469E
Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS T-0/S-0 Access Via 469 28 acres 3B No 6, 5 0262-18 Reserves Logging System & 469D
Stand Shelterwood with RTS Logging 12 acres T-0/S-0 Access Via 469 3B No 6, 5 0262-22 Reserves System
Shelterwood with Stand RTS Logging T-0/S-0.6 Access Via Reserves, Plant A. 17 acres 4D No 6, 4 0241-23 System 9999 Bee Rock Ck. Road Chestnut
Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS T-0/S-0.1 Access Via 13 acres 3B No 6, 5 0246-24 Reserves Logging System 469
T-0/S-0.4 Access Via Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS 20 acres 9999 Witness Ridge 3B No 6, 5 0246-25 Reserves Logging System Road Shelterwood with Stand Reserves, Site-prep RTS Logging T-0.25/S-0 Access Via 25 acres 3B No 6, 5 0247-22 herbicide and burn, System 469 Plant Pitch pine
Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS 18 acres T-0/S-0 Access Via 469 3B No 6, 5 0247-32 Reserves Logging System
9 Armstrong Creek Project
Access Needs Additional Acres/ (T=Temporary Road, Inventoried Need(s) Location Proposed Action MA Information Size S=System Road Roadless * Addition or Change) T-0/S-0.8 Access Via Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS 31 acres New Timber Ridge Road 3B No 6, 5 0247-35 Reserves Logging System Construction T-0/S-0.1 Access Via Stand Shelterwood with Skyline/RTS 11 acres New Timber Ridge Road 3B No 6, 5 0248-18 Reserves Logging System Construction 182 Group Selection and Stand RTS Logging acres T-0/S-0.7 Access Via Free Thinning, Plant 4D No 4 0241-11 System (27 acres 9999 Bee Rock Ck. Road A. Chestnut groups) Free Thinning, Plant Stands RTS Logging Pitch Pine, 64 acres T-0/S-0 Access Via 469E 3B No 7, 5 0262-11 System Prescribed Burning Thinning from Stand Below, Pre-Harvest RTS Logging T-0/S-1 Access Via 9999 25 acres 4D No 7, 5 0241-10 Oak Shelterwood, System Bee Rock Ck. Road Plant A. Chestnut Thinning from Stand Below, Pre-Harvest RTS Logging T-0/S-1.3 Access Via 25 acres 4D No 7, 5 0241-24 Oak Shelterwood, System 9999 Bee Rock Ck. Road Plant A. Chestnut Thinning from Stand RTS Logging T-0/S-0.8 Access Via Below, Pre-Harvest 14 acres 4D No 7, 5 0241-25 System 9999 Bee Rock Ck. Road Oak Shelterwood
Pre-Harvest Oak Stand Cha Shelterwood, 13 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0248-04 insaw Prescribed Burning
Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 50 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0240-02 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 32 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0241-02 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 45 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0241-03 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 31 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0242-02 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 24 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0242-06 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 46 acres n/a 5 Yes 7, 5 0242-07 - Release Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw 25 acres n/a 3B Yes 7, 5 0246-16 - Release Stand Improvement Stand Chainsaw/ - Release and Vine 16 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0246-23 Herbicide Control (VC)
Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 25 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-05 - Release and VC Herbicide
Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 28 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-15 - Release and VC Herbicide
10 Environmental Assessment
Access Needs Additional Acres/ (T=Temporary Road, Inventoried Need(s) Location Proposed Action MA Information Size S=System Road Roadless * Addition or Change) Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 19 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-17 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 34 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-19 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 18 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-39 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 22 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-42 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 18 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0246-01 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 15 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0246-03 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 18 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0246-07 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 24 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0246-10 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 20 acres n/a 3B Yes 7, 5 0246-15 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 16 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 247-08 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 20 acres n/a 3B Both 7, 5 0247-09 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 11 acres n/a 3B Yes 7, 5 0262-06 - Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 37 acres n/a 3B Both 7, 5 0262-08 Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 27 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-10 Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 28 acres n/a 3B No 7, 5 0262-21 Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 37 acres n/a 3B Both 7, 5 0262-23 Release and VC Herbicide Stand Stand Improvement Chainsaw/ 20 acres n/a 3B Yes 7, 5 0262-28 Release and VC Herbicide Compart ments 1.8 miles Hand 3,050 241, 242, Prescribed Burning Line n/a 5 Yes 9 acres 243, and Construction 244 FSR 469 Culvert on Caney n/a n/a n/a 18 No 1 Replacement Creek Arm- strong Large Woody Debris Push Hemlock Creek (LWD) snags down Access via Trail #223 18 Yes 2
Rehab Enhancement with Track-hoe Area
11 Armstrong Creek Project
Access Needs Additional Acres/ (T=Temporary Road, Inventoried Need(s) Location Proposed Action MA Information Size S=System Road Roadless * Addition or Change) 162 feet From wildlife fields Bee Rock Stream Bank of Machinery through forest for 18 No 3 Creek Stabilization stream approx. 126 feet bank Change Trail Trail Entire Length of 18, Designation to 2 miles n/a Yes 3 #223 Trail #223 5 “Foot Traffic Only” 6 Wildlife 24.2 Opening total s and 5 Daylighting Chainsaw treat- s 3B No 10 Linear ment Wildlife acres Strips Stands Designate Old 0241- 66.5 n/a 5 Yes 8 Growth 05,06 *Numbers within the Need(s) column relate to the bulleted items in the Needs section of this document.
Descriptions of Proposed Actions The proposed actions in the project area are described below. Definitions of forest management treatments are from The Dictionary of Forestry (Helms, 1998).
Shelterwood with Reserves: A variety of the shelterwood method in which all of the shelter trees (reserve trees) are retained to attain goals other than regeneration. The number of reserve trees retained is sufficient to create a two-aged, two-storied stand until mid-rotation or longer (40+ years in MA 3B and 60+ years in MA 4D). 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, notably large pulpwood-sized or small sawtimber-sized trees with compact crowns in the intermediate, 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 will be scattered, but may be grouped if suitable reserve trees are not well distributed. Enough reserve trees will be left to meet visual quality standards identified in this document.
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. An herbicide release treatment will occur 1-3 years after regeneration harvest to release species desirable for the ecological zones within stand. Sprout clumps of undesirable species growing from the stumps of the trees cut during the previous operations will be treated. This will reduce competition for single stem tree seedlings providing them freedom to grow until crown closure (~ 10 years).
Lastly, in approximately 15-20 years, 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.
12 Environmental Assessment
Group Selection: A method of regenerating stands in which trees are cut and new age classes are established in small group openings every 20 years. In MA 4D, approximately 1/6th of the stand is cut each cutting cycle, resulting in an uneven-aged stand with six age classes after 100 years of management. The group opening size is determined by the average height of the co- dominate trees in the stand with openings being up to 1 ½ to 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 1) mature trees, 2) damaged trees, and 3) the availability of desirable large 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).
In conjunction with the group selection harvest, 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 advance regeneration. Trees targeted for removal will be undesirable species not appropriate for the ecological zones within the stand as well as other strong competitors including 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. Leave tree selection will follow the guidelines listed in the Shelterwood with Reserves proposed action mentioned above.
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. An herbicide release treatment will occur 1-3 years after regeneration harvest to release species desirable for the ecological zones within stand. Sprout clumps of undesirable species growing from the stumps of the trees cut during the previous operations will be treated. This will reduce competition for single stem tree seedlings providing them freedom to grow until crown closure (~ 10 years).
Lastly, in approximately 15-20 years, 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.
Thinning from Below: Thinning is a treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. Thinning from below is the removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes. This intermediate treatment is used primarily on fully or overstocked stands with limited structural diversity. This thinning will also consider species criteria to remove trees not expected to survive until the next treatment.
Free Thinning: Thinning using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position or size class. The purpose of the treatment is to remove trees uncharacteristic for the stands’ ecological zone and for forest health to remove trees with the potential to spread disease or insects and to capture the trees sprouting potential before it dies on the stump. Free thinning will meet stocking and forest health objectives while also maintaining and/or promoting structural diversity.
13 Armstrong Creek Project
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. Final temporary road and landing locations, along with stabilization measures, are determined by a Forest Service Timber Sale Administrator, with agreement by the purchaser. There will be a total of approximately .5 mile of temporary road length as shown in Table 5. Landings are generally .25 acre in size. Temporary roads and landings will be closed after use and planted with native seed mix beneficial to wildlife. Landing adjacent to open and D5 transportation system roads may be maintained as semi-permanent openings.
Pre-Harvest Oak Shelterwood: A non-commercial 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 oak advanced regeneration.
See Appendix F for Appropriateness of Harvest Methods Analysis
Stand Improvement: Intermediate treatment s made to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of young stands.
Stand Release: A non-commercial treatment designed to free young trees from undesirable, usually overtopping, competing vegetation. 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.
Within the inventoried roadless areas, stand improvement will cut and leave generally small diameter stems for the objective of restoring characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure. This will not require road construction and will likely be a single entry, no follow up treatments are being proposed.
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.
Enrichment Planting: This planting is done to increase the percentage of desirable species or genotypes appropriate for the ecological zones found within stands. Tree seedlings will be planted by hand and include follow-up release treatments (hand and chemical) to ensure survival for 10- 15 years. There are three types of enrichment plantings planned for in the proposed actions:
Northern red oak: planted on a tight spacing (6x6 foot spacing) in one-acre enrichment zones within the harvested, high-site quality upland hardwood and/or cove hardwood stands where competition from yellow-poplar will be intense. The tight spacing and release treatments are designed to create a microsite free of inter-specific competition that will ensure the recruitment of northern red oak into the canopy of the regenerating stands. One acre of enrichment zones will be planted for every 10 acres harvested.
Pitch pine: planted on a 12 x12 spacing within pine-oak heath ecological zones in openings of thinned or regenerated stands. This planting along with follow-up release treatments are designed to develop a species composition more common to the pine-oak heath ecological zone.
Test planting of hybrid American chestnut: planted within openings of thinned and regenerated stands in compartment 0241 to study the reintroduction of blight resistant American chestnut genotypes.
14 Environmental Assessment
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. The objectives of these proposed burns are to: (1) promote fire adapted plant species and communities, (2) create some patch openings at higher elevations to improve habitat for black bear and cerulean warbler, and (3) possibly create Hudsonia montana habitat in areas where fire intensity/severity is greater. These objectives of promoting a diversity of plant and animal communities are consistent with the values identified in the Roadless Area Rule.
To meet these objectives, prescribed burning is proposed on 3-5 year rotations over the next 15 years. 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 will 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. 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 of fire.
The proposed burn units will require hand construction of approximately 1.8 miles of containment line.
Culvert Replacement: Replace the existing culvert on Caney Creek with an open bottom structure that would allow passage of aquatic native species, such as greenhead shiner.
Large Woody Debris (LWD) Enhancement: LWD will be placed in Armstrong Creek by pushing hemlock snags over or moving pieces with a track-hoe machine. LWD will be anchored by leaving the root ball attached or by installing pieces securely to bank when possible. Access to the project area will be Trail #223. These activities will enhance inventoried roadless area characteristics by providing for diverse plant and animal communities by improving aquatic habitats and water quality.
Daylighting: Felling of all trees
Designate Old Growth: In accordance with Forest Plan standards, small patch old growth will be designated in Compartment 0241, meaning this area will be managed for old growth attributes until the designation is changed.
Stream Bank Stabilization: This proposal would stabilize approximately 162 feet of eroded stream and upper bank on Bee Rock Creek, upstream from the State fish hatchery. Access would be from the road accessing the wildlife fields then through the forest approximately 126 feet to the stream. A backfull bench would be constructed from the toe of the bank, thus creating a stream bank and floodplain. The bench would be constructed of materials found locally including trees, soil from the eroding slope, and transplants of sod from the wildlife field and trees/shrubs from the forested area. The channel’s natural dimension, pattern, and profile would be
15 Armstrong Creek Project reestablished in the constructed reach to establish a stable stream channel with high quality aquatic habitat. See Appendix A for drawings.
Associated Actions
Haul roads used for commercial timber operations will be repaired to current engineering standards and maintained during use per timber sale contract. Roads used for other activities may also be repaired and/or maintained. This work may include: maintaining clearing limits, blading, culvert replacement, maintaining water drainage devices, and aggregate replacement.
Landing used for commercial timber harvest operations will be seeded with wildlife beneficial seed mix. Seeded landings adjacent to Level 1, Level 2, D1, or D5 system roads may be maintained as semi-permanent openings for wildlife benefits.
A project level travel analysis (TAP) has been prepared by an IDT to analyze the current and needed transportation system in the project area. The analysis is pursuant to 36 CFR 212, and according to the USDA Forest Service document: Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions About Managing the National Forest Transportation System.
16 Environmental Assessment
Table 6 displays changes to the transportation system as a recommended in the TAP.
17 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 6. Proposed changes to the transportation system Existing Roads to be added to Forest Road System Proposed Proposed MA Proposed Est. Remarks Road Name Road # RMO* Miles Upper Bee 4008B 4D D5 0.4 Accesses Wildlife field and will serve as Rock haul road for group selection harvest entry every 20 years Bee Rock 4008A 4D D1 1.3 Accesses group selection harvest and other timber stands totaling approximately 243 ac, entry every 20 years Muddy Branch 469G 3B D5 0.8 Accesses timber stands enter every 10 years Witness Rock 469H 3B D5 0.4 Accesses timber stands along Witness Rock Ridge Roaring Branch 469I 3B D1 0.8 Accesses private property and timber stands Rough Ridge 469J 3B D0 0.4 Accesses timber stands enter every 10 years 469L 3B D5 0.1 Linear wildlife strip and access to wildlife opening Total 4.20 New Road Construction Proposed Proposed MA Proposed Est. Remarks Road Name Road # RMO Miles Timber Ridge 469K 3B D0 0.8 Needed to access Compartment 248 Total 0.8 Roads to Decommission Road Name Road # MA RMO Est. Remarks Miles Caney Ridge 469F 3B D1 0.5 Located in Roadless Area Total 0.5 Roads to Change Maintenance Level Road Name Road # MA RMO Est. Remarks Miles Buck Ridge 469E 3B D1 0.4 Change from D1 to D5 Total 0.4 *Road Management Objectives (RMO): D0= Dirt/Native; Pull culverts at live stream crossings. Use dips in lieu of culverts for cross drainage. Outslope road. Provide no maintenance except to prevent unacceptable environmental damage. Allow woody vegetation to grow on road prism. Roadway put to bed for future use. D1= Dirt/seeded; one lane with outslope/dips; maintain as Linear Wildlife Opening. Mow roadbed annually. Brush shoulders once every three years. Maintain turnarounds suitable for fire equipment at the end of dead-end roads. Install and maintain route markers, warning, regulatory, and guide signs. Scarify, seed, and fertilize roadbed. Provide access for future timber operations and for fire protection; D5= Dirt/seeded; one lane with outslope/dips; maintain as Linear Wildlife Opening. Mow roadbed annually and brush shoulders once every three years as funds are available. Maintain turnarounds suitable for fire equipment at the end of dead-end roads. Install and maintain route markers, warning, regulatory, and guide signs. Scarify, seed, and fertilize roadbed. Provide access for future timber operations and for fire protection. Prohibit bike and horse traffic.
18 Environmental Assessment
Issues and Alternatives Public Involvement The Armstrong Creek project was initiated with a public meeting on January 12, 2012. Collaborative discussions and field trips were held with various groups in regard to stewardship contracting/agreement opportunities and restoration activities. Collaborators involved with these discussions included the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, United States Fish & Wildlife Service, The Nature Conservancy, Western North Carolina Alliance, NC Natural Heritage Program, Southern Appalachian Multiple Use Council, and Wild South. The proposed action was available on the public website and mailed to over 100 interested people for scoping on July 14, 2014. Issues Issues are defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects. Key issues are used to develop alternatives, mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. The following key issues and corresponding indicator measures were identified through public scoping and interdisciplinary team discussion and are addressed in the effects analysis of this EA.
1) Transportation System The proposed action will add new roads to the system which may have negative effects to the watershed and result in more deferred maintenance problems as a result of funding issues. Miles of new system road Miles of new road construction Environmental effects of temp roads vs. system road (soils, hydrology, fisheries) Meeting objectives defined in the transportation analysis (TAP) Economic analysis comparison
2) Wildlife Habitat The proposed action does not maximize early successional habitat (ESH) and may not develop enough brushy (transition) interface or grass-forb habitat. Acres of brushy (transition) interface developed Acres of grass-forb developed Acres of ESH
3) Economics The proposed action would add a 1.7 mile road to the system to access stands in compartment 0241 which may not be economically feasible. Economic analysis comparison 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 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.
19 Armstrong Creek Project
Alternatives Considered in Detail Three alternatives were considered in detail by the IDT; Alternative A – No Action, Alternative B – Proposed Action as amended, and Alternative C. Project design features for activities in the action alternatives are also described in this chapter.
Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative no new activities would be implemented– existing conditions would remain. The no action alternative serves as the environmental baseline for analysis of effects.
Alternative B – Proposed Action See previous section, Proposed Action, for a detailed description of alternative B.
Alternative C Alternative C was developed to address issues related to adding roads to the transportation system. Comments received during scoping requested that no roads be added to the system with the exception of those needed to access private property. Alternative C addresses this issue by utilizing temporary roads that would not be added to the transportation system to access proposed commercial timber harvest units.
Specifically, Alternative C differs from the proposed action in that the following roads would be utilized as temporary roads and would not be added to the system: Upper Bee Rock, Bee Rock, Muddy Branch, Witness Rock, Rough Ridge, and Timber Ridge.
Additionally, current and proposed maintenance of linear wildlife strips and openings would not occur along these sections of roads under this alternative.
Alternative D Alternative D was developed to address concerns about new road construction where existing roads did not exist as well as concerns about the economic feasibility of commercial harvest in compartment 0241.
In alternative D, No commercial timber harvest or associated actions such as planting would occur in stands: 0241-24, 0241-10, 0241-25, 0241-23, 0241-11, and 0247-35. This would also eliminate the need for the Timber Ridge new road construction and the addition of Bee Rock and Upper Bee rock to the transportation system. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.14(a), one alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study:
Alternative 1 Alternative 1 proposed to expand the proposed daylighting activities along permanent wildlife strips and opening from 25 feet to 50 feet. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because there would be a very limited difference between these alternatives. The original distance
20 Environmental Assessment in the proposed action is adequate to meet the purpose and need of the project while also trying to limit the potential negative impacts associated with non-native invasive plant species. Project Design Features and Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives
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 forest plan standards or reduce undesired effects/impacts:
1. To provide for future Southern pigmy salamander habitat, it is recommended that all existing large coarse woody debris be left on site. 2. Where feasible, permanent stream crossings would be designed so that they allow for continuity of habitat for all aquatic organisms. 3. If known maternity roost trees are present, prescribed burns conducted during the pup season (June 1–July 31) should be low/moderate intensity to minimize direct impacts to northern long-eared bat (NLEB). 4. During the NLEB pup season (June 1–July 31), where possible and not a safety hazard, leave dead or dying trees standing. 5. Implementation will occur more than 0.25 mile (0.4 kilometer) from a known bat hibernacula. 6. Implementation will avoid cutting or destroying known NLEB maternity roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31). 7. Implementation will avoid clearcuts (and similar harvest methods, e.g., seed tree, shelterwood, and coppice) within 150 feet of known NLEB maternity roost trees during the pup season (June 1–July 31). 8. To mitigate the possible effect of invasive plant species, all known populations will be treated prior to disturbance activities. Miscanthus sinensis was found along existing forest roads. 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 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. 9. 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. 10. Trail #227 would be closed during logging operations for safety reasons. 11. Exclude the population of Monotropsis oderata from any activity. Monotropsis oderata is Regionally Sensitive and the only one known within the analysis area. The small population (1/10 acre) is located in unit 0241-11.
21 Armstrong Creek Project
12. 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 patterns which minimize intensity around rock shelters; and 6) Photographing documentation of post-burn of results. 13. Stands planted with American chestnut will be excluded from prescribed burning after planting. 14. Follow forest plan scenery design features defined in the scenery portion of the EA. 15. Follow all forest plan design features, standards, and guides.
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.
22 Environmental Assessment
Summary Comparison of Actions by Alternative The following table (Table 7) summarizes management activities for each of the alternatives considered in detail
Table 7. Comparison of Actions by Alternative Proposed Activity Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Wildlife Resources and Vegetation Management Shelterwood with reserves in 3B (acres) 0 312 312 281 Shelterwood with reserves in 4D (acres) 0 17 17 0 Group Selection in 4D (acres) 0 182 182 0 Commercial Thinning in 3B (acres) 0 64 64 64 Commercial Thinning in 4D (acres) 0 64 64 0 Stand Improvement (acres) 0 706 706 706 Prescribed Burning (acres) 0 3,858 3,858 3,858 Daylighting Wildlife Openings and Linear Wildlife Strips? No Yes No Yes Designated Small Patch Old Growth (acres) 0 66.5 66.5 66.5 American Chestnut Test Planting (acres) 0 67 67 0 Aquatic Resources Culvert Replacement on Caney Creek? No Yes Yes Yes Large Woody Debris Enhancement on Armstrong Creek? No Yes Yes Yes Stream Bank Stabilization on Bee Rock Creek? No Yes Yes Yes Recreation Change Trail Designation to Foot Traffic Only on Trail #223? No Yes Yes Yes Transportation System Add Existing Upper Bee Rock Road to the Transportation System as D5 No Yes No No RMO? Add Existing Bee Rock Road to the Transportation System as D1 RMO? No Yes No No
Add Existing Muddy Branch Road to the Transportation System as D5 RMO? No Yes No Yes
Add Existing Witness Rock Road to the Transportation System as D5 RMO? No Yes No Yes
Add Existing Roaring Branch Road to the Transportation System as D1 No Yes Yes Yes RMO?
Add Existing Rough Ridge Road to the Transportation System as D5 RMO? No Yes No Yes
Construct New Timber Ridge Road and add to the Transportation System as No Yes No No D0 RMO? Decommission Caney Ridge Road? No Yes Yes Yes Change RMO of Buck Ridge Road from D1 to D5? No Yes Yes Yes
23 Armstrong Creek Project
The following table (Table 8) summarizes the objectives and issues of the Alternatives considered in detail. Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by objectives and issues Objectives and Issues for Comparison Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Restore aquatic passage on Caney Creek No Yes Yes Yes Increase LWD and reduce sedimentation in No Yes Yes Yes Armstrong Creek Reduce sedimentation in Bee Rock Creek No Yes Yes Yes Planting American Chestnut for viability 0 67 67 0 testing (acres) Restore native species diversity in cove, pitch 0 1,345 1,345 1,051 pine/oak, and upland oak forests (acres)
MA 3: 0 MA 3: 287 MA 3: 287 MA 3: 256 Early successional habitat created - 0-10 year MA 4D: 0 MA 4D: 17 MA 4D: 17 MA 4D: 0 age class (acres) Total: 0 Total: 304 Total: 304 Total: 256 Reduce stocking in overstocked stands 0 141 141 77 (acres) Release desired species in overstocked 0 706 706 706 sapling/pole sized stands (acres) Small patch old growth designation (acres) 0 66.5 66.5 66.5 Patch openings in MA 5 No Yes Yes Yes Semi-permanent wildlife openings created 0 31.6 7 15 (acres) Miles of new system road 0 5 0.8 2.5 Miles of road decommisioning 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 Miles of new road construction 0 0.8 0.8 0
Economic – Present Net Value* $0 $10,640 $32,175 $62,820
Meets objectives identified in the No Yes No No transportation analysis
*See Appendix G for Financial Analysis.
24 Environmental Assessment
Environmental Impacts 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 alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above.
The following table displays past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Armstrong Creek analysis area (AA) that would be accounted for in cumulative effects, as appropriate, by resource analysis and could have a cumulative effect in the AA
Table 9. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Armstrong Creek Analysis Area Activity Description Prescribed Fires and Woods Mountain prescribed burn (future), Singecat prescribed burn (past, Wildfires future) Recreation/Special Heavy Trail Maintenance on Armstrong and Woods Mountain trails (past) Uses/ Roads Storm damage road repairs (past, 2004), NNIS treatments along roads Habitat Improvement Mowing of wildlife openings (past, future) Timber Harvesting Witness Rock Timber Sale (past, 1999)
25 Armstrong Creek Project
Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat
Scale of Analysis
This report documents the findings of an aquatic resource analysis (AQUA) of a proposed project on the Grandfather Ranger District in Compartments 240-244, 246-248, 261, 262 and 272. The Armstrong Project has been collaboratively designed to avoid or minimize impacts to aquatic resources while accomplishing silvicultural, wildlife and watershed improvements. Timber harvest operations have been designed with riparian areas of perennial streams being designated at 100 linear feet or have been mapped by an interdisciplinary team. There are no activities proposed within area waters or associated riparian areas, except at designated stream crossings and several local sedimentation sites. There are six 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 (North Carolina Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Forest Plan Implementation Guidelines).
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. This area is specifically defined (including stream mileages) in Table 10.
The Land and Resource Management Plan 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 AQUA. 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.
Aquatic Community
Project information was obtained from Ted Oprean, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Silviculturist. Lorie Stroup, USFS Fisheries Biologist, conducted aquatic habitat surveys of the proposed activity and analysis area waters in the spring and summer of 2012 and 2013, 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 1990’s to Spring 2011. All fish surveys were conducted by using an electrofishing back pack shocking device and observations of fish occurred during mussel and crayfish surveys of the area (AFS, 1992). Other surveys consisted of examining streams within the aquatic activity area, noting
26 Environmental Assessment habitat quality, quantity, and suitability for rare aquatic and management indicator species (MIS), as well as existing impacts and their source.
The fish community within the North Fork of the Catawba River watershed is dominated by warm water species. The project area waters of Armstrong Creek and the lower reaches of the major tributaries to Armstrong Creek contain primarily brown (Salmo trutta) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Bad Fork and Bee Rock Creek contain brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) both of northern and southern strain decent.
The Division of Water Quality for the NC Department of Natural Resources has an ambient monitoring site located on Armstrong Creek below the project area. This site is rated “excellent” based on biological survey results including macroinvertebrates.
Virginia Commonwealth University, under contract by the USFS, conducted odonate surveys across the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests in summer 2004. There is a sample site within the project area of Armstrong Creek aquatic analysis area in Armstrong Creek. The only odonates found during their surveys were Calopteryx maculate and Argia fumipennis both of which are very common.
Crayfish and mussel surveys were conducted within North Fork Catawba River and in Armstrong Creek in 2012 led by NCWRC non-game fisheries biologist T.R. Russ. These surveys were to determine crayfish distribution and mussel presence within the upper North Fork Catawba River watershed (including the lower portion of Armstrong Creek). Aquatic macroinvertebrates were also evaluated during these surveys. 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 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.
Substrate within the activity area waters (Table 10) was evaluated and visually estimated. The three primary types of substrate that exist were documented at each macroinvertebrate sample site. This information is valuable for determining the amount of habitat available for proposed endangered, threatened, and sensitive (TES) species, MIS, as well as other aquatic organisms. Unnamed tributaries are listed as (UT).
27 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 10. Aquatic resources analyzed for the Armstrong Creek Project, Forest Plan Watershed 51 ACTIVITY ANALYSIS Compartment/ DEM STREAM NAME AREA AREA STAND(s) CLASSIFICATION* (mi) (mi) Riparian Armstrong Creek restoration and 1.6 5.0 C; Tr, HQW burn units UT Armstrong 240-2 --- 0.7 C; Tr, HQW Creek 247-8,9,18,22, Bad Fork 0.5 2.0 C; Tr, HQW 32,35 Left Prong Bad 246 0.13 0.3 C; Tr, HQW Fork 246-1- Roaring Fork 1.9 1.9 C; Tr, HQW 3,5,7,12,1524,25 262-6,8,10,11, 13,18,19, Caney Branch 1.0 1.1 C; HQW 22,23,28, 42,45 Left Prong Caney 262-22 0.13 0.13 C; HQW Branch 262-10,11,39, Mudd Branch 1.2 1.2 C; HQW 42 Roses Creek Burn unit 1.2 1.7 C; Tr, HQW South Fork Creek Burn unit 1.1 1.7 C; Tr, HQW Pups Branch Burn unit --- 1.9 C; Tr, HQW North Fork (Cow) 242-2 0.2 1.5 C; Tr, HQW Middle Fork (Cow) 242-7 0.3 1.1 C; Tr, HQW Cow Creek 242-6,7 0.5 1.5 C; Tr, HQW House Branch 241-2,3 0.7 1.3 C; Tr Bee Rock Creek 241-5,6 1.9 2.9 C ; Tr, HQW TOTAL 12.36 25.93 *The NC Department of Environmental Management designates classifications and water quality standards known as “Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina.” Waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a more protective WS-I or II classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected for Class C uses. WS-III waters are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds. The “Tr” classification is a supplemental classification intended to protect freshwaters which have conditions which shall sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of stocked trout on a year-round basis.
The Armstrong Creek Watershed is within the Blue Ridge Mountain Physiographic Province draining in an easterly direction on the Atlantic Slope in the Catawba River Basin. The topography of the area is mountainous with strongly sloping to very steep uplands and narrow floodplains along the streams in FS ownership. Soils are dominated by the Chestnut-Ashe complex (CaF) and Edneyville-Chestnut complex (EcF), both steep with slopes ranging from 25 to 80 percent and stony. These soil types both have erosion concerns for management because of steep slope. Average annual precipitation can be as high as 74.5 inches (data from nearby Mt. Mitchell), but more likely slightly lower due to a lower elevation. Stream channels are predominantly stable with an abundance of large rock substrate and banks (Dodd B. , 2014). Existing old roads, skid trails, system and non-system trails in the analysis area are existing threats to the streams and drainages within the Armstrong AA. In particular, there are existing crossings that are either deteriorated or non-functioning. These crossings are all proposed for repair with action alternatives.
28 Environmental Assessment
There are three watershed improvement projects that were identified within the Armstrong Project. These projects include restoration of declining riparian habitat and the enhancement of large woody debris (LWD) in Armstrong Creek. 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 was present. Streams in this region are nutrient poor. LWD provides nutrients and also provides additional habitat within a stream by creating riffles and pools. Typically, healthy stream habitat would have a pool to riffle ratio of 1:1. This is not the existing condition of Armstrong creak which can be attributed to the lack of LWD. Action alternatives with the Armstrong Project address the lack of LWD in Armstrong Creek with riparian habitat restoration above the state fish hatchery. There is also approximately 162 linear feet of eroded stream channel and upper bank on Bee Rock Creek. This section of the stream has lost connectivity with the floodplain thus resulting in an incised channel and erosion of the stream banks. The third project involves an aquatic organism passage (AOP) project on Caney Branch. Culverts create more barriers to fish passage than any other structure (Gibson, Haedrich, & Wernerheim, 2005). The existing crossing on Forest Service Road (FSR) 469 is “perched” or disconnected from the stream channel so that aquatic organisms cannot move upstream of the structure creating discontinuity of habitat. Action alternatives of the Armstrong project will address these issues with stream rehabilitation projects designed by Brady Dodd, Forest Hydrologist.
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 and several stewardship projects within the Armstrong Project area.
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. III-81). This standard was designed to allow vegetation along streams to
29 Armstrong Creek Project 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 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 of Proposed Alternatives 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. Should an implemented contract clause or BMP fail 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 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) would have to be acquired after because there would not be harvest activities to fund the watershed projects.
(ii) Alternative B Crossings for the action alternatives are summarized in Table 11 below. 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.
(a) Direct Effects.
There will be a direct impact to 22 to 28 linear feet of streambed at the crossing locations of Bee Rock Creek and Unnamed tributaries to Bee Rock Creek, UT Bad Fork and Caney Branch. Replacing these crossings will improve water quality and address some erosion issues occurring around the areas. The bridge replacements on Bee Rock Creek will address an existing safety issue with the deteriorating bridges. Habitat will remain continuous within the streambed as another open bottom structure is proposed at both sites. The new crossing on the newly constructed road across UT Bad Fork will involve disturbance around and within the riparian area
30 Environmental Assessment of UT Bad Fork and will involve the direct disturbance of 22 to 28 linear feet of stream bed at the crossing location. It will be designed so that the pipe is embedded to maintain continuity of habitat for aquatic organisms (no fish habitat exists) (Vaughan, 2002).
Table 11. Stream crossing locations by action alternatives for the Armstrong Project Current Proposed Road Creek Existing Proposed Alt B Alt C Alt D Condition Road # Name Name Existing Collapsed Steel Arch Woods Road Wood Bee 4008A Bee Rock Culvert Add Temp Drop Add to system stringer Rock 120” span bridge Existing Collapsed Steel Arch UT Woods Road 4008A Bee Rock stringer Culvert Bee Add Temp Drop Add to system bridge 84” span Rock Existing Corrugate UT Woods Road 4008A Bee Rock Nothing d Pipe 48” Bee Add Temp Drop Add to system Span Rock Existing Corrugate UT Woods Road 4008A Bee Rock Nothing d pipe – Bee Add Temp Drop Add to system 36” Span Rock Replace Existing UT Upper Bee Natural with Woods Road 4008B Bee Add Temp Drop Rock ford Corrugate Add to system Rock d pipe Corrugate d pipe – UT NEW Timber size 469K NEW Bad New Temp Drop Construction Ridge depends Fork on where crossed undersized Existing Arch pipe Caney 469 Armstrong corrugated Add Add Add Road or bridge Branch pipe
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 benefits long term 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
31 Armstrong Creek Project around the channel. This disturbance is mitigated by diverting stream flow around the working area.
This turbidity 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 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, disc and seeding of all unsurfaced temporary roads, skid roads and log landings will occur.
The arch pipe crossings associated with the Bee Rock and Caney Creeks will cause riparian disturbance. This disturbance will be mitigated with erosion control structures and features that will reduce any off site movement of soil into the creeks. The amount of overstory removed for the crossing will not cause a warming trend of water temperatures in either of these streams.
(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 installation would be immeasurable at the confluence Armstrong Creek. 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 habitat for aquatic populations across the analysis area.
(iii) Alternative C
Alternative C involves the same access plan as Alternative B however; it is proposed that the roads will all be used as “temporary” roads. According to the (USDA, 1994, pp. III-50), “for temporary stream crossings, minimize soil movement through the use of temporary bridges or fords.” What that means for the aquatic resources is the crossing involved (listed in Table 11) will have temporary structures or the temporary bridge utilized rather than a permanent crossing installed. It should be noted that this requires disturbance of the stream banks for installation and then again when the structure is removed. Even with the temporary bridge, abutments will still have to be installed. Therefore, not only will there be a disturbance during installation (off-site movement of soil downstream approximately 75 feet or more) but there will also be the same disturbance again when the abutments or crossing structure (pipe) is removed after the project activities are complete. This has the potential to be more impacting directly below the site of the crossings due to the disturbance occurring twice during the project.
32 Environmental Assessment
(iv) Alternative D
This alternative drops all temporary road reconstruction or road construction therefore the only stream crossing involved will be the undersized pipe on FS469 at Caney Branch. The impacts from the replacement of this crossing are discussed above with Alternative B. It should be noted that the deteriorated crossings and the drainage issues associated with the access will remain unless additional watershed funding is acquired (hence no funding from associated project activities will occur).
(2) Effects of Timber Harvest on Aquatic Resources, Water Quality and Riparian Areas
(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) Alternatives B, C, & D
Action alternatives B, C, and D have been discussed together in regards to impacts to aquatic resources because 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.
North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines (NC-FPGs) and Forest Plan standards (BMPs) 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 NC Forestry BMP Implementation survey 2000 thru 2003, “implementation of BMPs is critical in protecting water quality.”
A Forest wide effort has been on-going to monitor the effectiveness of BMPs. According to the results of this survey:
It is our belief that the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are adequately applying Best Management Practices during timber sale operations. If we consider BMPs applied during tractor logging, 145 out of 150 BMP checks were appropriately applied (96.7%). If we consider skyline logging units, 104 practices were monitored and all were implemented and effective (100%). If we consider temporary roads used or constructed for the timber sale, 29 out of 30 practices met the BMP rules (96.7%). All timber sale related BMPs (tractor, skyline and temporary roads) resulted in 278 out of 284 implemented and effective BMPs, or 97.9 percent. Considering tractor logging units, skyline logging unit and temporary roads, No visible sediment delivery to streams occurred in 176 out of the 177 BMPs checked (99.4%) (Dodd B. N., 2011).
There is no plan for harvest activities within any riparian area of perennial streams within the Armstrong Creek analysis area. The Land and Resources Management Plan EIS states: “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, pp. IV-36). The culvert installations for this project are associated
33 Armstrong Creek Project with existing roads and therefore will not cause any disturbance to the existing riparian vegetation.
The arch pipe or bridge crossings associated with Bee Rock, UT Bee Rock (3 crossings), UT Bad Fork and Caney Branch will cause riparian disturbance. This disturbance will be mitigated with erosion control structures and features that will reduce any off site movement of soil into these streams. The amount of overstory removed for the crossing will not cause a warming trend of water temperatures in these streams.
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
(a) Use of herbicides
(i) Alternative A
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 Armstrong 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 to be expected regeneration of trees along the corridor would cease which will eventually impact the nutrient input into the stream system due to lack of large woody debris.
(ii) Alternatives B, C, & D
In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA, 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 (USDA, Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1989). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (USDA, 1989). 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 imazapic concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report, 2003) (Durkin, 2003b) (Durkin & Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (USDA, 1989). 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
34 Environmental Assessment aquatic species (USDA, 1989) 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 coldwater streams community because the amount of herbicides in activity area waters would be immeasurable.
(b) Armstrong Watershed Improvements
(i) Alternative A
The existing condition of the riparian area on Armstrong Creek, the eroded stream bank on Bee Rock Creek and the undersized crossing on Caney Branch have been discussed above in the “Existing Condition” section of this document. The problems associated with these sites will continue with the implementation of Alternative A.
(ii) Alternatives B, C, & D
There will be short term impacts associated with the stream restoration activities. Impacts from sediment during placement of large woody debris on Armstrong creek would be temporary in nature and would have the potential to cause some temporary disturbance along the stream banks during the project implementation. As described above, these short term sediment impacts will improve conditions for fish populations in the long term. This is particularly valuable in IRA where providing high quality water and a diversity of plant and animal communities are an objective. Of the nine IRA characteristics two stand out as being improved and at risk with this action. The characteristic of providing quality soil and water will be impacted in the short term as equipment is used to push large trees, including their rootball, up and into the stream way. This will leave each of those small areas at risk to limited erosion and may deliver sediment. This is a very small and short term risk compared to the long lasting benefits of higher concentrations of LWD. The value of this material with an attached rootball is the longevity of the debris in the stream course. Broken pieces of trees of trees felled into the stream course without attached rootballs are carried downstream in high water events, leaving the area lacking this key component of water quality and function. The characteristic of providing a diversity of plant and animal habitats follow the same risk and value pattern, where in the short term sediment will have an impact but the creation of structure will be a benefit over the long term. There is a minimal risk of introducing non-native plants, however this is mitigated by washing and inspecting equipment as it enters National Forest.
The stream bank restoration on Bee Rock Creek will also cause short term impacts from soil disturbance during project implementation. These short-term impacts will be less than the long term impacts of leaving the site as it is. The activities associated with restoring Caney Branch have been discussed above in the “Effects of Access on Aquatic Resources” and the riparian effects sections.
35 Armstrong Creek Project
(c) Wildlife Habitat Improvements
(i) Alternative A
The “no action” alternative would not address wildlife habitat improvements. The existing aquatic condition (described above) will remain the same.
(ii) Alternatives B, C, & D
The above activities will occur outside the 100 foot riparian area of all perennial streams within the Armstrong Creek 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 (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) Alternatives B, C, & D
No SI work and/or site preparation will occur within the 100 foot riparian area of any analysis area stream. Therefore, there will be no impacts from SI work to the aquatic resources within the area.
(e) Prescribed Burning
Streams within this area are at low risk of impact due to the project’s design which includes no dozer line construction and minimal handline. There are some areas where handline will be constructed within the riparian area of streams. This will involve minimal soil disturbance. These handlines will be installed so that they are perpendicular to stream flow will not involve the removal of trees along streams (only brush and duff layer). After the burn is completed, these handlines 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. 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.
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 handline needed.
36 Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects to 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.
Alternatives B, C, & D
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 AA aquatic resources, 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 or 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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong 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 Armstrong Project have the greatest potential to positively impact water quality within the drainage.
The restoration work that is planned for Armstrong Creek, Bee Rock Creek and Caney Branch 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, based on the project’s design features included in this analysis. The following table (Table 12) displays effects on Forest-wide aquatic habitat:
37 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 12. Effects on forest-wide aquatic habitat Amount across the Aquatic Habitat Effects analysis Nantahala & Pisgah None affected because there are no reservoirs within Reservoirs 36,000 acres the analysis area. None affected because there are no warmwater Warmwater streams 210 miles streams within the analysis area. None affected because there are no coolwater Coolwater streams 400 miles streams within the analysis area. There are seven crossings proposed (4 new and 3 replaced). The culverts in Caney Branch, UT Bee Rock (3 structures) and UT Bad fork will directly Coldwater streams 5,060 miles impact approximately 140 linear feet of streambed. The rest are proposed as bottomless structures. That is 0.026 miles of the total 25.93 miles of streams in the aquatic AA.
Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Evaluation
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 North Fork of the Catawba River or McDowell County, therefore there are no aquatic T & E Species considered further in this analysis.
Aquatic Sensitive Species
There are eighteen 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 McDowell County. After this initial filter, there are three sensitive aquatic species that potentially occur in McDowell County.
Caecidotea carolinensis, or Bennett’s Mill Cave water slater is a cave dwelling crustacean that is documented as occurring within McDowell County and is endemic to caves in North and South Carolinas. There are no caves that will be impacted as a part of the Armstrong Project area and therefore no habitat for Caecidotea carolinensis will be impacted by the project. This species was dropped from further consideration.
Alasmidonta varicosa, or brook floater mussel, are listed for McDowell County by the NHP. Extensive surveys of the North Fork of the Catawba River drainage were conducted by the NCWRC in 2003. No mussels were found. Since then, agencies cooperating with the NCWRC including the USFS have looked for freshwater mussels when in this watershed. If brook floaters were to exist within the Armstrong Creek watershed, it would be miles downstream of the project area and outside of the analysis area. Therefore, Alasmidonta varicosa, has been dropped from further consideration.
38 Environmental Assessment
The Appalachian snaketail, or Ophiogomphus incurvatus, is listed as occurring in small streams and rivers in 24 counties of North Carolina (NCNHP, 2014) including McDowell County. This species does not however occur within Armstrong Creek or its tributaries therefore it was dropped from further analysis.
Aquatic Forest Concern Species
Eighty-seven 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 McDowell County. Only one of the species listed by the NHP coincides with the Forest Concern species list- Carpiodes sp. Cf. cyprinus, or a carpsucker. Criteria for species on the Forest Concern list are a T&E NC Status, an US status of Federal Species of Concern (FSC) or a NC Rank of S1 or S2 (with local knowledge).
Carpiodes sp. Cf. cyprinus can be found in the Catawba River Drainage, main stem of the Catawba River. This area is not included in the Armstrong AA. Extensive surveys of Armstrong Creek have been documented both current and historical. There was no EOs discovered of this species within the Armstrong AA or downstream in the upper reaches of the North Fork of the Catawba River. This species was therefore dropped from further consideration.
Table 13. Threatened and endangered species, sensititve species, and forest concern species in McDowell County (considered further in this analysis) Common Name Scientific Name Type Likelyhood of Occurrence Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species
NONE
Sensitive Species (based on 12-21-2001 Regional Forester's list) Bennett’s Mill Caecidotea carolinensis Crustacean Current record but not within the aquatic Cave Water Slater analysis area. Alasmidonta varicosa Mussel Occurs in the Catawba Drainage but not Brook floater within the AA of Armstrong Creek. Appalachian Ophiogomphus Dragonfly Element of occurrence not within the snaketail incurvatus Aquatic AA of Armstrong. Forest Concern Species Carpiodes sp. Cf. Fish Does Not occur within the AA of A carpsucker cyprinus Armstrong Creek. 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.
39 Armstrong Creek Project
Effects of Alternatives by Species
The Natural Heritage Database (NCNHP, 2014) has 11 species of aquatic insects, fish and mollusks listed in their rare species database for McDowell County. This includes watch list species that are not yet considered federally rare. None of these species were listed as occurring (i.e. there are no aquatic elements of occurrences (EOs)) within the Armstrong Creek aquatic activity or analysis areas.
Additional information specifically addressing aquatic TES, MIS, and Forest Concern species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, NCNHP records, NCDENR fisheries and aquatic biologists, and USFWS biologists.
Effects to Aquatic MIS
Wild rainbow, brown and brook trout exist within the aquatic activity area in several streams of the Armstrong Creek Aquatic Analysis Area including Armstrong Creek, Bad Fork, Left Prong of Bad Fork, Roses Creek, Pups Branch, North Fork Cow Creek, Middle Fork Cow Creek, House Branch and Bee Rock Branch. 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 100 linear feet of all perennial streams.
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 Alternative B will install permanent stream crossings (Table 11). This disturbance will occur one time, during installation. Alternative C will utilize temporary crossings which requires disturbance during installation of the crossing and then again when the crossing is removed. Therefore, there is more likely to be sedimentation and downstream impacts from offsite movement of soil with Alternative B than C. Alternatives A & D will leave the crossings in their current state which has been described in the existing condition. All action alternatives will address the undersized culvert on Caney Branch. This crossing will improve habitat and habitat availability to aquatic organisms including wild rainbow, brook and brown trout.
Individuals of the rainbow, brown and brook trout community within the Armstrong Creek 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.
Effects to Aquatic TES, and Forest Concern Species
Please refer to the EA for a complete list of project issues and a detailed description of each alternative for the Armstrong Project. Mitigation measures would be prescribed where such actions are necessary to comply with local, State, and Federal environmental regulations.
40 Environmental Assessment
Management recommendations or project design features would be prescribed to protect or enhance aquatic resources where practical.
Potential Effects of Proposed Alternatives:
Proposed Actions by Alternative. There were no aquatic TES found during activity and analysis area surveys within the Armstrong Creek Project area. There are no aquatic TES or FC species listed as occurring by the NHP within this AA.
Alternative A
The existing condition would continue within the project area of Armstrong Creek if the no action alternative is selected. See the detailed description above of the existing condition.
Alternatives B, C & D
There are no aquatic T & E species within the analysis are of Armstrong Creek therefore there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any T & E species.
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species
There are no aquatic Sensitive species within the analysis are of Armstrong Creek therefore there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any T & E species.
Forest Concern Aquatic Species
There are no aquatic Forest Concern species within the analysis are of Armstrong Creek therefore there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any T & E species.
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 Armstrong Creek 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 Armstrong Creek Project. The project would have no effect on any federally listed species or their habitat.
41 Armstrong Creek Project
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 Armstrong Creek 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 Armstrong Creek 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.
Mitigation Measures & Project Design Features
Mitigation measures are management actions that are required to maintain compliance with environmental laws and regulations. These measures are required in any action alternative to achieve the determination of effect below. Use of the mitigation measures would protect aquatic habitat in the activity area for the nineteen Forest Concern species.
No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Project Design Features for the Protection of Aquatic Resources
Trees accidentally felled across stream channels (that prevent or block stream flow) would be lifted (when possible) away from the water. If this is not possible, each tree would be pulled away from the water where it fell and temporary decking would be used to support the weight of the tree as it is pulled across the channel. These removals would be perpendicular to the stream channel whenever possible to minimize stream bank disturbance. Bare soil would be seeded and mulched if native vegetation does not start to recolonize the area by the time timber removal from the unit is complete.
Skid roads would avoid stream crossings and paralleling perennial channels within designated riparian areas.
Landings and skid trails should be vegetated as soon as possible after use to avoid off-site soil movement.
Temporary roads (if needed) would be constructed to avoid runoff into area streams. In addition, silt fence, straw bales, or brush barriers would be placed along the length of the road where it parallels or crosses a stream as needed to control runoff and stream sedimentation.
Where feasible, stream crossings will be designed so that they allow for continuity of habitat for all aquatic organisms.
42 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. 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 14 below shows the total activity area for each project action alternative, which defines the scope of this analysis to estimate effects to the soils from the proposed activities. Table 14. Activity areas by alternative for the Armstrong Creek Project Activity Area Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Timber Harvest – Shelterwood with Reserves 312 acres 312 acres 256 acres Timber Harvest – Group Selection1 & Free 182 acres 182 acres 0 acres Thinning Timber Harvest – Commercial Thinning 128 acres 128 acres 77 acres Timber Harvest – Stand Improvement 736 acres 736 acres 736 acres Prescribed Burn 3,050 acres 3,050 acres 3,050 acres Prescribed Burn Hand-line Construction (1.8 1.1 acres 1.1 acres 1.1 acres miles, 6 feet wide line) System Road Decommissioning (0.5 miles, 2.1 acres 2.1 acres 2.1 acres 35 feet wide) 3.4 acres (0.8 System Road Construction (35 feet wide) 0 acres 0 acres miles) 17.8 acres 3.4 acres 10.6 acres System Road Reconstruction (35 feet wide) (4.2 miles) (0.8 miles) (2.5 miles) Log Landings 8.5 acres 8.5 acres 6.3 acres Bladed Skid Roads 12.1 acres 12.1 acres 5.7 acres 2.1 acres 17.8 acres 2.1 acres Temporary road construction (35 feet wide) (0.5 miles) (4.2 miles) (0.5 miles) Stream Bank Stabilization 0.5 acres 0.5 acres 0.5 acres No soil impacts No soil impacts No soil impacts Timber Stand Improvement Treatments expected expected expected No soil impacts No soil impacts No soil impacts Non-native plant control expected expected expected TOTAL ACTIVITY AREA 4455.6 acres 4453.5 acres 4147.4 acres 1 Stand acres of Group Selection
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
43 Armstrong Creek Project 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 primarily from rock in the Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss. This formation contains massive gneiss and micaceous granule conglomerate; including schist, phyllite, and amphibolite. Soils occurring in the activity areas are identified in Table 15. For more information on these soils go to https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.asp and http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=NC175&UseState=NC.
Table 15. Soils in proposed activity areas Soil Type (Map unit symbol) Harvest Unit CaF - Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to 246/25, 247/22, 247/32, 248/18, 241/11 80 percent slopes, stony CuE - Cullasaja-Tusquitee complex, 241/10, 241/24, 241/11 10 to 45 percent slopes EcD - Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 241/10, 241/24, 241/25, 241/23, 246/08, 247/32, 247/35, 248/18, 10 to 25 percent slopes, stony 262/18, 241/11 EcF - Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 241/10, 241/24, 241/25, 241/23, 246/08, 246/12, 247/32, 247/35, 25 to 80 percent slopes, stony 262/07, 262/13, 262/18, 262/22, 241/11 EvD - Evard loam, 10 to 25 percent 262/11, 246/08, 246/24, 246/25, 262/07, 262/13 slopes EwE - Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60 262/11, 246/08, 246/12, 246/24, 246/25, 262/07, 262/13 percent slopes HeD - Hayesville-Evard complex, 15 262/22 to 25 percent slopes MaD - Maymead fine sandy loam, 10 247/22 to 25 percent slopes, stony MgD - Maymead-Greenlee-Ostin complex, 3 to 25 percent 262/22 slopes, very stony
Hydric Soils Listing
Hydric soils (a wetland primary indicator) have not been identified in any activity areas for this project. Impacts to hydric soils/wetlands: none
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 (Federal Register, 1994). These soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
Prime Farmland Soils Listing
Prime farmland soils have not been identified in any activity areas for this project.
Adverse impacts to prime farmland: none
44 Environmental Assessment
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT
(http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1042432.pdf)
Subtitle I—Farmland Protection Policy Act
Section 2 [7 USC 4201] Findings, Purpose, and Definitions
(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.
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.
Alternatives B, C and D
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.
45 Armstrong Creek Project
The action alternatives have 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.
The estimated extent of soil disturbance and associated estimated short and long-term effects to soils are summarized in Table 16. Proposed activities associated with Alternative B pose the larger risk of adversely impacting soil productivity due to a greater area of overall and long-term disturbance compared to Alternative C and D, and Alternative D has the least potential for adverse effects to soil productivity.
Table 16. Estimated short and long term effects to soil productivity by alternative Alternative B ------Effects (acres) ------Activity Short-Term Long-Term Total System Road Decommissioning (0.5 miles) 2.1 0 2.1 System Road Construction (0.8 miles) 0 3.4 3.4 System Road Reconstruction/Addition (4.2 miles) 0 17.8 17.8 Unbladed skid trails (7.0 miles) 10.2 0 10.2 Bladed skid roads 0 12.1 12.1 Temporary road reconstruction (0.5 miles) 0.6 1.5 2.1 Log landings (34 @ ¼ acre) 4.25 4.25 8.5 Prescribed Burn 152 0 152 Prescribed Burn Hand-line Construction 1.1 0 1.1 Stream Bank Stabilization 0.5 0 0.5 Alternative B TOTAL 170.75 39.05 209.8 Alternative C ------Effects (acres) ------Activity Short-Term Long-Term Total System Road Decommissioning (0.5 miles) 2.1 0 2.1 System Road Construction 0 0 0 System Road Reconstruction/Addition (0.8 miles) 0 3.4 3.4 Unbladed skid trails (7.0 mi) 10.2 0 10.2 Bladed skid roads 0 12.1 12.1 Temporary road reconstruction (4.2 miles) 5.1 12.7 17.8 Log landings (34 @ ¼ acre) 4.25 4.25 8.5 Prescribed Burn 152 0 152 Prescribed Burn Hand-line Construction 1.1 0 1.1 Stream Bank Stabilization 0.5 0 0.5 Alternative C TOTAL 175.25 32.45 207.7 Alternative D ------Effects (acres) ------Activity Short-Term Long-Term Total System Road Decommissioning (0.5 miles) 2.1 0 2.1 System Road Construction 0 0 0 System Road Reconstruction/Addition (2.5 miles) 0 10.6 10.6
46 Environmental Assessment
Unbladed skid trails (3.1 mi) 4.6 0 4.6 Bladed skid roads 0 5.7 5.7 Temporary road reconstruction (0.5 miles) 0.6 1.5 2.1 Log landings (25 @ ¼ acre) 3.15 3.15 6.3 Prescribed Burn 152 0 152 Prescribed Burn Hand-line Construction 1.1 0 1.1 Stream Bank Stabilization 0.5 0 0.5 Alternative D TOTAL 164.05 20.95 185 Assumptions: Decommissioned roads have a 35-foot width with a short-term effect only. Constructed system roads have a 35-foot width, long-term effect. Reconstructed & Added system roads have a 35-foot width, long-term effects. Primary unbladed skid trails cover 2% of the area harvested by ground based method (RTS) and 1% for units harvested by the combination of Skyline and RTS or estimated as indicated using a preliminary logging plan, at 12 feet wide. Bladed skid roads 15 feet width with cut slope. Existing bladed skid roads will be used for Alternatives B, C and D whenever feasible. Long term impacts from these roads will be shown in cumulative effects. Temporary roads have a 35-foot width new disturbance to the existing road prism, with 25 feet of long-term effects (travel way, cut slope) and 10 feet of short-term effects. Log landings, 0.25 acres each, 50% of the area is a long-term impact due to blading. 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.
Important factors considered in evaluating effects to soil resources from this project’s alternatives 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, Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards). In other words, no more than15 percent of the activity area and each individual harvest unit are affected and lose potential long-term soil productivity. Table 17 shows the estimated percentage of activity area soils affected by alternative. Long-term effects to soil productivity for each alternative are well below the threshold value of 15 percent for each individual unit and the activity area altogether.
Table 17. Estimated percentage of the activity area soils affected by the alternatives Number Miles Miles Percent Area Disturbed Harvest Treatment Logging Treatment Log Skid Skid Unit Acres System1 Short- Long- Landings Road Trail term2 term3 ALTERNATIVE B 262/11 Free Thinning 63.5 RTS 1 1.25 0.9 2.2% 3.8% 241/10 Thinning From Below 25.4 RTS 1 0.5 0.3 2.5% 4.1% 241/24 Thinning From Below 25.2 RTS 1 0.75 0.3 2.5% 5.9% 241/25 Thinning From Below 14.1 RTS 1 0.4 0.2 2.9% 6.0% 241/23 Shelterwood with Reserves 16.6 RTS 1 0.5 0.2 2.8% 6.2% 247/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 25.5 RTS 1 0.2 0.4 2.5% 1.9% 262/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 28.3 RTS 4 0.4 0.4 3.8% 4.3% 262/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.2 RTS 1 0.25 0.2 3.0% 4.8% Group Selection & Free 241/11 Thinning 182.3 RTS 5 1.25 2.5 2.3% 1.6% Summary by Logging System 393.1 16 5.5 5.4 2.5% 3.1% 246/08 Shelterwood with Reserves 36.2 Skyline/RTS 3 0.4 0.2 3.0% 3.0% 246/12 Shelterwood with Reserves 26.6 Skyline/RTS 2 0 0.2 2.9% 0.9% 246/24 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.6 Skyline/RTS 1 0.25 0.1 3.0% 4.6% 246/25 Shelterwood with Reserves 20 Skyline/RTS 3 0.1 0.1 3.9% 2.8% 247/32 Shelterwood with Reserves 18.3 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 2.7% 0.7% 247/35 Shelterwood with Reserves 31.4 Skyline/RTS 2 0.1 0.2 2.8% 1.4% 248/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 11 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 3.1% 1.1% 262/07 Shelterwood with Reserves 34.1 Skyline/RTS 3 0.2 0.2 3.1% 2.2%
47 Armstrong Creek Project
Number Miles Miles Percent Area Disturbed Harvest Treatment Logging Treatment Log Skid Skid Unit Acres System1 Short- Long- Landings Road Trail term2 term3 262/13 Shelterwood with Reserves 39.7 Skyline/RTS 2 0.1 0.3 2.6% 1.1% Summary by Logging System 229.9 18 1.15 1.6 3.0% 1.9% ALT. B TOTALS: 623 34 6.65 7.0 2.7% 2.6% ALTERNATIVE C 262/11 Free Thinning 63.5 RTS 1 1.25 0.9 2.2% 3.8% 241/10 Thinning From Below 25.4 RTS 1 0.5 0.3 2.5% 4.1% 241/24 Thinning From Below 25.2 RTS 1 0.75 0.3 2.5% 5.9% 241/25 Thinning From Below 14.1 RTS 1 0.4 0.2 2.9% 6.0% 241/23 Shelterwood with Reserves 16.6 RTS 1 0.5 0.2 2.8% 6.2% 247/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 25.5 RTS 1 0.2 0.4 2.5% 1.9% 262/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 28.3 RTS 4 0.4 0.4 3.8% 4.3% 262/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.2 RTS 1 0.25 0.2 3.0% 4.8% Group Selection & Free 241/11 Thinning 182.3 RTS 5 1.25 2.5 2.3% 1.6% Summary by Logging System 393.1 16 5.5 5.4 2.5% 3.1% 246/08 Shelterwood with Reserves 36.2 Skyline/RTS 3 0.4 0.2 3.0% 3.0% 246/12 Shelterwood with Reserves 26.6 Skyline/RTS 2 0 0.2 2.9% 0.9% 246/24 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.6 Skyline/RTS 1 0.25 0.1 3.0% 4.6% 246/25 Shelterwood with Reserves 20 Skyline/RTS 3 0.1 0.1 3.9% 2.8% 247/32 Shelterwood with Reserves 18.3 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 2.7% 0.7% 247/35 Shelterwood with Reserves 31.4 Skyline/RTS 2 0.1 0.2 2.8% 1.4% 248/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 11 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 3.1% 1.1% 262/07 Shelterwood with Reserves 34.1 Skyline/RTS 3 0.2 0.2 3.1% 2.2% 262/13 Shelterwood with Reserves 39.7 Skyline/RTS 2 0.1 0.3 2.6% 1.1% Summary by Logging System 229.9 18 1.15 1.6 3.0% 1.9% ALT. C TOTALS: 623 34 6.65 7.0 2.7% 2.6% ALTERNATIVE D 262/11 Free Thinning 63.5 RTS 3 1.25 0.9 2.6% 4.2% 247/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 25.5 RTS 1 0.2 0.4 2.5% 1.9% 262/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 28.3 RTS 4 0.4 0.4 3.8% 4.3% 262/22 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.2 RTS 1 0.25 0.2 3.0% 4.8% Summary by Logging System 129.5 9 2.1 1.8 2.9% 3.8% 246/08 Shelterwood with Reserves 36.2 Skyline/RTS 3 0.4 0.2 3.0% 3.0% 246/12 Shelterwood with Reserves 26.6 Skyline/RTS 2 0 0.2 2.9% 0.9% 246/24 Shelterwood with Reserves 12.6 Skyline/RTS 1 0.25 0.1 3.0% 4.6% 246/25 Shelterwood with Reserves 20 Skyline/RTS 3 0.1 0.1 3.9% 2.8% 247/32 Shelterwood with Reserves 18.3 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 2.7% 0.7% 248/18 Shelterwood with Reserves 11 Skyline/RTS 1 0 0.1 3.1% 1.1% 262/07 Shelterwood with Reserves 34.1 Skyline/RTS 3 0.2 0.2 3.1% 2.2% 262/13 Shelterwood with Reserves 39.7 Skyline/RTS 2 0.1 0.3 2.6% 1.1% Summary by Logging System 198.5 16 1.05 1.4 3.0% 2.0% ALT. D TOTALS: 328 25 3.15 3.1 3.0% 2.7% 1 RTS = Rubber tired skidder, 2 Temporary roads = 10' wide, skid trails = 2% of area, Landings = 1/4 acre each @50% of area, 3 Temporary roads = 25' wide, skid roads = 15' wide, Landings = 1/4 acre each @50% of area.
48 Environmental Assessment
Soil Moisture
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil moisture from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
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 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, Effects of Cutting Practices on Microenvironment in Relation to Hardwood Regeneration, 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 for each alternative.
Nutrients
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil nutrients from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened (Knoepp & Swank, Forest Management Effects on Surface Soil Carbon and Nitrogen, 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.
49 Armstrong Creek Project
Soil Erosion
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
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.
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 directional felling and winching, which will decrease skid road construction and the need to operate on steeper slopes to move trees to landings. Additionally, erosion control treatment will be applied to minimize soil movement. Partial skyline logging (combined with ground-based on low slopes) is proposed for harvesting 37, 37, and 60 percent of the harvest area (Table 17) for Alternatives B, C and D, respectively. The skyline logging system has been found to greatly reduce soil erosion because of less ground disturbance (USFS 2012). Since greater ground disturbance increases the potential for soil erosion, Alternatives B and C would have a similar potential for soil erosion with 210 acres and 208 acres, respectively, of effected area, while Alternative D would have the least (185 acres) (Table 16).
The potential for soil movement from each alternative is expected to be temporary and limited to the recovery period time of approximately 1 to 3 years. Prompt implementation of erosion control measures (seeding, waterbars, slash, etc.) of the disturbed areas will help prevent continued soil movement after harvest area closure (Swift, 1984).
Roads
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
To address potential impacts to water quality and to restore soil productivity, approximately 0.5 miles of Caney Ridge Road would be decommissioned under each alternative. This activity would restore hydrology of the area currently impacted by the road. The decommissioning work is expected to successfully eliminate erosion and potential sedimentation from that road within 1 to 3 years and return approximately 2.1 acres back to productive land. The NFsNC has documented success from similar work in the Tellico Off-Highway Vehicle Area where many
50 Environmental Assessment miles of road were decommissioned by recontouring the road prism back to a more natural slope (USDAFS, 2012).
Approximately 4.2 and 2.5 miles of existing road would be added to the FS system under Alternatives B and D, respectively, while Alternative C proposes only 0.8 miles (Roaring Branch Road). Of these miles, 0.4 miles would be placed into storage in Alternatives B and D, 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 establish within the first year after use there should be very little erosion from the road surface. The one exception (common to all alternatives) is the 0.8 miles of the Roaring Branch Road that accesses private property, which potentially could get more use.
While Alternative C proposes the fewest miles of reconstruction and addition to the road system it does propose the greatest miles of temporary road. The same roads added to the system in Alternatives B and D would be used as temporary roads in Alternative C. All temporary roads proposed would be reconstructed from existing old roads present in the analysis area. Most roads are further than 100 feet from a stream channel and streams are not crossed except in the upper Bee Rock Creek drainage. Alternatives B and D both propose a total of 0.5 miles of temporary road reconstruction.
The construction of 0.8 miles of new road is planned for Alternative B on Timber Ridge. Following timber harvest activities the entire length would be put into storage with culverts removed and the road prism stabilized to have no adverse impacts from storm events. The new road would still have a long-term adverse effect on the soil productivity of 3.4 acres since soils would be compacted.
A review of the soil data and interpretations from the NRCS Web Soil Survey Site shows that the analysis area is comprised of soil types formed on slopes predominantly over 30 percent with predominantly a “severe” hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails (Table 18). Each alternative consequently has a large area of proposed activity within the “severe” erosion potential soils. Alternative D has the highest percentage of area in this potential class (Table 18), but the least number of acres (Table 14 & Table 15).
51 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 18. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and interpretation of hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails for Alternatives B, C, and D in the Armstrong Creek Project
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 and temporary 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, and then planted, refreshed or decommissioned following use to leave them in a stable state.
Landslides
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
Landslides are not often triggered by silvicultural 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 any of these alternatives would increase the risk of landslides on the project area.
52 Environmental Assessment
Sulfidic Rock
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
The project area is within the Alligator Back Formation; Gneiss, a formation not containing sulfidic rock. Therefore, this geologic formation is not considered to have a high potential to produce acidic runoff when rocks are exposed during excavation during any of the alternatives.
Timber Harvest
Alternative A (No Action)
There would be no new effects to soil disturbance from this alternative.
Alternatives B, C and D
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 “moderate” to “very severe” (Table 19). This NRCS erosion hazard stems from logging activities that expose 50 to 75 percent of the surface area. Alternatives B and C both propose 55 and 17 percent of proposed harvest unit area that is within “very severe” and “severe” ratings, respectively, and 48 and 32 percent for Alternative D (Table 19). Alternatives B and C would have the same risk of erosion from the proposed harvest activities based on the NRCS soils interpretations, and the greatest compared to Alternative D since Alternative D has almost half of the total acres of the other alternatives.
Table 19. Compilation of NRCS Soil Type and interpretation of hazard of soil loss from areas off roads and off trails for Alternatives B, C, and D in the Armstrong Creek Project
The NFsNC monitoring of soil quality following logging on the Pisgah National Forest shows that soil disturbance is consistently below the 15 percent regional standard of detrimental soil disturbance for each harvested unit area. Therefore, logging on the NFsNC exposes far less than
53 Armstrong Creek Project
50 to 75 percent of the surface area. Again looking at Table 17, we see that soil disturbance is estimated to be below 7 percent for all units.
Furthermore, the NFsNC have a good understanding of the potential effects of timber harvest operations based on the monitoring of these activities over the last two decades. The NFsNC incorporates into planning, contracts, and operations mitigation techniques or measures that reduce the risk of erosion and sedimentation to nearby streams. These mitigation measures have been developed from North Carolina Best Management Practices (BMPs) and additional practices that we have found to be effective at controlling erosion. Implementation of these practices is the means by which the FS maintains its silvicultural exemption with the State of North Carolina and meets the Clean Water Act.
Our monitoring shows that the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests are adequately applying Best Management Practices during timber sale operations. If we consider BMPs applied during tractor logging in 2011, 145 out of 150 BMP checks were appropriately applied (96.7%). Considering skyline logging units, 104 practices were monitored and all were implemented and effective (100%). Temporary roads constructed for the timber sale, met the BMP rules (96.7%); 29 out of 30 practices. All timber sale related BMPs (tractor, skyline and temporary roads) resulted in 278 out of 284 implemented and effective BMPs, or 97.9 percent. Considering tractor logging units, skyline logging units and temporary roads, no visible sediment delivery to streams occurred in 176 out of the 177 BMPs checked (99.4%) (USDAFS, 2012). 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, under both action alternatives, will continue to meet Forest Plan standards, State standards, and the Clean Water Act.
Cumulative Effects Analysis
This project is proposed entirely within the Armstrong Creek watershed (6th level HUC: 030501010201). The 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 4456 acres for Alt. B, 4453 acres for Alt. C and 4147.4 acres for Alt. D, 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, C and D, 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). Cumulative effects to soils will consider past and future planned activities and their effects on soil productivity within this analysis area. Old temporary roads and bladed areas are considered not yet recovered from soil displacement. Areas of soil displacement take a long time to recover. Too much soil displacement in an area is not considered protecting the productivity of the land. Too much 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).
54 Environmental Assessment
Past and Future Actions in the Project Area:
Past activities impacting soils in the project area are:
Prescribed fire within the last 10 years, including the Woods Mountain and Singecat burns.
There is an estimated 3.5 miles (6.4 acres) of old bladed road that has not recovered from past timber harvest. Past harvesting in the last 20 years includes Witness Rock Timber Project.
Reconstruction of system Trail #223 along Armstrong Creek in 2012-13.
2004 storm repairs on system roads in 2005-06.
NNIS treatments in stands off Armstrong Road and young stands in the area.
Future activities considered, but not analyzed in the project area are:
Harvest of Group Selection areas in unit 241/11 goes beyond the reasonably foreseeable future (> 10-years out).
Therefore, no Future Actions are considered in this Cumulative Effects analysis.
To estimate the effects from these activities, estimates for the above projects will be used along with the assumptions listed below the table.
Table 20. 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 area soil productivity B 6.4 39.05 0 45.45 1.02% 98.98% C 6.4 32.45 0 38.85 0.87% 99.13% D 6.4 20.95 0 27.35 0.66% 99.34%
Assumptions for estimating cumulative effects:
This project area is 4456 acres for Alt. B, 4453 acres for Alt. C and 4147.4 acres for Alt. D even though Past Activities fall outside this area.
Long term effect estimates for old roads are based on 15 feet of width.
The above table shows that when proposed, past and future actions are considered, soil productivity will be reduced on a very small percentage 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). The standard is that 85% of an area will retain its potential long-term soil productivity. The estimated cumulative effects to soil productivity above show this standard will be met in this area of the Forest for these proposed project alternatives.
55 Armstrong Creek Project
Wildlife
Introduction
This report documents the effects of proposed restoration prescribed burn treatments to terrestrial wildlife resources within the wildlife analysis area (AA, defined below). The report was written to support the Armstrong 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 and impacts on Federally endangered, proposed endangered, threatened (T& E), Forest Service Sensitive (S) and Forest Concern (FC) terrestrial wildlife species are evaluated. Potential direct and indirect effects to T&E, S 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”. This document also analyzes the effects to natural terrestrial wildlife communities. The possible activity areas are shown on the attached project map. Four (A-D) alternatives were considered in this report. The project area is located in McDowell County, North Carolina.
Proposed activities may include the following depending upon alternative selected: Prescribed burning, timber harvesting, stand improvement (SI) and tree planting, road construction, and road daylighting (see project proposal for a complete description of acreage, distances, procedures and areas).
Terrestrial Wildlife Survey and Analysis Methods
Potentially affected TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species were identified by:
1. Reviewing the list of TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species of the Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests and their habitat preferences;
2. Evaluating element occurrence (EO) records of TES and FC terrestrial wildlife as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs;
3. Consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its flora.
4. 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. Focused attention was given during the surveys to habitats within the units that may be associated with terrestrial wildlife TES, and FC species, i.e., rock outcrops, seeps, high elevations, etc. The intensity of the coverage varied depending on the extent of any likely TES, and FC species habitat, complexity of vegetation, and/or presence of indicator species. Although the search was focused on the possibility of occurrences of the TES, and FC terrestrial wildlife listed on Table 1; all TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species were searched for during the survey. The survey was conducted so that TES, and FC terrestrial wildlife species would not be overlooked due to time of the year that the species could reasonably be detected. All
56 Environmental Assessment terrestrial wildlife TES and FC species listed in the Pisgah/ Nantahala National Forests were considered.
The terrestrial wildlife analysis area (AA) or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the proposed activity areas and areas within 2 kilometers of the activity areas. The terrestrial wildlife AA consists of approximately 14,700 acres. All potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to terrestrial wildlife resources in the terrestrial wildlife AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The terrestrial wildlife AA definition was selected because it is analogous to the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy’s terrestrial wildlife delimitation guidelines of element occurrences. Other resource disciplines may employ different definitions to analyze this proposal.
The proposed activity areas were surveyed by Christopher L. Williams, Pisgah NF Wildlife Biologist, in May and June, 2012, and May, 2013. No unique or rare species were noted during surveys. During the 2011 Southeastern Bat Blitz, bats were surveyed in McDowell County from August 1-3. Northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) were captured on the western boundary of the watershed.
Existing Terrestrial Wildlife Condition
TES, and FC Terrestrial wildlife Species
One federally Threatened Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), one Regional Forester’s Sensitive, a lampshade spider (Hypochilis sheari) and three Forest Concern, Appalachian woodrat (Neotoma magister), cerulean warbler (Setophaga cerulea), and northern pigmy salamander (Desmognathus organi) species are known to occur adjacent to the proposed activity units. These five species are displayed in Table 21and discussed in the “effects section” below.
Of the approximate 159 terrestrial wildlife TES and FC species known to occur or that could occur within the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forest, only 13 species are known to occur in McDowell County (Appendix B). As the terrestrial wildlife analysis area for this project will include all of McDowell County, all 13 TES and FC species were considered in this report. Eight of these species occur within the analysis area or adjacent to the proposed activity units. These species are displayed in Table 21and Table 22 and will be discussed in the “effects section” below. 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, near to 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.
57 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 21. Terrestrial wildlife threatened (T), endangered (E), and regional forester's sensitive(S) and forest concern (FC) species known to occur within or immediately adjacent to the proposed activities Further Species Type – Rating Habitat Occurrence Analyzed? Myotis Roosts in live and dead Occurs adjacent to an septentrionalis- trees (warm months); activity area Mammal – T Yes Northern long- caves, mines (winter) eared bat Hypochilis Overhanging ledges Occurs adjacent to an sheari- A Arachnid- S near streams, caves activity area Yes lampshade spider Rocky outcrops and Occurs adjacent to an Neotoma boulder fields within or activity area magister- adjacent to deciduous Mammal - FC Yes Appalachian or mixed deciduous woodrat forests including coves, bottomlands Setophaga Forested landscapes, Occurs adjacent to an cerulea- Cerulean Bird - FC mature forest and large, activity area Yes warbler tall deciduous trees Desmognathus Streams and seeps in Occurs adjacent to an organi – Northern Amphibian - FC deciduous and activity area Yes pigmy salamander spruce/fir forests
Table 22. Terrestrial wildlife threatened (T), endangered (E), and regional forester's sensitive (S) species and forest concern (FC) species known to occur within the Armstrong analysis area Common Scientific Type – Rating Further Analyzed? Name Name Glyptemys Bog Turtle Reptile - T Yes muhlenbergii Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii Mammal - S Yes Microtus chrotorrhinus Southern rock vole Mammal - S Yes carolinensis
Natural Terrestrial Wildlife Communities and Habitats Found in the Armstrong Creek Terrestrial Wildlife AA
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 more dry 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 farmed then logged near the turn of the last century. Additional areas were logged more recently. As a result, the forested comminutes of the Armstrong Creek 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) Chestnut Oak Forest, 2) Acidic Cove Forest, 3) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, 4) Pine- Oak Heath Forest and 5) High Elevation Red Oak Forest. These natural communities are
58 Environmental Assessment approximately mapped within the AA by using a GIS vegetation model (S. Simon, 2002). Almost all of the proposed activities occur within the Chestnut Oak Forest, Montane Oak/Hickory and Acid Cove Forest. The primary natural communities found within the proposed burn units are displayed in Table 23.
Table 23. Estimated quantity of communities within terrestrial wildlife analysis area, Forest Service land Est. Acres/ % of Total Community Habitat of Forest Service Acres under 40 years old in AA Acidic Cove Forest Acres 2605 / 28 % 206 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Acres 4082/ 44 %
428 acres Montane Oak-Hickory Forest Acres 995/ 11% 87acres Pine Oak Heath Acres 1005/ 10% 174 acres High Elevation Red Oak Forest Acres 285 / 3 % 25 acres Other or No data Acres 329/ 1% 41 acres Totals 9301 acres 961 acres
Past Actions within the Terrestrial wildlife AA (Considered in Cumulative Effects)
Timber harvest (<30 years old), large wildfires (> 100 acres), prescribed fire, agricultural conversion are the only activities sufficient to have a measurable effect upon habitat for terrestrial wildlife populations. Specific timber sales and prescribed burns include the Witness Rock Sale (1995) and Singecat prescribed burn (2013).
Potential Effects and Analysis for Terrestrial Wildlife Resources
Effects Specific to Activity Treatments
Prescribed Burning
Northern long-eared bat, Eastern small-footed bat, Appalachian woodrat, Northern pigmy salamander, and cerulean warbler could be affected by prescribed burning activities, as these species are known to occur in areas adjacent to activity to activity areas. As these species occur adjacent to activity areas, it is possible that they also occur within activity units. It is unlikely that any other TES or FC would be affected by the proposed activities.
The general potential effects to these species are direct negative effects of exposure to fire and the effects of fire, that could take individuals; and the indirect effects of modifying their habitat at a small scale and large scale. There is greater potential for negative direct effects to all species if activities were to occur in the late spring and summer of the year. The proposed activities are more likely to negatively affect northern long-eared and eastern small-footed bats along with cerulean warbler during the vulnerable young rearing periods of the spring and summer. Young bats and birds may not be able to flee smoke during a growing season burn, a situation that is unlikely to be fatal, but may cause adults to abandon the location. Prescribed burning is intended at the upper elevations to reduce the basal area of timber in certain areas making them more desirable to cerulean warbler. Prescribed burning may impact areas near rock outcrops by
59 Armstrong Creek Project reducing the basal area allowing for increased sunlight and temperatures, conditions that Appalachian woodrat may find undesirable. Likewise, salamanders are more likely to be impacted during the spring, summer, and early fall.
Northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, and Appalachian woodrat could occur within the Acidic Cove Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Pine Oak Heath, Montane Oak Hickory, and High Elevation Red Oak communities. Therefore, as these community types are anticipated to be affected by the prescribed fire proposed action, these species have the potential to be affected by the proposed actions. Northern pigmy salamander and cerulean warbler could occur within the Acidic Cove Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Montane Oak Hickory, and High Elevation Red Oak communities. Therefore, as these community types are anticipated to be affected by the prescribed fire proposed action, these species have the potential to be affected by the proposed actions.
The road system varies greatly within the AA and is strongly related to ownership. Many of the Forest Service roads within the in AA are gated. These gated roads are typically closed year- round or only open for a portion of the year. Due to a lack of automobile traffic on forest roads, disturbance from humans to terrestrial wildlife is generally limited to foot traffic and tends to be seasonal (April – December). As approximately 4,512 acres of the Armstrong watershed is designated as inventoried roadless, and, due to the ruggedness of the northwest portion of the watershed, the area is largely absent of roads. The proposed actions will mainly utilize the current road system.
Timber Harvest, Road Daylighting, SI, Tree Planting, Road Construction, and Watershed Improvements
Northern long-eared bat, Eastern small-footed bat, Appalachian woodrat, Northern pigmy salamander, and cerulean warbler could be affected by timber harvesting, road daylighting, SI, tree planting, road construction, and watershed improvement activities, as they are known to occur in areas adjacent to activity areas. As these species occur adjacent to activities, it is possible that they also occur within activity units. As lampshade spiders typically occur at overhanging ledges near steams and caves, it is unlikely that this specie will be affected by the proposed actions as these areas are not likely to be affected by the proposed actions. It is unlikely that any other TES or FC would be affected by the proposed activities.
The general potential effects to these species are direct negative effects of exposure to logging equipment, tree felling, and road construction equipment and materials, and the indirect effects of modifying their habitat at a small scale and large scale. There is greater potential for negative direct effects to all species if activities were to occur in the late spring and summer of the year. The proposed activities are more likely to negatively northern long-eared and eastern small- footed bats along with cerulean warbler during the vulnerable young rearing periods of the spring and summer. Young bats and birds may not be able to flee activity areas during timber harvesting, road daylighting, SI, tree planting, road construction, and watershed improvement activities, a situation that is unlikely to be fatal, but may cause adults to abandon the location. These proposed actions my benefits northern pigmy salamanders and Appalachian woodrats by placing large woody debris on the forest floor, but are not expected to greatly benefit northern long-eared and eastern small-footed bats, and cerulean warbler. Timber removal near rock outcrops may negatively impact Appalachian woodrat by reducing the basal area allowing for increased sunlight and temperatures.
60 Environmental Assessment
Northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, Northern pigmy salamander, cerulean warbler, and Appalachian woodrat could occur within the Acidic Cove Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, Pine Oak Heath, Montane Oak Hickory, and High Elevation Red Oak communities. Therefore, as these community types are anticipated to be affected by the timber harvesting, road construction, road daylighting, SI, tree planting, and watershed improvement proposed actions, these species have the potential to be affected by the proposed actions.
The current road system within the AA is not expected to greatly affect terrestrial wildlife, though new road construction may affect terrestrial wildlife.
Specific Effects to TES, and FC Terrestrial Wildlife Species
Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to TES, and FC Terrestrial Wildlife
Northern long-eared bat (T), Eastern small-footed bat (S), lampshade spider (S), Appalachian woodrat (FC), Northern pigmy salamander (FC), and cerulean warbler (FC) are known to occur adjacent to the activity areas. There is potential for the proposed actions to have both positive and negative direct and indirect effects to these species. All other TES and FC species occurring in Appendix B are not likely to be affected by the proposed actions because proposal will not affect potential habitat or known populations.
There is potential for northern long-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, and cerulean warbler roosting and nesting trees to be taken during activities, a negative direct effect if young bat and birds are present and are unable to flee. Unoccupied roosting and nesting trees could be taken during prescribed burning, timber harvesting, SI, tree planting, road daylighting, road construction, and watershed improvement activities, a negative indirect effect. Northern long- eared and eastern small-footed bat is unlikely to be directly affected by non-growing season prescribed burns as they primarily overwinter in caves and mines. There are no known NLEB hibernacula within five miles of the Armstrong analysis area. Potential summer roosting trees could be lost during non-growing season burning through handline construction and fire consumption, both negative indirect effects. Snags are likely to be created from areas with higher intensity fire. These snags have the potential to provide future roosting habitat for bats, a positive indirect effect. Adult northern long-eared bats are unlikely to be directly affected by growing season burning as they are able to flee undesirable conditions. Young bats that are unable to flee could be taken if trees they are roosted in are felled either by the effects of the burn and subsequent events such as wind, or are felled for safety reasons. Smoke from prescribed burns could temporarily displace adult bats and birds, a negative indirect effect.
If the prescribed burns reduce understory density at the upper elevations, while mature trees are retained, these areas are likely to provide habitat for cerulean warbler. Smoke from prescribed burning may temporarily displace cerulean warbler during mating, nesting, and fledging periods, a negative indirect effect. While rocky outcrops are not likely to be greatly affected by the proposed actions, there is potential for prescribed fire to kill trees near woodrat habitat, increasing local temperatures and making conditions less desirable for woodrats, a negative, indirect effect. Prescribed fire could fell weakened trees, providing refuge for northern pigmy salamanders, a positive indirect effect. Northern pigmy salamanders are unlikely to be affected by prescribed fire activities. Northern pigmy salamanders could be negatively affected by timber harvesting, road daylighting, and road construction if these activities were to occur during a period of warm temperatures, moist air, and moist ground conditions when salamanders are on or near the
61 Armstrong Creek Project surface. It is unlikely that salamanders will be effected by any of the proposed actions if they were to take place during the non-growing season or during periods of drought, when salamanders are either below ground or in/adjacent to streams. Lampshade spiders could be indirectly negatively affected if the proposed actions remove trees near occupied habitat, increasing sunlight and temperatures at the microsite.
It is unlikely that there would be effects to other TES and FC as they are not known to occur within the activity areas. Table 24 lists all the known TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species within the activity areas and the possible effects.
Table 24. Summary of effects to TES and FC terrestrial wildlife species known in the analysis area Possible Species Status Location in terrestrial wildlife AA (source) effect/impact Northern long- Known to occur adjacent to an activity area and May affect Threatened eared bat within the AA individuals Bog turtle Threatened Known to occur within the AA No affect Eastern small- May impact Sensitive Known to occur within the AA footed bat individuals Lampshade May impact Sensitive Known to occur adjacent to an activity area spider individuals Southern rock Sensitive Known to occur within the AA No impact vole Appalachian Forest May impact Known to occur adjacent to an activity area woodrat Concern individuals Cerulean Forest May impact Known to occur adjacent to an activity area warbler Concern individuals Northern pigmy Forest May impact Known to occur adjacent to an activity area salamander Concern individuals
Cumulative Effects
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. All other activities are minor and not analyzed. Specific timber sales and prescribed burns include the Witness Rock Sale (1995) and Singecat prescribed burn (2013).
Past activities within the AA such as timber harvesting, land clearing, prescribed burns, and wildfires are responsible for the current conditions. As the proposed actions occur on a small percentage of the AA and the activity units will be affected to varying degrees, no cumulative effect beyond what has already been discussed are expected to occur with implementation.
Previous activities with the AA likely impacted individual northern long-eared and eastern small- footed bat, and may have impacted individual lampshade spider, southern rock vole, Appalachian woodrat, cerulean warbler, and northern pigmy salamander, but likely did not affect species viability within the affected environment (Armstrong AA) or within the Grandfather Ranger District.
62 Environmental Assessment
Future activities within the AA are likely to be similar to those of the past, and are unlikely to affect species viability within the affected environment (AA) or within the Grandfather Ranger District and is unlikely to cause a trend towards federal listing.
This project may adversely affect northern long-eared bat, and would not affect any other federally listed threatened, endangered, or proposed endangered species.
This project may impact individual eastern small-footed bat, lampshade spider, cerulean warbler, northern pigmy salamander and Appalachian woodrat, but is not likely to affect species viability.
No other TES or FC species would be impacted by this project; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to any other TES or FC species.
Effects to Sensitive and Forest Concern Species Habitat
Prescribed burning, timber harvesting, road daylighting, road construction, tree planting, and SI could affect up to approximately 4,450 acres, while the analysis area totals approximately 14,700 acres. As the habitats to be affected by the proposed activities are common and widespread throughout the AA, the Grandfather Ranger District and Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, the effects to S and FC habitat are considered to be small in scale.
Effects to Management Indicator Species and Habitat
Pine warbler-
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. Its breeds at lower densities as far north as southeastern Canada and northeastern United States, where it is migratory and among the earliest warblers to arrive in spring and latest to depart in fall.
Pine warblers are unusual among the Parulidae (wood-warblers) in that both their breeding and wintering ranges lie almost entirely within the United States and Canada, although resident races are present in the Bahamas and on Hispaniola. Migrants from North America are rarely recorded in the West Indies, and very rarely in northern Mexico and Central America. The annual extent of migration into the West Indies by northern migrants is poorly known.
In winter, pine warblers can be especially abundant in pine forests of the southeastern United States when numbers are increased by migrants from the north. In some areas, up to 50–100 or more individuals can be seen in mixed-species foraging flocks. Agonistic encounters between pine warblers and with other bird species frequently occur in these flocks. Male pine warblers may sing in all months of the year and commonly within fall and winter flocks, although less frequently on cold winter days.
The pine warbler is the only wood-warbler known to regularly consume seeds (often pine seeds or seeds at bird feeders) in any significant amount. However, few data exist on the frequency of this behavior away from feeders and the importance of seeds in the fall or winter diet. Some
63 Armstrong Creek Project recent research (Levey et al. in press) has examined ways in which this primarily insectivorous bird may make the seasonal physiological changes necessary to allow for digestion of seeds.
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.
Alternative A - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects – Pine warbler
Under alternative A, the no action alternative, as no action will occur, there will be no direct effects to pine warbler across the project area. Under alternative A, no habitat will be created or altered. As no new pine warbler habitat would be created under alternative A, this would represent a negative indirect effect to pine warbler populations within the analysis area.
Cumulative Effects – Pine warbler
Alternative A
Few cumulative effects are expected from implementing alternative A. By not creating new pine warbler habitat within the analysis area, pine warbler populations are not expected to expand within the analysis area.
Alternatives B, C, and D - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects – Pine warbler
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. As stands of this size are 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. Pine warbler nests could be lost during activities, a negative direct effect.
Cumulative Effects – Pine warbler
Alternatives B, C, and D
Pine warbler habitat is generally limited throughout the activity area and analysis area. The proposed actions are not expected to negatively alter, but they may create habitat within the analysis area. No activities other than the proposed actions and the Singecat and Woods Mountain prescribed burns are planned within the analysis area for the next 5 years that will benefit pine warbler.
Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D could cause displaced individuals from the project area to seek out habitat within the analysis area. As there is similar habitat within and immediately adjacent to the analysis area, it is likely that displaced birds would find suitable habitat. This alternative is not likely to affect populations of pine warbler across the analysis area.
64 Environmental Assessment
There is pine warbler habitat on private lands within the analysis area. Pine warbler habitat within the analysis area is not expected to greatly change in the foreseeable future.
As pine warbler habitat is common and widespread on the Grandfather Ranger District and the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, the proposed actions are not expected to negatively affect pine warbler locally, or across the Forests.
Pileated woodpecker-
The Pileated Woodpecker is the largest woodpecker found in most of North America. Best recognized by its large, dull black body and red crest, 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 mammals—for shelter and nesting— particularly the larger secondary cavity users (e.g., Boreal Owl ]Aegolius funereus], Wood Duck [Aix sponsa], and American marten [Martes Americana]; 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.
Alternative A - No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects – PILEATED WOODPECKER
Under alternative A, the no action alternative, as no action will occur, there will be no direct effects to pileated woodpecker across the project area. Under alternative A, forests will continue to mature, and in some cases, deteriorate, a positive indirect effect.
Cumulative Effects – PILEATED WOODPECKER
Alternative A
Few cumulative effects are expected from implementing alternative A. By not implementing the proposed actions, the forest will continue to mature, conditions favorable for pileated woodpecker.
Alternatives B, C, and D - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects – PILEATED WOODPECKER
65 Armstrong Creek Project
The effects of the proposed actions to pileated woodpecker vary by the specific proposed action. SI, tree planting, road daylighting, and prescribed burning are not expected to negatively affect pileated woodpecker. 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
Alternatives B, C, and D
Pileated warbler is common within the analysis area. The proposed actions are likely to negatively affect pileated woodpecker if they occupy the areas proposed for timber harvest. No activities other than the Singecat and Woods Mountain prescribed burns are planned within the analysis area for the next 5 years that will benefit pileated woodpecker.
Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D could cause displaced individuals from the project area to seek out habitat within the analysis area. As there is similar habitat within and immediately adjacent to the analysis area, it is likely that displaced birds would find suitable habitat. This alternative is not likely to affect populations of pileated woodpecker across the analysis area.
There is pileated woodpecker habitat on private lands within the analysis area. Pileated woodpecker habitat within the analysis area is not expected to greatly change in the foreseeable future.
As pileated woodpecker habitat is common and widespread on the Grandfather Ranger District and the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests, the proposed actions are not expected to negatively affect pileated woodpecker locally, or across the Forests.
Eastern towhee-
Many details of the Eastern Towhee’s natural history remain poorly known. Its songs and singing behavior have received significant attention. The bird 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. Apart from its sexual dichromatism and its unstreaked adult plumage, it closely resembles its sparrow relatives in broad details of behavior. Socially, it is monogamous and territorial. Females build nests and incubate eggs; both sexes provide parental care and mob predators around the nest. Like most of its emberizine relatives, the Eastern Towhee uses a distinctive 2-footed scratching behavior to displace loose litter on the ground and uncover hidden arthropod prey. This behavior is especially important in the winter, when nearly all of its food comes from the ground.
66 Environmental Assessment
During the breeding season it spends much time seeking insects and fruit in woody vegetation above ground as well. Details of its display language are only now becoming available. This towhee has an array of calls and visual displays that organize its daily social routines. One vocalization in particular used by adult males during the breeding season has characteristics of softness, variability, and prolonged delivery that resemble later stages of song development.
Ruffed Grouse-
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. Buds and catkins of aspen, willows (Salix), and birches (Betula) are important winter food in Canada, Alaska, and the northern Great Lakes states.
This grouse bears a cryptic plumage of mottled gray, brown, buff, and black coloration. Its plumage occurs in two color morphs, gray and red (or brown), the tail showing the most noticeable difference in coloration. Intermediates between these occur, and the predominate morph varies geographically: the gray phase predominates in northern parts of the range, the red phase in the south. All Ruffed Grouse (except juveniles) have a prominent dark band near the tip of the tail and a tuft of feathers on the sides of the neck that can be erected into a ruff.
The ruffed grouse produces a variety of hissing, chirping, or peeping sounds, but is best known for the drumming sounds produced by the male. The drums are a series of progressively faster thumps produced by air rushing to fill the vacuum created under the wings when they are rapidly flapped in front of the body. The male drums throughout the year, but the vast majority of drumming occurs in spring, presumably to attract females and ward off other males.
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 and hunting groups to harvest small blocks of timber in ways that encourage reproduction of aspen and other early-successional plants. The Ruffed Grouse Society is the largest group of hunter-conservationists dedicated to enhancement of Ruffed Grouse populations and young forests that support many early- successional species.
Predation, including hunting by humans, is largest source of mortality. Hawks, owls, fox, bobcat, and coyote are common grouse predators in the southern Appalachian mountains.
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – EASTERN TOWHEE, RUFFED GROUSE
Under alternative A, the no action alternative, as no action will occur, there will be no direct effects to eastern towhee and ruffed grouse across the project area. Under alternative A, no new habitat will be created or altered. As no new eastern towhee and ruffed grouse habitat would be created under alternative A, this would represent a negative indirect effect to eastern towhee and ruffed grouse populations within the analysis area.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – EASTERN TOWHEE, RUFFED GROUSE
67 Armstrong Creek Project
ALTERNATIVE A
Few cumulative effects are expected from implementing alternative A. By not creating new eastern towhee and ruffed grouse habitat within the analysis area, eastern towhee and ruffed grouse populations are not expected to expand within the analysis area.
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D - PROPOSED ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – EASTERN TOWHEE, RUFFED GROUSE
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. 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
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D
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. No activities other than the proposed actions and the Singecat and Woods Mountain prescribed burns are planned within the analysis area for the next 5 years that will benefit eastern towhee and ruffed grouse.
Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D are 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 is most conspicuous in its song -- the emphatic, familiar “Teacher….Teacher….Teacher” sung by males, often late into the breeding season. As both sexes have olive-brown backs, dull-orange caps and spotted breasts that blend well with the forest understory, this is a species more often heard than seen. Ovenbirds forage 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.
68 Environmental Assessment
Ovenbirds have a relatively wide breeding range that spreads in the North from eastern British Columbia to Quebec and Newfoundland, and in the South from northern Arkansas to North Carolina and Virginia. Their nonbreeding (winter) range includes Mexico, Central America, Florida, and the Caribbean islands.
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – OVENBIRD
Under alternative A, the no action alternative, as no action will occur, there will be no direct effects to ovenbird across the project area. As ovenbird habitat includes large tracts of mature forest with closed canopy, alternative A would continue to provide ovenbird habitat. Alternative A would provide beneficial indirect effects to ovenbird.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – OVENBIRD
ALTERNATIVEA
Alternative A would benefit ovenbird as there would be no habitat loss.
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D - PROPOSED ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – OVENBIRD
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. 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 be 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
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D
Ovenbird habitat is relatively abundant throughout the activity area and analysis area. The proposed actions may impact ovenbird. The Singecat and Woods Mountain prescribed burns are the only known activities that are likely to affect ovenbird within the AA in the next 5 years.
Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D 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.
69 Armstrong Creek Project
Black bear-
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. However, like mountain lions and gray wolves, black bears were often killed by early settlers to protect their families, crops and livestock. In time, bears across the state were impacted by human development. By the early 1900s, black bears were found only in the most remote mountains and coastal swamps of the Tarheel State. Compounding the decrease in available habitat, the American chestnut blight (a tree-killing fungus) hit the mountain region in the 1920s, causing the loss of the most important nut-producing tree for bears and other species of wildlife. As a result, bear populations suffered. Mountain lion and gray wolf populations never recovered, but the black bear has made a remarkable recovery in both population and range over the last 30 to 40 years. Bears have come back to North Carolina without the aid of stocking efforts like those used to bring back wild turkeys and white-tailed deer. Black bear expansion has occurred naturally as bears have moved into suitable, but previously unoccupied, habitats at a rapid rate. 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. In the east, lowland hardwoods, swamps and pocosins, provide good bear habitat. 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.
White-tailed deer-
North Carolina’s population of white-tailed deer is estimated at 1.35 million animals. The state had a growing population of white-tailed deer until either-sex seasons were liberalized in the early 1990s. This liberalization of either-sex seasons across most areas of the state allowed for increased opportunity for sportsmen/women to harvest antlerless deer. The population trend of our state’s deer herd quickly stabilized and has actually started to decrease for most areas of the state. However, there are areas throughout the state where localized populations continue to increase. Those areas where populations are rapidly increasing are typically urban/suburban areas where the utilization of hunting as a management tool has been greatly hindered.
It is estimated that only 10,000 deer inhabited the state in 1900. North Carolina's major efforts to restore our state's deer resource took place in the 1940s through the 1970s. Our state's restoration program was responsible for stocking approximately 4,000 deer throughout the state. 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.
70 Environmental Assessment
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – BLACK BEAR, WHITE-TAILED DEER
Under alternative A, the no action alternative, as no action will occur, there will be no direct effects to black bear and white-tailed deer across the project area. Under alternative A, no new habitat will be created or altered. As no new black bear and white-tailed deer habitat would be created under alternative A, this would represent a negative indirect effect to black bear and white-tailed deer populations within the analysis area.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – BLACK BEAR, WHITE-TAILED DEER
ALTERNATIVE A
Few cumulative effects are expected from implementing alternative A. By not creating new black bear and white-tailed deer habitat within the analysis area, black bear and white-tailed deer populations are not expected to expand within the analysis area.
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D - PROPOSED ACTION
DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS – BLACK BEAR, WHITE-TAILED DEER
The effects of the proposed actions are expected to benefit black bear and white-tailed deer through the creation of early successional habitat. Early successional habitat created by prescribed burning, timber harvesting, and road daylighting activities are expected to have positive indirect effects to black bear and white-tailed deer in the form of new suitable habitat. Black bear and white-tailed deer will use the newly created early successional habitat for food and escape cover. Reduction in forest understory has the potential to result in increased productivity of desirable mast producing trees such as oak 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.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS – BLACK BEAR, WHITE-TAILED DEER
ALTERNATIVES B, C, and D
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 other than the proposed actions and the Singecat and Woods Mountain prescribed burns are planned within the analysis area for the next 5 years that will benefit black bear and white-tailed deer.
Implementing Alternatives B, C, or D 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.
71 Armstrong Creek Project
Table 25. Management indicator species and associated habitat descriptions Existing Condition Indicator Species Principal Habitat Characteristics Within the Project Area Pine warbler Longleaf pine, scrub oak, pine savanna, and Habitat present Setophaga pinus white pine–hemlock Eastern towhee dry, sunny southern and southwestern slopes, Habitat present Pipilo erythrophthalmus brushy clearings of spruce-fir forests Ruffed grouse Young mixed-deciduous forest Habitat present Bonasa umbellus Mature, large, contiguous tracts of deciduous or Ovenbird mixed deciduous/coniferous closed-canopy Habitat present Seiurus aurocapilla forest Black bear Large expanses of uninhabited woodland Habitat present Ursus americanus White-tailed deer Forested and non-forested generalist Habitat present Odocoileus virginianus
Effects by Alternative
Below is a summary of effects to terrestrial wildlife T&E, S, and FC, by alternative:
Table 26. Summary of effects to terrestrial wildlife TES and FC species by alternative
ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE Species A(No Action) B C D
Species No direct or indirect Potential direct and Potential direct and Potential direct and occurring in effect to any known indirect effects to indirect effects to indirect effects to Table 21 TES, and FC northern long-eared northern long-eared northern long-eared terrestrial wildlife bat, lampshade bat, lampshade bat, lampshade species spider, Appalachian spider, Appalachian spider, Appalachian woodrat, cerulean woodrat, cerulean woodrat, cerulean warbler, and warbler, and warbler, and northern pigmy northern pigmy northern pigmy salamander. salamander. salamander.
All other TES No direct or indirect May impact eastern May impact eastern May impact eastern and FC effect to any known small-footed bat. small-footed bat. small-footed bat. terrestrial TES, and FC No direct or No direct or No direct or wildlife terrestrial wildlife indirect effect to indirect effect to indirect effect to species species any known TES, any known TES, any known TES, occurring and FC terrestrial and FC terrestrial and FC terrestrial within the wildlife species wildlife species wildlife species analysis area
72 Environmental Assessment
Summary of Effects This project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion dated August 5, 2015 (FWS Log #04E00000-2015-F-0003). Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is excepted from the prohibitions for taking threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities excepted from taking prohibitions under the ESA section 4(d) rule applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long eared bat for this project.
This project will not affect (directly, indirectly, or cumulatively) any other proposed or listed Federal threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species. The project may impact individual eastern small-footed bat, lampshade spider, Appalachian woodrat, cerulean warbler, and northern pigmy salamander, but is unlikely to affect specie viability locally or cause a trend towards federal listing. No other RFSS or FC species are likely to be impacted by the proposed activities. This proposal will have no known cumulative negative effects to any Federally Listed, Forest Sensitive, or Forest Concern terrestrial wildlife species.
73 Armstrong Creek Project
Botanical
Introduction This section documents the effects of a proposed timber sale and associated proposals 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 timber harvest 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 (NNIPS) plant species by the proposed activities. The possible activity areas are shown on the attached project map. Four alternatives (A-D) were considered in this report. The preferred alternative (alternative B) was analyzed in detail. The project area is located in northern McDowell Co, North Carolina.
Botanical Survey and Analysis Methods
Potentially affected TES and FC plant species were identified by:
1. Reviewing the list of TES and FC plant species of the Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests and their habitat preferences;
2. Evaluating element occurrence (EO) records of TES and FC plants as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs;
3. Consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its flora.
4. Conducting field surveys in areas designated for ground disturbing activities.
The field surveys were conducted by a meander search pattern to survey all the variation in habitat within the unit (Goff, Dawson, & Rochow, 1982). The survey was conducted until all of the habitats within the unit were surveyed. After no new plant species were added to the unit species list after a minimum of 20 minutes of searching (timed meander search), the survey was considered complete. Focused attention was given during the surveys to habitats within the units that may be associated with plant TES, and FC species (e.g., rock outcrops, seeps, etc.). The intensity of the coverage varied depending on the extent of any likely TES, and FC species habitat, complexity of vegetation, and presence of indicator species. Some areas were virtually devoid of herbaceous vegetation and required very little intensive survey while other areas required considerably more time to adequately survey. Although the search was focused on the possibility of occurrences of the TES, and FC plants listed in Table 27; all TES and FC plant species were searched for during the survey. Some species may have been overlooked; however, the survey was conducted so that a TES and FC plant species would not be overlooked due to phenology or time of the year that the species could reasonably be detected. All TES and FC plant species listed in the Pisgah/Nantahala National Forest were considered. Table 29 summarizes the habitats and communities in the activity area specified and the occurrence of TES and FC plant species.
74 Environmental Assessment
The botanical analysis area (BAA) or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the total area within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) of any proposed unit (treatment area) or known EO (Element occurrence) of any plant TES and FC species. The botanical AA consists of 14,646 acres. All potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to botanical resources in the botanical AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The botanical AA definition was selected because it is analogous to the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy’s plant delimitation guidelines of EO. Other resource disciplines may employ different definitions to analyze this proposal.
Possible time dependent effects of this proposal to natural communities are dependent upon the type 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. A 10 year period will be used for NNIP (non-native invasive plants) species. This time period is chosen for NNIP because, without continued disturbance, most natural communities will have established vegetation that would significantly alter the ability of NNIP to become established.
Botanical Survey Information
The proposed activity areas were surveyed by David M. Danley, Forest Botanist on: May 11, June 4, 12, 18, 20, 28, 29, 2012, April 1, 2, June 2 (with botanist April Punsalan), 2013, April 19, June 13, 2014. All proposed units or activity areas were visited at least once during this time.
Other relevant Botanical surveys include: “An Inventory of the Significant Natural Areas of McDowell Co. North Carolina (Oakley, 2005); “Whiteness Rock Timber Sale Botanical Report” (Danley, Botanical Report of the Witness Rock Timber Sale, 1995).
A summary of the field surveys are provided in Table 29. This table lists the habitats, natural communities, and plant TES, and FC species found in each activity area.
Existing Botanical Condition
TES, and FC Plant Species
Of the total of 91 TES and FC plant species known to occur or could occur within McDowell County (Appendix C) on National Forest lands, only one Federally Endangered (Hudsonia montana); six Sensitive (Lilium grayi, Carex roanensis, Rhododendron vaseyi, Monotropsis odorata, Juglans cinerea, and Tsuga caroliniana); and five FC (Chelone cuthbertii, Filipendula rubra, Campanula aparinoides, Hydrastis canadensis, and Plagiomnium rostratum) plant species are known within the botanical analysis area (BAA). 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 BAA, 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
75 Armstrong Creek Project
Approximation (Schafale & Weakley, 1990), the Natural Heritage Program's List of Rare Plant of North Carolina, or information obtained through other botanists.
Table 27. Known TES plant species in the Botanical Analysis Area Natural Community or Species Type Occurrence Habitat Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species (T &E) Hudsonis montana Vascular plant High elevation Rocky Summit Woods Mountain and Singecat Ridge. Not known to occur in treatment areas
2002 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant species (S) Carex roanensis, Vascular Plant Filtered or partial sunlight Known to occur in AA along. Not known usually on ridges in montane to occur in or near treatment areas. Oak-Hickory Forest Juglans cinerea Vascular Plant Cove Forests and Rich woods. Known to occur along FS road 468 and Wiggins Ridge. Within road prism. Lilium greyii Vascular Plant Bogs, wet meadows. High Not known to occur in or near treatment Elevation Grassy Balds. areas. Population is Historic near Seven Mile Bog. Monotropsis Vascular Plant Dry forests and bluff. New population found during 2013 odorata surveys. ¼ mile northeast of Good Cemetery. Population will be excluded from the “Group Selection” with a 50 ft. buffer. Rhododendron Vascular Plant Rocky, open wet areas in high Not known to occur in or near treatment vaseyi elevation (>3880 ft.). High areas. elevation red Oak Forest, Heath Balds. Tsuga caroliniana Vascular Plant Dry ridges and bluffs at mid Not known to occur in or near treatment elevations areas
Table 28. Known and potential forest concern plant species within the Botanical Analysis Area Natural Community or Species Type Occurrence Habitat Campanula Vascular Plant Southern Appalachian Bog Known to occur in AA in Foster Creek aparinoides Bog. . Not known to occur in or near treatment areas. Chelone cuthbertii Vascular Plant Southern Appalachian Bog Not known to occur in or near treatment areas. Not known to occur in or near treatment areas. Filpendula rubra Vascular Plant Southern Appalachian Bog Not known to occur in or near treatment areas. Not known to occur in or near treatment areas Hydrastis Vascular Plant Rich Cove Forests. Not known to occur in or near treatment canadensis areas. Bee Rock Creek drainage. Within proposed old growth stand. Plagiomnium Moss Wet rocks along streams in Not known to occur in or near treatment rostratum Acidic cove Forest. Known areas. population along Bee Rock Creek.
76 Environmental Assessment
Table 29. Natural communities and plants that are sensitive or forest concern species by unit or stand Natural Communities or Habitats Occurrence of Stand or Proposed action Acres within stand T&E, S or FC Area * estimated, # predicted by model plant species *Acidic Cove Forest 12 acres, None known. Shelterwood with Stand 0246-08 36 acres Chestnut Oak Forest 20 acres Reserves Pine Oak Heath 4 acres Shelterwood with *Acidic Cove Forest 7 acres, None known. Stand 0246-12 27 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 20 acres Shelterwood with *Acidic Cove Forest 4 acres None known. Stand 0262-07 Reserves, Plant 26 acres Chestnut Oak Forest 22 acres N. Red Oak Stands 0262- Shelterwood with *Chestnut Oak Forest 40 acres None known. 40 acres 13 Reserves Shelterwood with *Montane Oak Forest 18 acres None known. Stand 0262-18 28 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 10 acres Shelterwood with *Montane Oak Forest 7 acres None known. Stand 0262-22 12 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 5 acres Shelterwood with *Montane Oak/ High Elevation Red None known. Stand 0241-23 Reserves, Plant 17 acres Oak 7 acre, A. Chestnut Chestnut Oak Forest 10 acres Shelterwood with *Chestnut Oak Forest 13 acres None known. Stand 0246-24 13 acres Reserves Shelterwood with *Acidic Cove Forest 12 acres None known. Stand 0246-25 20 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 8 acres Shelterwood with *Chestnut Oak Forest 22 acres None known. Stand 0247-22 25 acres Reserves Pine Oak Heath 2 acres Shelterwood with *Acidic Cove Forest 9 acres None known. Stand 0247-32 18 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 9 acres Shelterwood with *Acidic Cove Forest 11 acres None known. Stand 0247-35 31 acres Reserves Chestnut Oak Forest 20 acres *Acidic Cove Forest 6 acres None known. Shelterwood with Stand 0248-18 11 acres Chestnut Oak Forest 5 acres Reserves Pine Oak Heath Group Selection 182 *Acidic Cove Forest 60 acres Monotropsis and Free acres Chestnut Oak Forest 120 acres odorata is known Stand 0241-11 Thinning, Plant (17 acres to occur within A. Chestnut groups) stand Free Thinning, *Acidic Cove Forest 22 acres None known. Stands 0262- Plant Pitch Pine, Chestnut Oak Forest 42 acres 64 acres 11 Prescribed Burning Thinning from #Montane Oak Hickory Forest None known. Below, Pre- Chestnut Oak Forest, Stand 0241-10 Harvest Oak 25 acres High Elevation Red Oak Forest Shelterwood, Acidic Cove Forest Plant A. Chestnut Thinning from #Montane Oak Hickory Forest None known. Below, Pre- Chestnut Oak Forest, Stand 0241-24 Harvest Oak 25 acres High Elevation Red Oak Forest Shelterwood, Acidic Cove Forest Plant A. Chestnut
77 Armstrong Creek Project
Natural Communities or Habitats Occurrence of Stand or Proposed action Acres within stand T&E, S or FC Area * estimated, # predicted by model plant species Thinning from #Montane Oak Hickory Forest None known. Below, Pre- Chestnut Oak Forest, Stand 0241-25 14 acres Harvest Oak High Elevation Red Oak Forest Shelterwood Acidic Cove Forest Thinning from #Montane Oak Hickory Forest None known. Below, Pre- Chestnut Oak Forest, Harvest Oak High Elevation Red Oak Forest Stand 0248-04 13 acres Shelterwood, Acidic Cove Forest Prescribed Burning Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0240-02 Improvement - 50 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0241-02 Improvement - 32 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Oak Hickory Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0241-03 Improvement - 45 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0242-02 Improvement - 31 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0242-06 Improvement - 24 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0242-07 Improvement - 46 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-16 Improvement - 25 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Improvement - Chestnut Oak Forest Stand 0246-23 Cleaning and 16 acres Montane Hickory Oak Forest Vine Control (VC) Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-05 Improvement - 25 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-15 Improvement - 28 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-17 Improvement - 19 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-19 Improvement - 34 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-39 Improvement - 18 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest
78 Environmental Assessment
Natural Communities or Habitats Occurrence of Stand or Proposed action Acres within stand T&E, S or FC Area * estimated, # predicted by model plant species Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-42 Improvement - 22 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-01 Improvement - 18 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-03 Improvement - 15 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-07 Improvement - 18 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-10 Improvement - 24 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0246-15 Improvement - 20 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 247-08 Improvement - 16 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0247-09 Improvement - 20 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-06 Improvement - 11 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Cleaning and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-08 Improvement 37 acres Chestnut Oak Forest (PCT) and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-10 Improvement 27 acres Chestnut Oak Forest (PCT) and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-21 Improvement 28 acres Chestnut Oak Forest (PCT) and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-23 Improvement 37 acres Chestnut Oak Forest (PCT) and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest Stand #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Stand 0262-28 Improvement 20 acres Chestnut Oak Forest (PCT) and VC Montane Hickory Oak Forest #Acidic Cove Forest None known. Compartments Chestnut Oak Forest Prescribed 3,050 241, 242, 243, Pine Oak Heath Burning acres and 244 Montane oak Hickory High Elevation Red Oak FSR 469 on Culvert Acidic Cove Forest None known. n/a Caney Creek Replacement Arm-strong Large Woody Acidic Cove Forest None known. Creek Rehab Debris (LWD) Area Enhancement
79 Armstrong Creek Project
Natural Communities or Habitats Occurrence of Stand or Proposed action Acres within stand T&E, S or FC Area * estimated, # predicted by model plant species 162 feet Acidic Cove Forest None known. Bee Rock Stream Bank of Creek Stabilization stream bank Change Trail Acidic Cove Forest None known. Designation to Chestnut Oak Forest Trail #223 2 miles “Foot Traffic Pine Oak Heath Only” 6 Wildlife 24.2 Acidic Cove Forest None known. Openings and total Chestnut Oak Forest 5 Linear Daylighting treat- Pine Oak Heath Wildlife ment Strips acres Acidic Cove Forest Hydrastis Stands 0241- Designate Old Chestnut Oak Forest canadensis is 66.5 05,06 Growth High Elevation Red Oak Forest known to occur in stand
Natural Plant Communities and Habitats Found in the Armstrong Creek Botanical AA The Armstrong Creek botanical analysis area has one major Northeast-Southwest ridge (Blue Ridge Parkway) and one east-west ridge (Woods Mountain) that runs entirely through the analysis area. The highest points of these ridges are along the Blue Ridge Parkway (3,800 feet elevation), and on Woods Mountain (3,600 ft.). Secondary northeast-southwest ridges extend from the main ridge downward to about 2,200 feet to Armstrong Creek. The topography is typically steep with elevation changes of greater than 1,200 ft. per mile. There are occasional flatter areas along ridges, in some coves and a notable area near the Good Cemetery and Blue Ridge Parkway areas.
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 farmed then logged near the turn of the last century. Additional areas were logged more recently. As a result, the forested comminutes of the Armstrong Creek BAA 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) Chestnut Oak Forest, 2) Acidic Cove Forest, 3) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, 4) Pine- Oak Heath Forest and 5) High Elevation Red Oak Forest. Communities described in this report follow the definitions of Schafale and Weakley (Schafale & Weakley, 1990) with modification from Newell’s work (Newell & Peet, 1998) These natural communities are approximately mapped within the BAA by using a GIS vegetation model (Simon, Collins, Kauffman, McNab, & Ulrey, 2005). Almost all of the proposed activities occur within the Chestnut Oak Forest, Montane Oak/Hickory and Acid Cove Forest.
The primary natural communities affected by this proposal are the Chestnut Oak Forest, Pine Oak Heath, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest and High Elevation Red Oak communities. Within the Armstrong BAA, a pattern of natural communities is often encountered. On highest slopes, near the Blue Ridge, High Elevation Red Oak Forest is often dominant. Along ridges and south slopes, Pine-Oak Heath is often present. This community normally grades into a
80 Environmental Assessment
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest or Chestnut Oak Forest (on poorer sites) on mid slopes or ridges. Acidic Cove Forest is found throughout the lower slopes and valley bottoms. These five natural community types are very common in mid elevations of the Blue Ridge botanical providence. Herbaceous cover is typically very low within these communities and the (per acre) probability of TES or FC plant species is also very low. Southern Appalachian Bog and Swamp Forest Bog Complex Communities occur in Sevenmile Ridge area within the BAA (Sevenmile Bog). This community is within the BAA but is significantly removed from proposed activity areas. This bog has most of the known element occurrences of TES or FC plant species within the BAA. A summary of natural communities found with the various activity areas is given in Table 29 and Table 30.
Using 1) the natural vegetation predictive model (Simon, Collins, Kauffman, McNab, & Ulrey, 2005); 2) CISC data (USFS); and field experience, the acres of natural communities are estimated in Table 30 within the BAA.
Table 30. Estimated quantity of communities within the Botanical Analysis Area, Forest Service land Est. Acres/ % of Total Community Habitat of Forest Service Acres under 40 years old in AA Acidic Cove Forest Acres 2605 / 28 % 206 acres Chestnut Oak Forest Acres 4082/ 44 % 428 acres Montane Oak-Hickory Forest Acres 995/ 11% 87acres Pine Oak Heath Acres 1005/ 10% 174 acres High Elevation Red Oak Forest Acres 285 / 3 % 25 acres Other or No data Acres 329/ 1% 41 acres Totals 9301 acres 961 acres
State Natural Heritage Areas, Research Natural Areas (RNA), Special (botanical) Areas
There are no known research Natural Areas (RNA) or botanical special interest areas recognized by the current Forest Plan within the Armstrong botanical analysis area. Therefore, this proposal will have no effect to any of these areas.
There is one proposed North Carolina natural “inventory area” within the analysis area. These inventories were conducted by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and published in “A Natural Areas Inventory of Yancey and McDowell County, North Carolina (Oakley, 2005) (Oakly, 2009). In the headwaters of Little White Oak Creek is the “Sevenmile Ridge Bog” This area is described in detail (Schafale, 1996) and their botanical significance given. This site contains the rare Southern Appalachian Bog (Natural plant Community). The bog contains the Regional Sensitive Lilium grayi, Carex roanensis, and Tsuga caroliniana and Forest Concern plant species: Chelone cuthbertii, Filipendula rubra and Campanula aparinoides
The Sevenmile Ridge Bog is not within the proposed treatment areas and will not be impacted by this proposal.
81 Armstrong Creek Project
Non Native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) within the Botanical AA
A list of the high priority invasive plant species across the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests has been developed from both botanical surveys completed during the past 15 years and NNIPS inventories that were conducted in 2002-2003 across selected watersheds (National Forests in North Carolina, 2009) (Table 31). Thousands of acres are known to have some outbreaks of these 17 species; however, the exact infested acreage within the Pisgah National Forests is unknown and changes annually. Most of the 17 species identified in Table 31 are prevalent across the region and are continuing to spread, actively impacting biodiversity. NNIPS inventories conducted in 2002-2003 recorded spot occurrences of one or more of the 17 species on over 70% of plots along roadsides. These species were assigned a relative priority for treatment based on their known impacts on rare species and communities, their ability to rapidly spread, and their ability to persist in the forest. These species have been identified as the highest priority species on the National Forests in North Carolina at the present time but the list will be updated as needed based on new information regarding species’ spread and infestation characteristics.
Without intervention, these NNIPS are expected to increase in the Armstrong Creek BAA over the next several years. Especially prone to infestation are high risk areas of infestation (Table 31).
Table 31. Non-native invasive plant species in the Armstrong Botanical Analysis Area NPNF Species Treatment Occurrence in Botanical AA Priority Celastrus orbiculatus Oriental High One small population found near Elliot Cemetery on bittersweet USFS land. Treated in 2014 Paulownia tomentosa Princess High Spotty occurrences along FS Road 469 and units from tree the Witness Rock Timber sale. Spiraea japonica Japansese High Locally on FS lands. Large population found at the meadowsweet end of FS Road 469B. This population was treated in 2014. Polygonum cuspidatum Japanese High Very abundant along Armstrong Creek, Turkey Cove knotweed on private lands, mostly near streams on private property. One very small population found on USFS lands was treated in 2014. Microstegium vimineum Japanese High Generally heavily infested along roads, riparian/ stiltgrass mesic forests on eastern side of BAA etc. Ligustrum sinense/vulgare High Common along stream bottoms such as Turkey Cove. Chinese/European privet Not seen on USFS lands. Miscanthus sinensis Chinese High Spotty occurrences along FS Roads 469. Populations silver grass treated in 2014. Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose High Common along FS road 469 and spur roads etc. wildlife fields. Private land. Treated along FS Road 469 in 2014 Elaeagnus umbellate/pungens Medium Not very common on FS lands mostly in wildlife Autumn/Thorny olive fields along FS Road 469. Very abundant along Armstrong creek on private lands and SR 1443 Lonicera japonica Japanese Medium Very common in open areas such as roads and honeysuckle wildlife fields, also common in riparian areas. Throughout BAA Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Medium Not seen in BAA. Expected with ten years. Centaurea petiolata Spotted Medium Not seen in BAA. knapweed Tussilago farfara Coltsfoot Medium Not seen in BAA.
82 Environmental Assessment
NPNF Species Treatment Occurrence in Botanical AA Priority Albizia julibrissin Silk-tree Medium Spotty occurrences in open areas. More common on private lands on the eastern side of BAA. Ailanthus altissima Tree of Medium Common occurrences along the eastern half of FS heaven road 469. Also found in units of the Witness rock timber sale. Population along FS Road 469 was treated in 2014. Pueraria montana var. lobata Medium Abundant in Turkey Cove on private lands Kudzu Dioscorea oppositifolia Chinese Medium Not seen in BAA. yam
Effects Analysis of Botanical Resources
Timber Harvest
(Proposed Actions Include: Shelterwood with Reserves, Group Selection, Thinning from Below and Free Thinning See Proposed Action for detailed description).
There are no known plants TES and FC species that would be affected by timber harvest (All alternatives) because there are no TES, and FC species are known to occur within the proposed activity areas.
A population of Monotropsis odorata (a Regionally Sensitive plant species) was found in stand 241-11 during botanical surveys. This population and a 50 ft. buffer will be excluded from stand treatment in alternatives B and C. See discussion of Monotropsis odorata below.
The general potential effects to plant species including TES and FC plant species that are direct negative effects of exposure to logging activities such as moving heavy equipment, skidding logs, and road construction that damages individual plants and the indirect effects of modifying the habitat. Some of the expected indirect effects of timber removal will initially produce an increase in light, temperature, reduction in humidity, and a decrease in soil surface moisture. These effects may have a positive effect or negative effect depending upon the particular plant species. Some weedy and early succession species, such as Rubus, are expected to increase in the activity area. Other plant species may be negatively affected by the competition of these woody species. The long-term effect of rotational logging practices upon the general plant communities is poorly understood. There is some evidence that the repopulation of some herbaceous plant species in mixed mesophytic communities may take more than a hundred years after logging. Most species are expected to recover faster than that because of various biologic factors such as growth rate, dispersal, and current species distribution. The proposed timber harvest will not change the community type of the affected area.
Roads
Proposed Actions Include: Temporary Road Construction, Daylighting Reconstruction, Culvert Replacement and Landings (See Proposed Action for detailed description)
83 Armstrong Creek Project
Juglans cinerea a Regional Sensitive plant species may be impacted by all action alternatives (B- D) by road reconstruction of FS Road 469 near Wiggins Ridge. See the effects discussion of Juglans cinerea below.
Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) and Tree Planting
There are no known TES and FC plant species that would be affected by site preparation and SI because no TES and FC species are known to occur within the proposed activity areas.
SI procedures will have an insignificant effect on non-target species. The procedures, using chain saws or herbicide, select individual plants for treatment and generally do not indirectly adversely affect adjacent individual plants. For example, during a controlled demonstration of herbicide use for SI and advanced oak treatments on the Grandfather Ranger District, the indirect effect of herbicide use seemed to have a positive effect on herbaceous plant species. Evidently, the effect of the increase in light (produced by killing the target tree) outweighed possible toxic effect of residual herbicides and increased the kinds and numbers of herbaceous species near the target tree. Stand improvement (SI) procedures will change tree composition (the desired effect) of the community to favor oak species. This activity does not change the community type of the affected area.
Prescribed Burning
No TES and FC plant species are known to be affected by prescribed burning (all alternatives) because none are known to occur within the proposed activity areas. This action will maintain a small amount of acreage to early successional species and community type. This activity does not change the community type of the affected area.
Stream Bank Stabilization and Large Woody Debris Enhancement
There are no known TES and FC plant species in the proposed activity areas (or near enough to the proposed activities to directly or indirectly affect). Therefore, this action will have no direct or indirect effects (all alternatives) to any TES and FC plant species. This activity does not change the community type of the affected area.
Effects to Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species
Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to TES, and FC Plants
The only known possible effect to any TES and FC plant species of this proposal (all action alternatives) is to the Regionally Sensitive Juglans cinerea. There are no known TES and FC plant species in the proposed activity areas (or near enough to the proposed activities to directly or indirectly affect). Therefore, this action will have no direct or indirect effects to any TES and FC plant species other than Juglans cinerea. Table 27 lists all the known TES and FC plant species within the BAA and the possible effects. There are no specific mitigation recommendations. See the detailed discussion of Juglans cinerea.
With the exception of Juglans cinerea, all other TES and FC plant species including the plants listed in Table 27 as “Not known within the BAA or activity area but may have potential habitat within the BAA” are not analyzed further because the proposal does not affect its habitat or there
84 Environmental Assessment is no evidence the species exists within the activity areas. All activity areas were specifically surveyed or analyzed for TES and FC plant species and were not found.
Possible effects to Juglans cinerea (All action alternatives)
Status: Federal C2; State, Watch List; Global, G3; Forest, Sensitive.
Juglans cinerea is a tree that is found from western New Brunswick to North Dakota south to Georgia in rich forest communities. It is rapidly declining because of a fungal disease and is the primary risk for the species viability. Individual element occurrences of Juglans cinerea populations within North Carolina are not actively tracked on the data base system. However, there are greater than 100 known populations of this species in North Carolina. These populations are mostly in the mountain counties of North Carolina.
A small population of a few sapling sized individuals of Juglans cinerea is known in scattered locations along FS Road 469 near Wiggins Ridge. This population extends into a few of the stands near the road. Brushing activity associated with road reconstruction and maintenance will likely directly affect some individual by directly cutting them during brushing activities. The impacts to Juglans cinerea are not expected to impact the viability of Juglans cinerea.
Possible effects to Monotropsis odorata (All action alternatives)
Status: Federal C2; State, SC-V, S3 (Special Concern Vulnerable); Global, G3; Forest, Sensitive.
Monotropsis odorata is a small herb without chlorophyll. This plant is easily overlooked because of its small size and very early blooming season. This plant is often detected by its strong and unique odor. Monotropsis odorata occurs is found from Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia and the mountain and piedmont counties of North Carolina in dry forest communities. The limiting factor for this species is not known. There is no information as to the effects of logging would have on this species (NatureServe, 2015). However, this local population was found at the edge of an old woods road. There are less than 25 known populations of this species in North Carolina. These populations are mostly in the mountain counties of North Carolina. There are six known populations of Monotropsis odorata known in the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests.
A small new population of Monotropsis odorata was found during botanical surveys in 2013 of the Armstrong Creek Project. This is the only population of Monotropsis odorata known within the BAA. It is ¼ mile northeast of Good Cemetery (N.35.78695 E.82.15832) along an old woods road. The Monotropsis odorata will be excluded from the Group Selection proposed action with a 50 foot buffer. This exclusion will insure that the proposed action (Alternative B) and the other action alternative with Group Selection (Alternative C) will have no direct or indirect effect upon Monotropsis odorata.
Table 32. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species known in the botanical analysis area
85 Armstrong Creek Project
Natural Species Type Community or Effect Habitat Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species (T&E) Hudsonia Vascular High Elevation No effect: montana Plant Rocky Summit Not known to occur in treatment areas and is significantly far from proposed activity areas (Woods Mountain and Singecat Ridge). Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas.
2008 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Species (S) Carex roanensis Vascular Filtered or partial No effect Plant sunlight usually Not known to occur in treatment areas and is on ridges in significantly far from proposed activity areas Montane Oak- (Woods Mountain Ridge). Hickory Forest Habitat for this species is limited in BAA. Juglans cinerea Vascular Cove Forests and Known to occur along FS Road 469 and Wiggins Plant Rich Woods. Ridge. Within road prism. Lilium grayi Vascular Bogs, Wet No effect. Plant Meadows, High Population is historic near Sevenmile Bog. Not Elevation Grassy known to occur in treatment areas and is Balds significantly far from proposed activity areas. Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Monotropsis Vascular Dry forests and New population found during 2013 surveys. ¼ odorata Plant bluffs. mile northeast of Good Cemetery. Population will be excluded from the Group Selection proposed action with a 50 ft. buffer. Rhododendron Vascular Rocky, open wet No effect vaseyi Plant areas in high Not known to occur in treatment areas and is elevation (>3880 significantly far from proposed activity areas ft.). High (along Blue Ridge Parkway). Elevation Red Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or Oak Forest, Heath near proposed activity areas. Balds Tsuga caroliniana Vascular Dry ridges and No effect Plant bluffs at mid Not known to occur in treatment areas and is elevations significantly far from proposed activity areas. Habitat for this species could to occur in or near proposed activity areas.
86 Environmental Assessment
Table 33. Summary of effects to known and potential forest concern plant species in the botanical analysis area Natural Species Type Community or Effect Habitat Campanula Vascular Southern No effect aparinoides Plant Appalachian Bog Not known to occur in treatment areas and is significantly far from proposed activity areas (Sevenmile Ridge Bog). Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Chelone cuthbertii Vascular Southern No effect Plant Appalachian Bog Not known to occur in treatment areas and is significantly far from proposed activity areas (Sevenmile Ridge Bog). Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Filipendula rubra Vascular Southern No effect Plant Appalachian Bog Not known to occur in treatment areas and is significantly far from proposed activity areas (Sevenmile Ridge Bog). Habitat for this species is not known to occur in or near proposed activity areas. Hydrastis Vascular Rich Cove Forests. Not known to occur in or near treatment areas. Bee canadensis Plant Rock Creek drainage. Within proposed old growth stand. Plagiomnium Moss Wet rocks along No effect rostratum streams in Acidic Not known to occur in treatment areas and is Cove Forest significantly far from proposed activity areas (Known population along Bee Rock Creek). Habitat for this species is known to occur in or near streams with rocky substrate. Possible habitat is very limited in proposed activity areas because of riparian guidelines.
Cumulative Effect
The cumulative effect to potential habitat is the total effect of past, current, and foreseeable actions within the BAA that have directly or indirectly affected TES and FC plant species and potential habitat. Within the BAA, only timber harvest less than 40 years old and controlled burns are thought to have important influence on habitat. All other activities are minor and not analyzed. Past Actions analyzed include: Witness Rock Timber Sale, and Singe cat, and Wood Mountain prescribed burns.
There are no known past, current, or foreseeable action(s) within the BAA that have directly or indirectly affected or impacted any TES and FC plant species. Because there are no known TES and FC plant species that have been or will be impacted, the sum total of impacts is zero.
87 Armstrong Creek Project
Effects to Potential Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Forest Concern Plant Species
Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to Potential Habitat for TES and FC Plant Species
This discussion summarizes the possible effect on potential, or “apparently suitable habitat” for all potentially occurring TES and FC plant species within the BAA, however none are known to occur. This analysis is based upon current knowledge of species habitat parameters. Usually, these parameters are very broad habitat concepts. This discussion does not imply species occupancy in those areas. It examines potential suitable habitat based upon a predictive model of general forest communities and current knowledge of species habitat parameters within the BAA. Species occupancy could be none or a very small percentage of these potential habitat acres. For example, Carex pedunculata is known to occur from only one small (< 2 acres) population on the Forest. Since this population is found within Rich Cove Forest, the potential habitat is all known Rich Cove Forest within the Forest (56,223 acres). The known Forest occupancy for this species is then 3 one thousandths of a percent (0.003%). This example is typical of many TES and FC plant species with broad habitat definitions. As habitat definitions and botanical surveys become more complete, estimation of potential habitat may become more precise. Table 34 summarizes the results of this analysis within the 14,646 acres Armstrong Creek BAA.
Table 34. Effects (Alternative B) to potential haBitat for threatened, endangered, sensitive, and forest concern species within the botanical analysis area Predicted NATURAL COMMUNITY OR Potential Acres Acres of Potential SPECIES Habitat Affected, HABITAT Existing (Alt. B) condition FEDERALLY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES Hudsonia montana High Elevation Rocky Summit >10 acres None REGIONALLY SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES Carex roanensis Filtered or partial sunlight usually on 995 acres 42 acres ridges in montane Oak-Hickory Forest Juglans cinerea Cove Forests and Rich Woods. 22 acres none Lilium grayi Bogs, Wet Meadows. High Elevation >10 acres none Grassy Balds Monotropsis odorata Dry forests and bluffs. 4082 acres 467 acres Rhododendron vaseyi Rocky, open wet areas in high 285 acres <5 acres elevation (>3880 ft.). High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Heath Balds. Tsuga caroliniana Dry ridges and bluffs at mid 1005 acres 35 acres elevations FOREST CONCERN PLANT SPECIES Campanula Southern Appalachian Bog >10 acres none aparinoides Chelone cuthbertii Southern Appalachian Bog >10 acres none Filipendula rubra Southern Appalachian Bog >10 acres none Hydrastis canadensis Rich Cove Forests. 21 acres none
88 Environmental Assessment
Predicted NATURAL COMMUNITY OR Potential Acres Acres of Potential SPECIES Habitat Affected, HABITAT Existing (Alt. B) condition Plagiomnium Wet rocks along streams in Acidic 6.3 miles of none rostratum Cove Forest. Known population along streamside in Bee Rock Creek. Acidic Cove Forest
Cumulative Effect of TES and FC Potential Plant Habitat
The cumulative effect to potential habitat is the total effect of past, current, and foreseeable actions within the BAA that have directly or indirectly affected TES, and FC plant species potential habitat. Within the BAA, only timber harvest and controlled burns are thought to have important influence on habitat. All other activities are minor and not analyzed. Past Actions analyzed include: Witness Rock Timber Sale (1993). Table 35. Summary of cumulative effects (alternative B) of activities to potential suitable habitat for known threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species within the botanical analysis area TES Plant Species Potential Habitat (Alternative B) Total Past Total Effects Acres effects Proposed Future % of Total Habitat Associated Species in (<40 years Effects Effects) Habitat in BAA old) BAA Acidic Cove 2042 none 141 acres 24 acres none 165 acres 1% Forest acres known Rich Cove 95 none 13 acres 0 acres none 13 acres 13% Forest acres known Pine Oak 5067 none 493 acres 320 acres none 811 acres 16% Heath/ Chestnut acres known Oak Forest Montane Oak 1845 Thermopsis fraxinifolia 98 acres 28 acres none 116 acres 6% Hickory acres known High Elevation 472 none 1 acre none none 1 acre communities: acres known Northern Hardwood Forest, Heath Balds, etc. Bogs <10 Sagittaria fasciculata none none none acres known
Table 36. Summary of cumulative effects (alternative B) of activities to potential suitable habitat for known forest concern species within the botanical analysis area Forest Concern Plant Species Potential Habitat (Alt. B) Total Total Impact/ % Past Impact(s) Proposed Future Habitat Acres in Associated Species of Total Habitat in (<30 years old) Impact Impact(s) A.A. BAA Acidic Cove 2042 none 141 acres 24 acres none known 165 acres 1% Forest acres Rich Cove Forest 95 none 13 acres 0 acres none known 13 acres 13% acres
89 Armstrong Creek Project
Forest Concern Plant Species Potential Habitat (Alt. B) Total Total Impact/ % Past Impact(s) Proposed Future Habitat Acres in Associated Species of Total Habitat in (<30 years old) Impact Impact(s) A.A. BAA Pine Oak Heath/ 5067 none 493 acres 320 acres none known 811 acres 16% Chestnut Oak acres/ Forest Montane Oak 1845 none 98 acres 28 acres none known 116 acres 6% Hickory acres/ High Elevation 472 none 1 acre none none known 1 acre communities: acres Northern Hardwood Forest, Heath Balds, etc. Bogs, <10 Carex utriculata none none none known none acres
Past timber harvest and clearing activities greater than 40 years old are thought to be recovered for forest species requiring more mature habitat conditions and unsuitable for species requiring early successional habitat.
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. There are 124 species of non-native plant species documented to occur on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (Danley & Kauffman, 2000). An increase of non-native plant species in the proposed activity area is expected. 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 (NNIPS) 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 (NPNF), 17 (Table 31) are currently recognized as having aggressive invasive qualities that can dominate local communities (Danley & Kauffman, 2000). NNIPS are not considered desirable to natural ecosystem health. Other agencies have reached very similar conclusions of lists of NNIPS. An analysis of habitat invasion by NNIPS within the NPNF was conducted by Kauffman (09). His results are summarized in Table 37 and Table 38. He found that different natural ecosystems and different disturbances have different invasion NNIPS potentials within the NPNF. These results can be directly applied to the Armstrong Creek Project proposal to predict possible effects of NNIPS on the project proposals. Surveys for invasive species were conducted (2009) within the activity areas and around roads to the activity areas. Thirteen NNIP are known within the Armstrong BAA (Table 31). Although data on NNIPS was taken throughout the NPNF, the BAA was used for this NNIPS analysis.
90 Environmental Assessment
For the purposes of this environmental analysis potential treatment areas are those areas that are known to have NNIPS infestations or are likely to be affected by NNIPS. These areas include wildlife openings, roads, and riparian zones, and prescribed burn areas. The highest densities of infestations often occur in recently disturbed areas and travel corridors such as wildlife openings, roadsides, and riparian communities. Table 37 shows that the highest numbers of priority species occur in wildlife openings and travel corridors, with relatively fewer species occurring on prescribed burn sites.
NNIPS infestations within the BAA are particularly evident in the Turkey Cove/Armstrong Creek (all on private lands) area and wildlife openings. This area seems to be the epicenter of infestation. NNIPS populations extend up the travel corridors (FS Road 469, Armstrong Fish Hatchery Road/SR 1443). These two roads have the heaviest roadside infestations. Infestations of NNIPS extend off these roads to almost all other Forest roads and some harvested units.
Without intervention and regardless of the Alternative chosen, these NNIPS are expected to increase in the Armstrong Creek BAA over the next several years. Especially prone to infestation are high risk areas of infestation, see Table 37.
Table 37. Non-native invasive plant species relative risk of spread to adjacent areas Number of Invasive Treatment Areas Species (from Level of Risk of Spread Table 31)
Wildlife Openings 16 Highest Roads 16 High Riparian Community 16 High Trails 14 Lower Natural Areas 12 Lower Prescribed Burns 5 Lowest
Table 38. Non-native invasive plant species within Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests by natural community High Invasive Plant Acidic Northern Mesic Oak- Dry-Mesic Xeric Spruce- Grassy Heath Cove1 Elevation Species Cove 2 Hardwoods 3 Hickory Oak Hickory Pine 4 Fir Bald Bald Red Oak
Trees Ailanthus altissima 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Paulownia tomentosa 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Albizia julibrissin 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Shrubs Ligustrum sinense/vulgare 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polygonum cuspidatum 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rosa multiflora 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Spiraea japonica 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elaeagnus umbellata 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Vines
Celastrus orbiculatus 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
91 Armstrong Creek Project
High Invasive Plant Acidic Northern Mesic Oak- Dry-Mesic Xeric Spruce- Grassy Heath Cove1 Elevation Species Cove 2 Hardwoods 3 Hickory Oak Hickory Pine 4 Fir Bald Bald Red Oak
Lonicera japonica 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Pueraria montana var. lobata 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Dioscorea oppositifolia 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Herbaceous Alliaria petiolata 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Microstegium vimineum 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tussilago farfara 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 Miscanthus sinensis 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Centaurea maculosa 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Total Species 16 6 11 3 14 8 4 0 4 0 1 Cove = Rich Cove and Alluvial Cove Forests 2 Acidic Cove = Acidic Cove and Mixed Oak/Heath Forests 3 Northern Hardwoods = Northern Hardwood Cove and Northern Hardwood Slope Forests 4 Xeric Pine = Pine-Oak/Heath, Shortleaf Pine-Oak, Shortleaf Pine-Oak/Heath, and Chestnut Oak/Heath Forests
This proposal (Alternative B) will produce habitat that is highly favorable to some of the NNIPS listed on Table 31. A summary of existing NNIPS habitat and habitat created by the proposal is detailed in Table 39. The risk of NNIPS will be mitigated by the proposed design feature of control of NNIPS. NNIPS may persist by continual disturbance. For example, a maintained road shoulder or wildlife field often has persistent NNIPS. These areas are often maintained in an early successional state for wildlife or human benefit. Therefore, it is expected that this proposal could slightly increase the persistence of non-native vegetation in the analysis area (Table 39). To mitigate this effect, it is recommended that populations of Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa Ailanthus altissima Celastrus orbiculatus, Pueraria montana var. lobata, Elaeagnus umbellata, Spiraea japonica, Rosa multiflora and any other NNIPS that have effective control procedures be controlled near proposed activities or along all FS roads leading to a proposed activity and native plants be utilized in wildlife improvement and roadside erosion control plantings. This recommendation is part of the proposal (Alt. B, C, & D).
It is recognized that erosion control and wildlife production are the primary goals of seeding areas and some non-native plant species may be highly beneficial to accomplish these goals. However, a presidential executive order [Executive Order 11987, Title 3- The President] recognizes the need to reduce the impact of non-native species by reducing the amount in which non-native plant species are planted on federal property. All the goals of erosion control, wildlife production and encouragement of native plant species may be met by planting native plant species or a suitable mixture of native and non-native mixture of species. Table 39. Summary of potential spread of non-native invasive plant species (Alternative B) Activity Infestation Associated NNIPS in BAA. Proposed (Alt B) Potential Potential Increase NNIPS Habitat Daylighting High tree of heaven, multiflora rose, 24.2 acres Existing Roads and Japanese honeysuckle, Oriental Wildlife Opening bittersweet Construction
92 Environmental Assessment
Activity Infestation Associated NNIPS in BAA. Proposed (Alt B) Potential Potential Increase NNIPS Habitat Roads (adding to High tree of heaven, multiflora rose, 5 miles existing and new Japanese honeysuckle, Oriental construction) bittersweet, princesstree, Chinese silvergrass, Japanese stiltgrass, silktree, spotted knapweed Prescribed Burning Low tree of heaven, princesstree, 3,050 acres silktree All other proposed Very Low none none actions Commercial Timber Treatments Rich Cove Forest High garlic mustard, Oriental none bittersweet, Japanese stiltgrass Acidic Cove Forest Low Japanese stiltgrass 24 acres Pine Oak Heath/ Low princesstree, Chinese 320 acres Chestnut-Oak Forest silvergrass, tree of heaven, silktree Mesic Forest Low Oriental bittersweet, Japansese 28 acres Communities/ meadowsweet, princesstree, Mesic Oak-Hickory Chinese silvergrass, tree of heaven, silktree, Japanese stiltgrass High Elevation Low coltsfoot, autumn/thorny olive, None Communities Oriental bittersweet Southern Moderate multiflora rose, None Appalachian Bog Chinese/European privet, Japanese honeysuckle, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese stiltgrass
The NNIPS Microstegium vimineum and Lonicera japonica are so well established in parts of the BAA that control by any currently known method is impractical. It is not known what affect, if any, this proposal will have on the populations of NNIPS Microstegium vimineum and Lonicera japonica within the BAA.
Table 40. Comparison of possible habitat creation of non-native invasive species by alternatives Habitat or Infestation Natural Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Potential Community Wildlife Openings High Existing 24.2 acres Existing 24.2 Acres & Daylighting Roads High Existing 4.5 miles .8 miles 2.4 miles Rich Cove Forest High Existing Existing Existing Existing Southern Moderate Existing Existing Existing Existing Appalachian Bog Prescribed 3050 acres. 3050 acres. 3050 acres. Burning Low Existing Various Various Various communities communities communities Stand Low Existing Existing Existing Existing Improvement
93 Armstrong Creek Project
Habitat or Infestation Natural Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Potential Community Natural Communities: Acidic Cove Forest, Pine Oak Heath/ Chestnut- Low Existing 627 acres 627 acres 333 acres Oak, Mesic Forest Communities/ Mesic Oak- Hickory High Elevation Low Existing Existing Existing Existing Communities
Effects to Research Natural Areas or Botanical Special Interest Areas
There are no Research Natural Areas (RNA) or Botanical Special Interest (BSI) areas recognized by the current Forest Plan within the Armstrong BAA. No RNAs or BSIs will be affected by this proposal.
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. This proposal may impact a few individuals of Juglans cinerea, a Regionally Sensitive plant species, by cutting during road maintenance brushing. The impacts to Juglans cinerea are not expected to impact the viability of Juglans cinerea. This proposal will not affect any other Forest Sensitive or Forest Concern plant species. This proposal will have no known cumulative negative effects to any Federally Listed, Federally Proposed, Forest 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 41. Summary of effects to threatened, endangered, sensitive, and forest concern plant species by alternative ALTERNATIVE Species ALTERNATIVE B ALTERNATIVE C ALTERNATIVE D A (No Action) All Forest No direct or Possible direct impact No direct or indirect No direct or indirect Concern, indirect effect to to Juglans cinerea. No effect to any known effect to any known Sensitive, any known TES direct or indirect effect TES and FC plant TES and FC plant or and FC plant to any other TES and populations populations Federally populations FC plant populations Listed Plant Species
94 Environmental Assessment
Forest Vegetation
Existing Condition
All proposed commercial harvesting activities will occur on lands designated by the Forest Plan as suitable for timber management. Timber harvest activities proposed for the Armstrong Creek project area will occur on all slope aspects. Species composition in the analysis area consists predominantly of dry oak (12%), dry/mesic oak (29%), and moist oak/cove hardwood (31%) forest types along with white pine (3%), white pine/hardwood (8%), and pitch pine/hardwood (16%) forest types. Of the 8,447 acres within the Armstrong Creek project area, no acres are in the 0-10 year age class; 991 acres (12%) are in the 11-80 year age classes; 6,343 acres (75%) of the area is in the 81-120 year age class, and 1,113 acres (13%) are 121 years and older age classes. See Appendix E for age class distribution analysis. Figure 3 below depicts the age class distribution of the project area.
Figure 3. Age class distribution of Armstrong Creek Project Area as of 2015
Past landscape size disturbances in the Armstrong Creek project area include exploitive logging conducted prior to acquisition as National Forest System (NFS) lands, and the loss of American chestnut due to the non-native pathogen chestnut blight. These disturbances along with smaller scale clearing of forest land for agriculture, widespread livestock grazing and subsequent land abandonment and fire account for 75% of the stands being in the 81-120 year age classes. These disturbances gave rise to the oak-dominated, two-aged character of stands within the project area. Two-aged stands are those in which trees that remained following disturbance now comprise a mature overstory of large sawtimber-sized trees, scattered or clumped throughout younger, immature timber.
95 Armstrong Creek Project
Over the last 60 years approximately 12% of the acres have been regenerated (via even- and two- aged methods) in the Armstrong Creek project area. When harvesting did occur, decadal harvesting ranged from 79 to 385 acres and averaged 194 acres. All regenerated stands have been certified as successfully reforested. There are currently zero acres of managed early successional habitat (ESH) that is 0-10 years in age within the Armstrong Creek project area.
Harvest activities in the early 1980s and early 1990 created the young overstocked stands in this project area. These areas are predominantly white oak/red oak/hickory forest types, with some stands containing components of yellow-poplar, others white pine, and to a lesser extent cove hardwoods. All of these stands are experiencing strong competition between desirable tree species, such as oaks, with less desirable species such as yellow-poplar and red maple.
There are no Large or Medium Old Growth patches in the Armstrong Creek project area. There are ten previously selected Small Patches of Old Growth in compartments 246, 247, 248, and 262 in the Armstrong Creek project area totaling 641 acres. See Appendix D for old growth analysis.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative A
This alternative would allow vegetation to continue without active management from its current state. No new forest regeneration through timber management activities would be initiated and additional prescribed burning would not occur. Most stands in the area are beyond biological rotation age and will experience a slowdown in growth, mostly due to mortality of older and stressed trees, particularly in the red oak species. Given the age distribution within the project area, existing stands will become more susceptible to drought, oak decline, gypsy moth, and southern pine beetle events.
Alternatives B and C
Proposed two-aged and group selection treatments would result in an additional 340 acres (4% of the project area) in the 0-10 year age class. Regeneration in these stands would originate from a combination of advanced reproduction, stump sprouts of the species present on the sites, and from yellow poplar, red maple, birch and black cherry seed (these species can compete successfully from seed with other species’ regeneration sources). Species composition would be appropriate for their ecological zones. Site preparation and release treatments would follow harvest to enhance the establishment of oaks, hickories and other species desirable for wildlife and timber and prevent prolific sprouting of woody competition. Residual trees and snags in the two-aged stands would provide aesthetic value and provide structural diversity for wildlife habitat. Favoring oaks and hickories as leave trees would provide a presence of these species in the two- aged hardwood stands and would provide some hard mast until the cohort of young trees mature in about 20-25 years, and begin providing hard mast.
There could be lumber quality degrade in some residual trees in the two-aged hardwood stands following treatment due to epicormic branching along the boles of trees because of exposure to increased sunlight. This would be minimized by selecting healthy vigorous individuals as leave trees, which are less prone to epicormic branching.
96 Environmental Assessment
The proposed 128 acres of thinning will result in healthy, vigorous stands with species compositions appropriate for their ecological zones.
The 98 acres of advanced oak regeneration treatments would release advance regeneration of oak seedlings on these acres by temporarily eliminating nearby competing vegetation. The released oak seedlings would grow large enough to be released within 10 – 15 years following treatment at which time they would be capable of competing with the fastest and most aggressive competitors. Without treatment, most if not all of the oak seedlings would die from competition of shade tolerant species such as red maple, black gum, silverbell, stripped maple, sourwood, and rhododendron/mountain laurel.
The 453 acres of stand improvement (SI) would favor species such as oaks and hickories and other species desired for management objectives, ensuring their survival and dominance in these young stands. SI treatments with handtools and herbicide would also reduce non-native invasive species that may occur in some of these stands. These treatments would contribute to the stated objective in the Forest Plan (USDA, 1994, pp. III-71,75, & 84) of producing stands containing high-quality hardwood sawtimber.
All of the SI treatments in IRAs are in stands established in the early to mid-1980s and only small diameter thinning is proposed, not vine treatment. For SI treatment areas in MA 5 and inventoried roadless areas, there is a continued favor of oaks and other hard and soft mast producing species (USDA, 1994, p. III 32 & 37), which will provide direct habitat improvement. Likewise, providing for desirable and sustainable stand components of hard and soft mast producing species, such as oaks, will meet IRA objectives of improving ecosystem health and providing for species richness and diversity. These activities directly provide for the maintenance or improvement if the IRA values of diversity of plant and animals and reference landscapes. Diversity of plant and animals are provided through ensuring stocking of desirable hard and soft mast producing trees by removing the competing shade intolerant, shorter lived and faster growing species such as yellow-poplar and red maple. Similarly, restoring these native populations will move conditions closer to a reference landscape of relatively undisturbed. As these actions are not associated to proposed road construction in the IRA there are no anticipated impacts to the IRA characteristics such as providing high quality soil water and air, sources of public water, or primitive recreation.
Enrichment plantings of northern red oak and pitch pine will be included in 61 acres of moist oak/cove hardwood stands and 89 acres of pitch pine/hardwood stands, respectively. These plantings will improve the percentage of these species within these acres. Enrichment test planting of blight resistant hybrid American chestnut seedlings will occur in openings found in regenerated stands and thinned stands in compartment 0241. Follow-up release treatments for all enrichment plantings will be performed to ensure the survival of planted seedlings, thus creating desirable species compositions on these acres.
Prescribed burning will be used as a site preparation tool on 89 acres in compartment 0247, stand 22 and compartment 0262, stand 11. The prescribed burning will consume surface fuels, kill or top kill small trees and shrubs, and has the potential to kill larger trees or cause delayed mortality in these stands.
Landscape-level prescribed burning will have similar effects on 3,050 acres in compartments 0241, 0242, 0243, and 0244. To minimize damage to planted seedlings in compartment 0241, prescribed fire will not occur following planting. In young stands throughout the planned area, fire should be excluded or allowed if a low intensity burn can be guaranteed.
97 Armstrong Creek Project
Alternative D
Effects of Alternative D would be similar to those described for Alternative B and C above, but there would be 48 less acres of shelterwood with reserves treatments, 27 less acres of group selection treatments and no thinnings or other management activities in compartment 0241. This would result in 75 less acres of forest being regenerated in the 0-10 age class. Not thinning in compartment 0241will result in less vigorous stands.
No enrichment test plantings of American chestnut would occur.
Cumulative Effects
Alternative A
The cumulative effect for this alternative would be an interruption in the periodic regimen of forest regeneration by management activities conducted in order to achieve a more balanced age class distribution and sustain an even flow of habitats and resources in the project compartments.
Alternatives B and C
The cumulative effects of Alternative B and C would be the establishment of a 0-10 age class and maintenance of growth and vigor in project stands. Regeneration of the proposed stands, combined with previous regeneration activities in the prior sales, would create and maintain a more balanced age class distribution than the current condition by shifting 340 acres of mature stands into the 0-10 year age class, which would result in 4% of the project area in early successional habitat.
Alternative D
The cumulative effects would be similar as in Alternatives B and C, except there would be 75 less acres of new stands being shifted into the 0-10 year age class, which would result in 3.1% of the project area in early successional habitat.
98 Environmental Assessment
Cultural Resources
Existing Condition
The assessment for cultural resources within the Armstrong Creek Project included ownership, historic landuse 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 Catawba 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 Armstrong Creek project proposal’s Area of Potential Effect for ground disturbance was surveyed in its entirety. The archeological survey resulted with the location and evaluation of 16 archeological sites (See Appendix H). All 16 of these sites (31MC370—31MC385) are considered to be Not Eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Three previously recorded NRHP Eligible archeological sites (31MC277, 31MC331 & 31MC334) are located within the proposed Armstrong Creek Project area. Site 31MC277 is located with proposed project stand 262-11, and sites 31MC331 & 31MC334 are located within the Armstrong Creek woody debris enhancement stream restoration corridor. The boundaries for these sites have been identified in the field for exclusion and protection.
The proposed Prescribed Burn portion of the Armstrong Creek Project is 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 have resulted in additional reconnaissance for rock shelters within prescribed burn units. Two rock shelter sites found in this area will be protected from negative fire effects via the following mitigation measures:
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.
Specific site locations are not displayed in this Environmental Analysis to protect these sensitive resources from vandalism.
99 Armstrong Creek Project
Protection and Conservation Mitigations
Exclusion areas for the avoidance and protection of significant cultural resources were developed as a result of archeological survey and consultation with pertinent tribes and the NC SHPO. All eligible and unevaluated sites will be avoided. All findings are fully documented within standard National Historic Preservation Act reporting procedures and F.S. Heritage Resource project recommendations will have SHPO and EBCI THPO concurrence.
In response to extensive field surveys, all NRHP eligible archeological sites and historic properties will be avoided and subsequently there are no adverse effects to be expected at these sites.
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.
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 (WO.CT6.24).
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.
Alternatives B, C, and D
Through adherence to the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 regulations, as structured by National Environmental Policy Act analysis and documentation, it is determined that there will be no adverse effects to cultural resources eligible, or as yet evaluated to the NRHP. Additional mitigation measures may be implemented to ensure protection of archeological sites during and after proposed treatments.
All recommendations followed, the proposed treatments described in the Armstrong Creek Project will have no adverse effect on any NRHP eligible or unevaluated cultural resources or historic properties (NHPA) within any of the proposed alternatives.
100 Environmental Assessment
Recreation
Existing Condition
There are three system trails in the Armstrong analysis area: Armstrong Creek (#223), Woods Mountain (#218), and Bad Fork (#227). Forest Service Road 469 is also known as Harris Creek Horse Trail (#204); however, this trail is a designated closed system road. Uses on Forest Service Road 469 include hiking, biking, and equestrian use. The primary use of the Bad Fork (#227) and Armstrong Creek Trail (#223) is hiking. Mountain biking and horseback riding are popular activities on the Woods Mountain Trail (#218), and hiking occurs on the trail to a lesser extent. The Woods Mountain Trail (#218) is part of the Mountains to Sea Trail and is often connected with Forest Service Road 469 and the Falls Branch Trail to make a 26 mile loop for mountain bikers. Turkey hunting is a popular activity within the Armstrong project area. Fishing is also popular in the area below the North Carolina State Fish Hatchery at the end of state road 1443.
Within the Armstrong project area there are no developed recreation areas or facilities. There are no designated dispersed camping sites along State Road 1443 or Forest Service Road 469 Armstrong Creek within the project area.
In addition to the trails 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 Armstrong Project area. Numerous designated roads within this area are used for hiking, trail running, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is a description of various attributes that contribute to a particular recreational setting. The ROS describes recreational settings in terms of the “combination of physical, biological, social, and managerial conditions that give value to a place” (Clark and Stankey 1979). The ROS settings that apply to recreational areas within the Armstrong project include “Semi-primitive, Non-motorized” and “Roaded Natural.” Trails within the Armstrong analysis area also intersect the Inventoried Roadless Area and designated old growth areas. Managed land in the project area designated as “Roaded Natural” indicates that visitors should expect a lower degree of solitude and frequent encounters with other users. This area is managed to provide non-motorized recreational opportunities on closed system roads and a low level of public vehicular access on system roads. Managed land in the project area designated as “Semi-primitive, Non-motorized” specifies that there will be no motorized public vehicular access. In areas managed as “Semi-primitive, Non-motorized,” visitors will be provided with near primitive settings and non-motorized recreation opportunities including hiking, viewing wildlife, hunting, and access to fishing.
Analysis Methods
Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to recreation resources were analyzed by determining the degree of disturbance directly associated with the different types of proposed activities, any secondary effect indirectly associated with the proposed action, and the cumulative effects of all
101 Armstrong Creek Project actions affecting the resource within the area of potential effect. The analyses of environmental effects to recreational resource uses included in this report are based on the following:
Recreation infrastructure:
Damage and/or change to recreation infrastructure owned by the US Forest Service or privately owned and authorized under special use permit. This includes improvements such as buildings, signs, and trails.
Scenery:
Short, mid-term, and long-term effects to scenic values including views, the physical recreational setting, and to people’s perception of the “natural” quality of their recreational experience. Effects to scenery resources are fully documented in the Scenery Resources section of the EA.
Access:
Type and scope of access affected.
Recreation Use, Experience:
Effect on recreation use and experience in affected area.
Effect on recreation use and experience in other area (e.g., displacement).
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 other than from potential impact with a falling snag. 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 from logging operations. Proposed fisheries habitat improvements to Armstrong Creek would not occur resulting in no change in fishing opportunities.
Alternatives B and C
The proposed treatments that may affect trails within the Armstrong project area are similar in alternatives B and C. In regards to trails within the project area, a portion of Bad Fork Trail #227 crosses compartments (specifically 0247-22 and 0247-35) which have the same type of treatment, shelterwood cuts with reserves, proposed for Alternatives B and C. There are numerous compartments along Forest Service Road 469 that would receive the following treatments: shelterwood cuts with reserves, non-commercial stand release, and non-commercial stand release and vine control. No treatments are proposed in areas intersecting Armstrong Creek (#223) and Woods Mountain (#218) trails.
102 Environmental Assessment
Scenery
Alternatives B and C would have a direct effect on the scenery from activities such as cutting, skidding, and decking logs; piling non-commercial woody material and logging-generated slash; operating heavy machinery around the vicinity of trails. Each of the proposed treatments would affect the physical and therefore the scenic recreational setting. In the short-term, there will be evidence of treatment operations including painted trees, unit boundary tags, slash, skid trails, landings, piles, and tracks. Piles of slash will be scattered or will not be larger than four feet by twenty feet. Along trails slash will be cut within two feet of the ground when within 100 feet of a trail. 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 either of the action alternatives 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.
Access
The direct impacts to recreation resources are temporary closure of system trails to maintain public safety. Effects to access will happen when operations are occurring directly adjacent to the trail, in areas surrounding the trail, and/or along roads that access the area. During logging operations in compartments 0247-22 and 0247-35, the Bad Fork Trail #227 will be closed for approximately one to three months. Since Forest Service Road 469 is also used as a doubletrack trail, it will be closed when logging operations and traffic are present from the years 2016-2019. In order to help visitors plan their visit around proposed operations, information on treatment locations and timing may be posted on forest websites.
Forest Service Road 469 will also receive improvements, as culverts will be replaced and a layer of aggregate will be placed on the trail surface. The aggregate will result in a smoother surface, which entry level mountain bikers will appreciate. However, intermediate and advanced mountain bikers often value uneven surfaces and may dislike the improved surface.
In Alternative B only, two closed system roads would be added to the Forest Service road system near Forest Service Road 4008 and State Road 1439. The new closed system roads would give access to additional hiking and hunting opportunities for recreational users in this area.
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 under all of the action alternatives as described in the resource protection measures.
Implementation of the action alternatives would create a more open landscape with increased visibility and line of sight. This expanded line of sight for forest visitors may unintentionally give rise to an increase in user-created trails in some areas.
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
103 Armstrong Creek Project 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 condition on the Bad Fork Trail #227 in areas where it is affected by the harvesting equipment to log the timber. A landing will likely be placed on this trail where it intersects with Forest Service Road 469. Evidence of logging operations in this area will include slash piles, large logs, stumps, and an open landscape.
The largest effect on recreation use would be due to treatment 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.
Additionally, the three 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) will improve the experience of fishermen in the area over time. The proposed watershed improvement projects will lead to healthier trout populations on Armstrong Creek and nearby tributaries, which will enrich the recreational experience for fishermen.
Alternative D
The proposed treatments that may affect trails within the Armstrong project area are similar in alternatives B, C, and D; however, alternative D varies slightly because compartment 0247-35 will not receive any treatments under this alternative. This will result in a decreased duration of trail closure to the Bad Fork Trail #227. There would be no changes within compartment 0247-35 to scenery and recreational use or experience for recreational users of the Bad Fork Trail #227. All other effects to recreational use, experience, access, and infrastructure for Alternative D would be the same as Alternatives B and C.
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 Armstrong 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. Additionally, there would be a buildup of impacts to visual quality as more slash, log landings, temporary roads, fire lines, and burn scars are left behind in the forest from harvest activities and prescribed burning activities. The Singecat project which includes prescribed burns occurs within the project area; however, it does not cross any effected trails in the Armstrong project area. Implementation of the treatments with the mitigation measures listed below would minimize the cumulative impacts on
104 Environmental Assessment visual quality, noise impacts, and other impacts from these treatments and none of the effects would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Post temporary closure signs on gate near trails in the areas where trails would be impacted by timber harvesting. Provide closure information on the Forest website and office.
Within 100 feet of trails and Forest Service Roads (maintenance levels 3, 4 and 5) and State roads, reduce logging slash to a depth less than 24 inches from ground level. No slash piles should be placed on system trails.
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).
105 Armstrong Creek Project
Scenery
Existing Condition
The Armstrong Project is located on the Grandfather Ranger District of the Pisgah National Forest. The analysis area is bounded by the Blue Ridge Parkway (BRP) to the west, the Woods Mountain ridge line to the south, NC 226 to the east and the Blue Ridge Parkway/NC 226A/Bear Wallow Road to the north. The analysis area contains a mixture of Pisgah National Forest and privately owned lands.
Private lands within the analysis area include forested lands, agricultural lands, residential property and commercial property. National Forest System (NFS) lands within the analysis area are primarily forested mountains with wildlife openings, roads and trails. Past timber harvests on NFS lands have a predominantly natural appearance with color and texture similar to the adjacent forest. There are no developed recreation sites on NFS lands in the analysis area. Recreational opportunities include hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding.
Analysis
Scenery analysis considered viewpoints from recreation use areas, water bodies and travel corridors (roads and trails) in and around the project area. Computer analysis (GIS, digital imagery, simulation) and field validation were used to identify potential viewpoints and determine visibility of proposed management activities.
Some project activities would be seen from analyzed viewpoints where the observer is in motion (such as while driving on the Blue Ridge Parkway) and others would be seen from stationary viewpoints such as scenic overlooks. Some activities would be completely or partially screened by topography and vegetation. The degree of potential impact varies with these and other factors, such as distance of the activity from the viewpoint, aspect relative to the viewpoint, and the size, shape and nature of the proposed activity. All of these factors were considered when determining whether the proposed activities would meet Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs), and determining the scenery design features to be incorporated into the project.
Preliminary scenery analysis from the Blue Ridge Parkway identified six potential viewpoints overlooking the project area: the Buck Creek Gap Overlook, the Deer Lick Gap Overlook, and four additional east/southeast facing breaks in the vegetation between those two overlooks. Further analysis eliminated the Buck Creek Gap Overlook and vegetation break #1 (VB1), located approximately 1.5 miles north of Buck Creek Gap Overlook, because views from both sites are blocked by topography and vegetation. Portions of the analysis area are visible from VB2, VB3 and VB4 (maximum duration of approximately six seconds at a driving speed of 45 miles per hour) and Deer Lick Gap Overlook which provides a stationary vista. These sites were analyzed to determine which proposed activities are visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and to prescribe additional project design features.
VQOs were determined based on LRMP Management Area designation, Sensitivity Level of the viewpoint (level one, two or three with one being the most sensitive), and distance from the viewpoint: Foreground (FG) within 0.5 miles, Middle Ground (MG) within 5 miles and
106 Environmental Assessment
Background (BG) beyond 5 miles. The Blue Ridge Parkway, the Mountains to Sea Trail, US Highway 221 and the Wildacres conference center were considered Sensitivity Level One (SL1) viewpoints for this analysis. Other State and NFS roads and NFS trails were considered SL2 or SL3 viewpoints.
Proposed activities would occur in Management Area (MA) 3B which emphasizes sustained yield timber management, MA4D which emphasizes high quality black bear habitat and MA5 which emphasizes semi-primitive recreation. MA 3B has VQOs of Modification for all distances and sensitivity levels, with the exception of those areas seen from the Blue Ridge Parkway which have VQOs of Partial Retention for all distances. Management Area 4D has VQOs of Partial Retention in FG/SL1 and MG/SL1 viewpoints, and Modification for all other sensitivity levels and distances. Management Area 5 has VQOs of Retention for all sensitivity levels and distances. Table 42 below describes the VQOs and associated project design features for the areas proposed for commercial timber harvesting activities.
The Retention VQO provides for management activities which are not visually evident. Activities may only repeat form, line, color and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. The LRMP requires that this objective is met following one full growing season.
The Partial Retention VQO provides for management activities that remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, and texture of the surrounding landscape but may also introduce new form, line, color or texture as long as they remain subordinate to the overall characteristic landscape. The LRMP requires that this objective is met following two full growing seasons.
The Modification VQO provides for management activities that may visually dominate the original characteristic landscape, but must borrow elements of form, line, color, and texture to appear as natural occurrences. The LRMP requires that this objective is met following three growing seasons.
Effects by Alternative
Alternative A (No Action) - Direct & Indirect Effects
The No Action alternative would have no effects to scenery
Alternative B (Proposed Action) - Direct & Indirect Effects
Proposed non-commercial treatments will have minimal impacts to scenery. Dead or dying understory vegetation may be visible after treatment but would decay rapidly and be unnoticeable to most viewers within one growing season. Non-commercial treatments may improve scenic quality by increasing site distance into the forest.
Proposed commercial timber harvest activities include shelterwood with reserves, group selection and thinning. These treatments would occur within areas with VQOs of Partial Retention and Modification.
Shelterwood with reserves is a regeneration method in which most of the trees would be cut, leaving some trees to provide shade to produce a new age class of trees in a growing climate
107 Armstrong Creek Project moderated by the partial shade. The shelter trees would be retained after the young trees have become established in order to meet VQOs and provide structural diversity and wildlife habitat. Areas regenerated with this method would retain approximately 20-30 square feet of basal area per acre on average, with residual shelter trees in clusters or as individuals.
When viewed in the Middle Ground, shelterwood with reserves harvest areas would appear to have fewer trees than adjacent un-cut stands, but would not create distinct openings. The leave- trees would reduce textural and color contrasts between treated areas and adjacent forest. During the growing season, when hardwood trees have foliage, Middle Ground views would show varying degrees of visible ground beneath the remaining shelter trees, and in certain lighting conditions shadows may make the stand appear darker and more textured than the adjacent forest. Within two to three growing seasons the expanding crowns of the shelter trees and the rapidly growing understory vegetation would reduce this effect. During the dormant season these areas would be almost indistinguishable from adjacent stands; however skid roads and log landings may be more noticeable due to the absence of foliage during dormant season.
Shelterwood with reserves harvests in areas with VQOs of Partial Retention would be designed with a combination of irregularly shaped boundary, uncut inclusions, feathering along the perimeter, and vegetation screening retained below visible log landings where operationally feasible in order for the harvesting to appear subordinate to the overall landscape. Shelterwood with reserves harvests in areas with VQOs of Modification would be designed with an irregularly shaped boundary or uncut inclusions in order to appear as natural occurrences within the landscape. For both Modification and Partial Retention VQOs, creating breaks in the canopy silhouette along ridge tops would be avoided and a combination of un-cut buffers and feathering would occur along system trails. These design features would effectively meet VQOs with the shelterwood with reserves harvests.
Group selection is an uneven-aged regeneration method in which trees would be removed and new age classes established in small groups of approximately one acre or less. Inclusions within the stand such as riparian areas would not be harvested. This regeneration method would produce a higher degree of structure and age diversity than the shelterwood system. This harvest method would replicates openings which occur in the forest when individual or small groups of trees die as a result of age, disease or storm events. In Middle Ground views these openings may be visible as a small shadow or a change in canopy texture but in most cases this treatment would not be noticeable to the average viewer. In the Foreground an individual group would be seen as a small opening, and after one growing season would be difficult to distinguish from a natural opening. Proposed group selection would meet VQOs for both Partial Retention and Modification.
Thinning is an intermediate harvest treatment that would reduce forest stand density to improve growth, enhance forest health, and increase spacing between stems to allow more light to reach the forest floor for the development of grasses and forbs and shade intolerant species such as oaks. Proposed thinning treatments would have minimal impacts to scenery. Dead or dying understory vegetation would be visible after treatment in the Foreground, but would decay rapidly and be unnoticeable to most viewers within two growing seasons. In the Middle Ground these areas would not be visible to the average viewer due to the amount of canopy cover retained. Thinning treatments would improve scenic quality by increasing site distance into the forest and creating a more open park-like structure. Proposed thinning would meet VQOs for both Partial Retention and Modification.
108 Environmental Assessment
Table 42. Scenery design features Temporary Visible Location Prescription Acres MA VQO Design Features Road from BRP Stand Shelterwood with 36 n/a 3B No M 1,2,4 0246-08 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 27 n/a 3B No M 1,2,4 0246-12 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 26 n/a 3B Yes* PR* 1,2,3*,4 0262-07 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 40 n/a 3B No M 1,2,4 0262-13 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 28 n/a 3B No M 1,2 0262-18 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 12 n/a 3B No M 1,2 0262-22 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 17 n/a 4D No PR 1,2,3,4 0241-23 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 13 0.25 miles 3B No M 1,2,4 0246-24 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 20 n/a 3B Yes PR 1,2,3,4 0246-25 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 25 0.25 miles 3B Yes M 1,2,3,4,5 0247-22 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 18 n/a 3B No M 1,2,4 0247-32 Reserves
Stand Shelterwood with 31 n/a 3B No M 1,2,4,5 0247-35 Reserves Stand Shelterwood with 11 n/a 3B Yes PR 1,2,3,4 0248-18 Reserves Group Stand Selection 17 n/a 4D No PR None 0241-11 with Thinning Stand Thinning 64 n/a 3B No M None 0262-11 Stand Thinning 25 n/a 4D No PR None 0241-10 Stand Thinning 25 n/a 4D No PR None 0241-24
109 Armstrong Creek Project
Temporary Visible Location Prescription Acres MA VQO Design Features Road from BRP Stand Thinning 14 n/a 4D No PR None 0241-25 1. Design shape of boundary to be geometrically irregular or retain inclusions 2. Retain 20-30 sq.ft./ac. residual basal area 3. Feather upper boundary 4. Retain uncut vegetation below log landing 5. Feather system trail *Applies to portion of stand with NW aspect only (stand 0262-07) M = Modification Visual Quality Objective PR = Partial Retention Visual Quality Objectives
Alternatives C and D
Alternatives C and D propose a subset of the activities proposed by Alternative B. The scenery design features described above for Alternative B would also apply to Alternatives C and D. All proposed commercial and non-commercial activities for Alternatives C and D would meet Visual Quality Objectives as described above for Alternative B.
Cumulative Effects
Past timber harvests, clearings, roads, prescribed burns, and other landscape modifications may be visible from various analyzed viewpoints. The degree to which these modifications impact scenic quality varies greatly with feature type, scale, and contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. Proposed treatments in this project would create small openings, or the canopy may appear thinner in places; road improvements, skid roads or trails, and log landings may be visible from some locations. 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. No foreseeable future actions which may have cumulative impacts to scenery are known within the analysis area.
110 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
Nick Larson District Ranger Jason Herron Project Leader/Zone Environmental Coordinator Ted Oprean Zone Silviculturist Chad Keyser Silviculturist Scott Ashcraft Zone Archaeologist Karl Buchholz Engineer Erik Crews Forest Landscape Architect David Danley Zone Botanist Chad Keyser Acting Zone Silviculturist Greg Philipp Grandfather District Fire Management Officer Lorie Stroup Zone Fisheries Biologist Chris Williams Zone Wildlife Biologist Amber Vanderwolf Zone GIS
Government Agencies and Collaborative Groups Contacted
Appalachian Trail Conservancy; Asheville-Buncombe-Henderson Regional Water Authority; Blue Ridge Parkway; Buncombe County Commissioners; Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians; Haywood County Commissioners; Henderson County Commissioners; Hendersonville Water Department; National Forests in North Carolina; Natural Resources Conservation Service; North Carolina Clearinghouse; 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; Pisgah Forest State Fish Hatchery; Southern Research Station; Tennessee Valley Authority; Transylvania County Commissioners; United Keetowah Band of Cherokee Indians; United States Army Corps of Engineers; and United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
Others Contacted
The proposed action was available on the public website and mailed to over 100 interested people for scoping on July 14, 2014. A complete list of individuals and their comments is located in the project record.
111 Armstrong Creek Project
Bibliography AFS. (1992). American Fisheries Society Standardized Sampling Guidlines for Wadeable Trout Streams. American Fisheries Society. 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). 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. 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. Flebbe, P. A. (1999). Trout Use of Woody Devris and Habitat in Wine Spring Creek, North Carolina. Forest Ecology and Management 114, 367-376. 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. Helms, J. A. (1998). The Dictionary of Forestry. Bethesda, MD: The Society of American Foresters. 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. NatureServe. (2015). NatureServe Explorer: An Online encyclopedia of life. Retrieved July 2, 2015, from NatureServe: http://explorer.natureserve.org 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. 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. Pritchett, W. L. (1979). Properties and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Schafale, M. P., & Weakley, A. S. (1990). Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
112 Environmental Assessment
Schroeder, R. L. (1985). Habitat Suitability Index Models: Pine Warbler. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 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. 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. 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. 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. (n.d.). Forest Service Handbook, R8, 2509.18.2.2, Soil Quality Standards. USDA Forest Service. USDAFS. (2012). FY 2011 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. National Forests of North Carolina. Asheville, NC. Vaughan, D. (2002). Potential Impact of Road-stream Crossings (Culverts) on the Upstream Passage of Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. USDA Forest Service. Waters, T. F. (1995). Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects, and Control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, 251.
113 Armstrong Creek Project
Appendix A - Stream Bank Stabilization Design
114 Environmental Assessment
Appendix B –McDowell County Wildlife TES List Terrestrial Wildlife Rare Species List for McDowell County (updated 2012)
Common Name Scientific Name Type Occurrence
Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species
Bog turtle Glyptemys muhlenbergii reptile 1
Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis mammal 3
Sensitive Species
Lampshade spider Hypochilus sheari arachnid 3
Lampshade spider Hypochilus coylei arachnid 1
Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus bird 3
Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii mammal 3
Forest Concern Species
Linville Caverns spider Nesticus carolinensis arachnid 1
Hickory Hairstreak Satyrium caryaevorus butterfly 1
Northern Pigmy Salamander Desmognathus organi amphibian 3
Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus bird 1
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea bird 3
Southern Appalachian Red Loxia curvirostra pop. 1 bird 1 Crossbill
Appalachian woodrat Neotoma magister mammal 3
Occurrence Code:
1) Not known to occur in wildlife AA. No known, or very limited, potential habitat in wildlife AA. Not further analyzed.
2) Not known to occur in wildlife AA. Habitat and species may occur in wildlife AA. Not further analyzed because proposal will not affect potential habitat or known populations.
3) Species is known to occur in wildlife AA but not activity area.
4) Species is known to occur in wildlife AA and activity area.
115 Armstrong Creek Project
Appendix C – McDowell County TES Plants List FEDERALLY LISTED, THREATENED, REGIONALLY SENSITIVE or FOREST CONCERN PLANT SPECIES WITHIN McDOWELL 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 SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Alnus viridis ssp crispa Forest concern Grassy Bald 1
Amelanchier sanguinea Forest concern Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome
Aneura sharpie Sensitive MP; in spray zones of waterfalls 1
Anticlea glauca Forest concern Calcareous rock outcrops 1
Arisaema triphyllum ssp. Forest concern Southern Appalachian Bog 1 Stewardsonii
Asplenium bradleyi Forest concern Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 Calcareous Cliff
Asplenium ruta-muraria Forest concern Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Berberis Canadensis Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Glade, mafic rock 1
Brachythecium Forest concern Acidic Cove Forest 3 rotaeanum
Bryoerythrophyllum Forest concern Roadside Bank with Shale 2 inaequalifolium
Bryoxiphium norvegicum Forest concern Spray Cliff, Gorge
Campanula aparinoides Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet open Not in McDowell Concern areas Co. but in Botanical AA. (3)
116 Environmental Assessment
SPECIES SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Canoparmelia amabilis Forest concern Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Chestnut Oak 2 Forest
Carex roanensis Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- 3 Hickory
Celastrus scandens Forest concern Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak- 1 Hickory, mafic rock
Cephaloziella spinicaulis Forest concern High Elevation Rocky Summit, seeps 1 on rock at low elevation
Chelone cuthbertii Sensitive Southern Appalachian Bog 3
Chelone obliqua Forest concern swamp forests, bogs 1
Cirriphyllum piliferum Forest concern Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic 1 Cove Forest in Gorge
Cleistes bifaria Sensitive Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak 2 Woodland, Shortleaf Pine
Clematis catesbyana Forest concern forest over dolomite 1
Corallorhiza wisteriana Forest concern Cove forests 2
Coreopsis latifolia Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Northern 1 Hardwood Cove Forest
Croton monanthogynus Forest concern Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Cuscuta coryli ?????? on woody or herbaceous hosts 2
Delphinium exaltatum Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Grassy Bald, 1 Glade, Montane Oak-Hickory, mafic rock
Dicentra eximia Forest concern Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane 1 Mafic Cliff
Dichodontium pellucidum Forest concern Spray Cliff 1
Diplophyllum apiculatum Sensitive Bog, peaty humus, wet soils 1 var. taxifolioides
Echinacea purpurea Forest concern Glade, Roadside, mafic rock 1
Encalypta procera Forest concern Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Entodon compressus Forest concern Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
117 Armstrong Creek Project
SPECIES SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Entodon concinnus Sensitive Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Entodon sullivantii Forest concern Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic 1 Cove Forest in Gorge
Eucladium verticillatum Forest concern Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Eupatorium godfreyanum Removed 2011 Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, 1 mafic rock
Filipendula rubra Forest Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet open Not in McDowell Concern boggy areas. Co. but in Botanical AA. (3)
Fissidens appalachensis Sensitive High Elevation streams 1
Fothergilla major Sensitive Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Montane Oak 2 Woodland, Roadside
Frullania oakesiana Sensitive Spruce-Fir Forest 1
Hackelia virginiana Forest concern Woods and thickets, circumneutral 1 soils
Helianthus glaucophyllus Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Northern 2 Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside
Homalia trichomanoides Forest concern Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic 1 Cove Forest in Gorge
Hudsonia montana Threatened High Elevation Rocky Summit, Pine- 3 Oak/Heath Forest
Hygrohypnum closteri Sensitive Stream 1
Hymenocallis Forest concern Flooplain Forest, mesic slopes 1 occidentalis
Hypericum graveolens Sensitive High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow, 1 Grassy Bald
Juglans cinerea Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 4 Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest
Liatris aspera Forest concern Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, 1 Southern Appalachian Fen
118 Environmental Assessment
SPECIES SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Lilium grayi Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, High 3 Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Wet Meadow
Lonicera flava Removed 2008 Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane 1 Calcareous Cliff
Malaxis bayardii Sensitive Xeric Upland Forests 1
Mannia californica Sensitive Dry Montane Acidic Cliff 1
Minuartia groenlandica Forest concern High Elevation Rocky Summit, Low 1 Elevation Rocky Summit
Monotropsis odorata Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 3 Hickory, Xeric Oak-Hickory, Pine- Oak/Heath Forest
Muhlenbergia sobolifera Forest concern Montane Acidic Cliff 1
Oenothera perennis Forest concern Southern Appalachian Bog, Roadside 1
Orotrichum strngulatum Forest concern dry, exposed, calcareous or dolomitic 1 bluffs
Packera millefolium Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane 1 Cedar-Hardwood Woodland, High Elevation Granitic Dome
Packera paupercula var. Forest concern Southern Appalachian Bog, Southern 1 paupercula Appalachian Fen
Parnassia grandifolia Forest concern Seep, Fen, Serpentine Woodland, 1 Roadside, mafic rock
Penstemon smallii Sensitive Montane Acidic Cliff 1
Plagiochasma Sensitive Streamside Limestone Rock 1 intermedium
Plagiochasma wrightii Sensitive Streamside Limestone Rock 1
Plagiochila sharpii Sensitive High Elevation Rocky Summit, Rock 1 Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge
Plagiochila sullivantii Sensitive Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest 1 var. sullivantii
119 Armstrong Creek Project
SPECIES SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Plagiochila virginica var. Sensitive on limestone 1 virginica
Plagiomnium rostratum Forest concern wet rocks 3
Platanthera grandiflora Forest concern High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, 1 Roadside, Northern Hardwood Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog
Platydicta confervoides Forest concern Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff 1
Prenanthes alba Forest concern Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak- 1 Hickory
Prenanthes roanensis Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, Grassy 1 Bald, Meadow, Roadside, High Elevation Red Oak Forest
Rhabdoweisia creulata Forest concern Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest 1 in Gorge
Rhachithecium Sensitive Hardwood Trees 1 perpusillum
Rhododendron vaseyi Sensitive Northern Hardwood Forest, High 3 Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog, Meadow, Roadside
Robinia hispida var Forest concern Northern Hardwood Forest, Acidic 1 fertilis Cove Forest, High Elevation Granitic Dome
Robinia viscosa Sensitive High Elevation Granitic Dome, 1 woodlands
Sceptridium jenmanii Sensitive Rich Cove Forest 1
Sceptridium oneidense Forest concern Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich 1 Cove Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog
Scopelophila cataractae Sensitive Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides 1
Scopelophila ligulata Forest concern Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides 1
Shortia galacifolia var. Sensitive Acidic Cove Forest, Streambank, 2 brevistyla Gorge
Solidago rigida var. Forest concern Montane Oak Woodland, Glade, 1 rigida Roadside, mafic rock
120 Environmental Assessment
SPECIES SATATUS HABITAT OCCURENCE
Solidago ulmifolia Forest concern wooded stream banks 1
Thalictrum macrostylum Sensitive Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine 1 Forest, moist woods?
Thermopsis fraxinifolia Sensitive Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane 2 Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath
Thermopsis mollis Forest concern Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane 2 Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath, Shortleaf Pine
Trichostema setaceum Forest concern granite flatrocks, dry woodlands, 1 open Chestnut Oak Woodland
Trillium rugelii Sensitive Rich Cove Forest, low elevation 1
Trillium simile Sensitive Rich Cove Forest 1
Tsuga caroliniana Sensitive Carolina Hemlock Forest, Montane 4 Acidic Cliff, Pine-Oak/Heath, High Elevation Rocky Summit
Woodsia appalachiana Forest concern High Elevation Rocky Summit, 1 Montane Acidic Cliff
121 Armstrong Creek Project
Appendix D – Old Growth Analysis Forest Plan Direction for Old Growth Restoration Patches
The Forest Plan contains specific directions for designating large, medium, and small old growth restoration patches (Forest Plan, pages III-26 – III-28). The desired future condition for old growth across the forest is to have a network of small, medium and large sized old growth areas, representative of sites, elevation gradients and landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians and on the Forests, that are well dispersed and interconnected by forested lands.
Areas to be managed for old growth will be selected considering the following criteria:
1. Priority consideration for areas currently exhibiting high quality old growth characteristics, including areas in the initial inventory of possible old growth:
2. Areas with unique species diversity:
3. Community, soil type, aspect and elevation:
4. Other resource concerns and management objectives.
Large Patches
Evaluate the 30 large patches identified in Appendix K (Forest Plan, Appendix K) for future old growth management potential.
The purpose of the large patches is to serve as permanent reservoir of biological diversity and to provide preferred habitats for forest interior birds across the landscape. The intent is to allow the restoration of functional old growth ecosystems at the sub-regional, Forest, and landscape scales.
Medium Patches
In each administrative watershed containing more than 2,500 acres of National Forest System lands and not containing a portion of a designated large patch area for old growth management, select a medium patch for future old growth management.
The purpose of the medium patches is to serve as permanent reservoirs of biological diversity. The intent is to allow for the restoration of functioning old growth ecosystems at the landscape and Forest scales.
Small Patches
In each compartment containing more than 250 acres of national forest land, select a small patch for future old growth management. If 5% of the compartment acres are already part of a large or medium patch, and additional small patch is not needed. Whenever possible, areas should incorporate some riparian habitat to enhance old growth values.
The purpose of the small patches is to increase biological diversity and provide structural components of old growth at the stand and landscape levels.
Select the small patches prior to the first ground disturbing project of at least 5 acres proposed in the compartment.
122 Environmental Assessment
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.
Acres in the Initial Inventory of Possible Old Growth
Select inventory areas exhibiting high quality old growth characteristics for old growth management whenever possible.
Armstrong Creek Old Growth Inventory
The requirements for the Armstrong Creek project are as follows: (1) check for large old growth patches in Armstrong Creek analysis area (AA 506); (2) check for medium old growth patches in Armstrong Creek AA 506; (3) check for small old growth patches in Compartments 240, 241, 242, 243, 246, 247, 248, 261and 272 and select small patches if needed; and (4) field check stands in the initial inventory of old growth that would be directly affected by this project.
Large Patch Old Growth in the Armstrong Creek Analysis Area (AA) 506 There are no Old Growth Large Patch or portions of a Large Patch within Armstrong Creek AA 506.
Medium Patch Old Growth in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 There are no Old Growth Medium Patches or portions of Medium Patches within Armstrong Creek AA 506.
Small Patches Old Growth in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 There are 10 designated Old Growth Small Patches in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 Compartments: 246, 247, 248 and 262.
Initial Inventory of Old Growth Armstrong Creek AA 506 There are 14 patches of initial inventory old growth identified by the Forest Plan within the Armstrong Creek AA 506 in Compartments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248 and 262.
Table D-1. Designated old growth in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 Grandfather Ranger District Initial Old Large Medium Small Growth Patch Old Patch Old Comp Comp MA MA MA MA MA Patch Growth Growth # Acres 2C 3B 4C 4D 5 Old (O/G # - (O/G # - IOG # Acres Growth Acres) Acres)
240 853 0 0 0 129 724 699 126 0 0 0
241 942 0 0 0 325 616 688 & 203 0 0 0 689*
242 819 0 0 0 0 819 683 & 128 0 0 0 684
243 485 0 0 0 0 485 678 73 0 0 0
244 867 28 0 289 0 550 676 139 0 0 0
246 815 0 532 0 0 283 698*** 20 0 0 187
123 Armstrong Creek Project
Initial Old Large Medium Small Growth Patch Old Patch Old Comp Comp MA MA MA MA MA Patch Growth Growth # Acres 2C 3B 4C 4D 5 Old (O/G # - (O/G # - IOG # Acres Growth Acres) Acres)
247 1229 0 1054 0 0 175 693, 697 230 0 0 154 & 700**
248 930 0 246 0 0 684 693 & 447 0 0 179 703**
262 1285 33 1101 0 0 151 692*** 58 0 0 121 & 694
272 241 20 0 222 0 0 n/a 0 0 0 0
Total 8466 81 2933 511 454 4487 1424 0 0 641
* Initial Old Growth Stand portions recommended to be designated as a Small Patch Old Growth Stand
** Initial Old Growth Stand already incorporated into an existing Small Patch
*** Initial Old Growth Stand already harvested
Small Patch Designation in the Roses Creek AA
The inventory (Table C-1) shows that Compartments 246, 247, 248, and 262 contain acres of Small Old Growth Patches sufficient to meet Forest Plan objectives; therefore, establishment of small old growth patch are not needed in these Compartments. Compartments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 and 272 do not contain any designated patches of old growth. Of these Compartments on Compartment 241 will have more than 5 acres of ground disturbance that will require establishment of a small patch of at least 50 acres or more to meet Forest Plan Standards. The following stands are to be designated as small patches for long-term old growth retention to meet Forest Plan standards:
Table D-2. Designated old growth small patches in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 (Compartments 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 262 & 272) Comp.A Minimum Selected Stand Age Initial Comp. Community Type cres Acres Acres No(s) (Year) Inventory
Upland Oak/Cove 241 942 50 (5%) 65 (6.9%) 05 & 06 1850 Yes Hardwood
Total 942 50 65
The selected stands for small patch old growth restoration areas all exceed Forest Plan Standard of 5% of the Compartment acres.
124 Environmental Assessment
Table D-3. Total designated old growth small patches in the Armstrong Creek AA 506 Meets Acres of Percent of Minimum Total Forest Comp. Large Small Initial Armstrong Comp. Acres Designated Plan Acres Patch Patch Inventory Creek AA Needed Acres Standard Included 506 ?
240 853 50 (5.9%) 0 0 0 0 0.0% No
241 942 50 (5.3%) 0 65 65 65 0.8% Yes
242 819 50 (6.1%) 0 0 0 0 0.0% No
243 485 50 (10.3%) 0 0 0 0 0.0% No
244 867 50 (5.7%) 0 0 0 0 0.0% No
246 815 50 (6.1%) 0 187 0 187 2.2% Yes
247 1229 61 (5.0%) 0 154 57 154 1.8% Yes
248 930 50 (5.4%) 0 179 0 179 2.1% Yes
262 1285 64 (5.0%) 0 121 0 121 1.4% Yes
272 241 0 (0.0%) 0 0 0 0 0.0% Yes
Total 8466 475 (5.6%) 0 706 122 706 8.30% Yes
The proposed old growth designations in the Armstrong Creek AA 06 exceed Forest Plan standards in all Compartments that will have a minimum of 5% ground disturbing activities. Overall the Armstrong Creek proposal would ensure 8.3% (706 acres) of AA 506 is designated as future old growth habitat. Compartments 240, 242, 243 and 244 are not slated for any ground disturbance exceeding 5 acres in this project due to Management Area direction or being within the inventoried roadless area. Compartment 272 is not slated for any ground disturbing activities exceeding 5 acres and it does not contain at minimum of 250 acres of National Forest Land.
125 Armstrong Creek Project
Appendix E – Vegetation Analysis Chad Keyser, USFS WO-D FMSC
Ted Oprean, USFS NFinNC
The Armstrong Creek watershed restoration project encompasses ~8,500 acres of USFS land organized into eleven compartments, see table 1. Management areas include MA 2c (emphasis timber and scenery), MA 3b (emphasis timber supply), MA 4c (emphasis scenery), MA 4d (emphasis wildlife habitat), and MA 5 (emphasis backcountry area). Roughly 53% of the area is in MA 5, 35% of the area is in MA 3b, 11% in MA 4, and 1% in MA 2c. Forest types vary throughout the watershed with roughly 30% of the area in Cove Hardwoods, 44% in Upland Hardwoods, 16% in Hardwood/Pine, 8% in Pine/Hardwood, and 2% in Pine forest types, see table 2. Age class distribution of these forest types are skewed towards the older age classes with almost 90% of the stands older than eighty years and no stands less than 10 years of age, see table 3. Data from these tables were used in conjunction with field verification and sampling to determine proposed restoration activities in this project.
Table E-1. Acreage by compartment and management area (MA) Compart- FS Private Total MA MA MA MA MA ment Acres Acres Acres 2c 3b 4c 4d 5 MA Total
0240 853 37 891 129 724 853
0241 942 163 1105 325 616 942
0242 819 75 894 819 819
0243 485 293 778 485 485
0244 867 1116 1983 28 289 550 867
0246 815 144 959 532 283 815
0247 1229 13 1242 1054 175 1229
0248 930 76 1006 246 684 930
0261 21 0 21 21 21
0262 1285 792 2077 33 1101 151 1285
0272 241 5072 5314 20 222 241
Total 8487 7782 16269 81 2948 510 453 4459 8487
126 Environmental Assessment
Table E-2. Acreage by compartment and existing forest type Cove Hardwoods Upland Hardwoods Hardwood/Pine
Compart-ment 50 56 52 53 59 60 41 42 45 48
0240 417 49 238 102 40
0241 88 191 413 243
0242 451 154 214
0243 224 206 54
0244 212 106 258 124
0246 25 160 212 140 18 260
0247 102 196 461 134 19 176
0248 184 613
0261 21
0262 73 370 78 47 38 331 126
0272 26 31
Total 212 2331 794 2463 235 207 56 331 562 433
127 Armstrong Creek Project
Table E-2 (continued). Acreage by compartment and existing forest type Pine/Hardwood Pine
Compartment 08 09 10 15 20 03 38 WO/Other Total
0240 7 853
0241 6 942
0242 819
0243 485
0244 79 88 867
0246 815
0247 128 13 1229
0248 133 930
0261 21
0262 50 164 8 1285
0272 185 241
Total 79 50 164 216 133 185 13 22 8487
128 Environmental Assessment
TableE-3. Age class distribution by management area and compartment Management Area Age Range Compartment 0-10 11-50 51-80 81-120 120+ WO/Other Total 2c 20 61 81 0244 28 28 0262 33 33 0272 20 20 3b 398 58 2252 239 8 2954 0246 139 38 354 532 0247 30 19 912 92 1054 0248 99 147 246 0261 21 21 0262 313 780 8 1101 4c 165 79 266 510 0244 79 210 289 0272 165 57 222 4d 393 52 10 454 0240 70 52 7 129 0241 323 3 325 5 228 3454 802 4 4488 0240 50 608 66 724 0241 77 417 119 4 616 0242 101 590 128 819 0243 404 80 485 0244 409 141 550 0246 283 283 0247 175 175 0248 416 268 684 0262 151 151 Total 810 137 6426 1093 22 8487 Percent of Total 0.0% 9.5% 1.6% 75.7% 12.9% 0.3% 100%
Project Activities
The Pisgah National Forest Plan The Armstrong Creek watershed restoration action plan identified various vegetation treatments
For every analysis area with at least 250 acres in Management Area types 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and/or 4D, the minimum and maximum amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in the analysis area.
129 Armstrong Creek Project
Early Successional Habitat Development
Age Class Analysis
For every analysis area with at least 250 acres in Management Area types 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and/or 4D, the minimum and maximum amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in the analysis area is calculated as follows:
For Management Areas 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and 4D multiply the number of forested acres in each MA by the maximum percent allowed in the Analysis Area:
1B & 3B ~ 2,946 acres x 15% = 442 acres
2A ~ 000 acres x 10% = 000 acres
4A & 4D ~ 444 acres x 10% = 44 acres
3390 486 acres
For Management Areas 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and 4D multiply the number of forested acres in each MA by the minimum percent allowed in the Analysis Area:
1B & 3B ~ 2,946 acres x 5% = 147 acres
2A ~ 000 acres x 5% = 0 acres
4A & 4D ~ 444 acres x 0% = 0 acres
3,390 147 acres
The sum of these is the amount of 0-10 year age class allowed in the analysis area.
Table E-4. Harvest goals (acres) for Armstrong Analysis Area Suitable 0-10 Year Age-Class1 Harvest Goals Acres: 1B, 2A, Existing Analysis 3B, 4A & Minimum Maximum 0-10 Age Area 4D Allowed Allowed Class Minimum Maximum
Armstrong 3390 147 486 0 147 486
1 – Minimum and maximum 0-10 allowed cannot exceed levels allowed under Compartment analysis, thus the lower number than 5%-15% allowed in each Analysis Area. Existing 0-10 age class is based on year 2013.
In the current state, Armstrong Watershed is under the minimum needed 0-10 age class by 147 acres.
130 Environmental Assessment
Management Area Analysis
For every Management Area with at least 250 acres in the Analysis Area, the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in the Management Area is calculated by multiplying the number of acres in each Management Area in the Analysis Area by the maximum percent allowed. Each result is the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in that Management Area.
Table E-5. Harvest goals (acres) by management area (MA) 0-10 Year Age-Class Harvest Goals
Existing 0-10 Management Forested Minimum Maximum Age Area Acres Allowed Allowed Class Minimum Maximum
1B, 3B 2946 147 442 0 147 442
4A, 4D 444 0 44 0 0 44
2A 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 3390 147 486 0 147 486
Compartment Area Analysis
For every compartment with at least 250 acres in Management Areas 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, or 4D, the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in each compartment is calculated by first determining which MA has the most acres in the compartment (1B, 3B, 2A, 4A, or 4D). If 1B and 3B have the most, then the maximum 0-10 year age-class is 15 percent of all acres in the compartment. If 2A, 4A, or 4D have the most acres, then the maximum amount allowed 0 – 10 year age-class is 10 percent of all acres in the compartment. The following table displays the allowable 0 - 10 age- classes by compartment.
131 Armstrong Creek Project
Table E-6. Harvest goals (acres) by compartment 0-10 Age-Class Harvest Goals
FS MA 3B MA 4D Minimum Maximum Existing Compartment Acres Acres Acres Allowed Allowed 0-10 Yr. Minimum Maximum
0240 853 0 122 0 12 0 0 12
0241 942 0 322 0 94 0 0 94
0242 819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0243 485 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0244 867 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0246 815 532 0 41 122 0 41 122
0247 1229 1054 0 61 184 0 61 184
0248 930 246 0 12 37 0 12 37
0261* 21 21 0 1 3 0 0 0
0262 1285 1093 0 64 193 0 64 193
0272 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8487 2946 444 180 645 0 179 642
*only one stand is included in compartment 0261, it is too young to regenerate.
132 Environmental Assessment
Appendix F – Appropriateness of Harvest Methods Regeneration methods are discussed at length in Appendix E of the FEIS for the Forest Plan, and on pages E1-E2 in Amendment 5 of the Forest Plan. Four choices for regeneration methods include (1), shelterwood cutting (even-aged management system) (2), clearcutting (even-aged management system), (3), shelterwood with reserves (two-aged system), and (4), group selection (uneven-aged system). At this time, single-tree selection (uneven-aged management) is not being considered as appropriate in meeting long-term regeneration needs to sustain productive stands of desirable tree species except in northern hardwood (beech-birch-sugar maple) or hemlock stands (all shade tolerant species). This is because regeneration objectives would not be met because single-tree selection does not work successfully with the shade intolerant species that occur in the Armstrong Creek Project Area. Other forest management activities such as thinning and sanitation cuts may also occur, but they are intermediate treatments that do not cause overstory replacement and may or may not result in regeneration recruitment or establishment.
With any silvicultural method, there is a requirement that enough quantity and quality of timber being removed to make a sale operable, i.e. economically feasible to log at a given stumpage price (stumpage is the price paid for standing timber). For this analysis area, the minimum quantity is approximately three thousand board feet of sawtimber per acre, unless there is a current market for lower value products. Sawtimber is defined as trees that are large enough, less than 25% defect, and of commercially valuable species which could be sawed into grade 3 or better lumber. Silvics for some tree species such as Quercus coccinea (scarlet oak) are such that they seldom will contain any grade 3 logs because of defect due to hear-rot and cankers caused by Cryphonectria parasitica (chestnut blight fungus). Other species like Oxydendron arboretum (sourwood) seldom reach large enough diameter to become sawtimber. Changes in markets may change operability standards in a local area as well as affecting stumpage price.
Operability and stumpage price are also affected by transportation cost, logging cost, and size of the area being logged. Costs of getting logs from the stump to the mill are higher for timber in remote areas, where haul roads must be built, or for timber logged with specialized logging equipment, e.g. with cable systems or with a helicopter. As costs increase, prospective timber purchasers lower their bid prices on stumpage to compensate. If the price they can pay becomes less than the minimum acceptable stumpage price, the timber becomes inoperable (no one will buy it).
Each logging crew, depending on the size of their operation and the value of the timber to be logged, would have a minimum amount of timber that would be economical for them to move in and cut. For instance, in a given stand, it might be economical for a given logging crew to harvest a clearcut as small as 10 acres to obtain 50 MBF. If group selection is chosen, where only about 25 percent of the area is regenerated per entry, 40 acres would be needed to provide the crew with the same amount of sawtimber. Therefore, operability (influenced by topography and stand condition and structure) within a stand is critical for determining which regeneration method(s) are appropriate.
Much concern has been expressed over clearcutting as a management tool. Other regeneration methods will be used when management objectives can be met and when the other methods are economically feasible. In a memo to Regional Foresters dated June 4, 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service stated that:
133 Armstrong Creek Project
"Clearcutting would be limited to areas where it is essential to meet forest plan objectives and involve one or more of the following circumstances:
1. To establish, enhance, or maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.
2. To enhance wildlife habitat or water yield values, or to provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors, facility sites, reservoirs, or similar development.
3. To rehabilitate lands adversely impacted by events such as fires, windstorms, or insect or disease infestations.
4. To preclude or minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts or insect or disease infestations, windthrow, logging damage, or other factors affecting forest health.
5. To provide for the establishment and growth of desired trees or other vegetative species that are shade intolerant.
6. To rehabilitate poorly stocked stands due to past management practices or natural events.
7. To meet research needs.”
These circumstances will be referred to on a site-specific basis when showing that clearcutting is optimum for a given stand.
Regeneration using the group selection method is appropriate where logging costs are relatively low and where there is enough volume and value in the stands to make selection cutting operable. Group selection is not traditionally done in very small stands or on slopes greater than 40 percent where cable logging is necessary, where timber volume or value is low, or in stands where insect or disease hazards are high and widespread. It is also not appropriate where partial cutting and leaving a white pine seed source would result in conversion of mixed pine/hardwood stands to almost pure pine stands, if the accompanying long-term loss of mast production would be detrimental to local wildlife populations.
The shelterwood method of regeneration has been traditionally used where a residual seed source was needed for stand establishment or where new seedlings developed best with partial shade or protection from exposure. In the Appalachian Mountain region, seed from reserve trees (or "leave trees") are usually not needed to establish a new stand, but visual concerns often make shelterwood desirable. Leave trees must be those that would not likely be windthrown after having the adjacent trees cut. The residual overstory of a new shelterwood cut would look more park-like with the biggest and best trees evenly distributed across the landscape, rather than having a denuded appearance like a fresh clearcut might have. Regeneration would become established under the residual overstory. Then, at some later time depending on objectives, all or part of the overstory may be removed so it will not hinder further growth and development of the new stand. Some damage to the regeneration would occur during the overstory removal. Shelterwood is not appropriate on slopes greater than 40 percent where cable logging is necessary unless timber volume and values are very high. Shelterwood is not appropriate in stands where leaving an overstory would make the stands inoperable, or in stands where insect or disease hazards are high and widespread. It is also not appropriate where partial cutting and leaving a white pine seed source would result in conversion of mixed pine/hardwood stands to almost pure
134 Environmental Assessment pine stands, if the accompanying long-term loss of mast production would be detrimental to local wildlife populations.
The shelterwood with reserves is a two-age regeneration method that is similar to the shelterwood method except the overstory removal is deferred until mid-rotation (40-60 years for cove hardwoods) or indefinitely. In many cases it would remain until a new age class reaches rotation. With the development and growth of a new age class in the understory along with the continued growth of the overstory, the stand takes on a two-aged structure. Since leave trees will not have to support a future operable sale, they do not have to be merchantable and not as many need to be left. The type of leave trees retained would depend on site-specific objectives. Basal area of leave trees should not exceed 30 sq. ft./acre fifteen years following harvest in order not hinder further growth and development of the new stand. More than one harvest entry may be used to reduce basal area to this level. For example, a shelterwood removal could reduce basal area from 35 sq. ft./ac to 15 sq. ft./ac, thus perpetuating a two-aged stand. The two-age method is appropriate in operable stands on slopes greater than 40 percent and whenever there are enough suitable trees to leave that will live to be a part of the stand for 40-60 years into the future. Two- age would be appropriate to meet objectives other than timber production, e.g. if continuous acorn production is needed within a stand, if den trees are scarce, or if aesthetics is a consideration. Two-age would be appropriate on slopes greater than 40 percent if timber value is high enough to offset increased costs of skyline logging systems, and if visual concerns or wildlife habitat objectives cannot be met by clearcutting. Two-age is not appropriate in stands where leaving an overstory would make the stands inoperable or in stands that require full sunlight for propagation of the management species.
The following table (Table F-1) describes factors to be considered in determining appropriateness of regeneration methods for each stand.
Table F-1. Factors considered in determining appropriate regeneration methods Acres Sawtimber Pulpwood 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ Comp- Acres Alt B Vol./ac Vol./ac Timber Leave Future Access Special Stand Alt D & C (CCF) (CCF) Quality Trees Removal Concerns
0246-08 36 36 26.35 6.36 M-57% Y N F V, I
0246-12 27 27 36.81 7.08 M-43% Y N G V, I
0262-07 34 34 36.19 6.09 M-52% Y N G V, I, D
0262-13 40 40 28.67 8.08 M-51% Y Y F V, C
0262-18 28 28 45.08 5.14 H-69% Y N G V, C
0262-22 12 12 37.22 6.77 M-66% Y Y G V, C
0241-23 17 0 36.85 8.89 M-46% S N F V, I
0246-24 13 13 23.97 9.38 M-51% S N G V, I
0246-25 20 20 20.55 6.38 M-51% S N G V, I
0247-22 25 25 15.02 5.87 M-34% Y Y G V, I, C
135 Armstrong Creek Project
Acres Sawtimber Pulpwood 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ Comp- Acres Alt B Vol./ac Vol./ac Timber Leave Future Access Special Stand Alt D & C (CCF) (CCF) Quality Trees Removal Concerns
0247-32 18 18 21.88 4.61 M-55% Y N G V, I
0247-35 31 0 12.55 10.22 L-11% Y N F V, I
0248-18 11 11 6.50 3.80 L-16% Y N G V, I
0241-11 182/27 0 15.33 9.07 L-30% Y Y F B, I, D
0262-11 64 64 24.74 5.63 M-57% Y Y G I, C
0241-10 25 0 24.20 8.54 M-46% Y Y F I, W
0241-24 25 0 24.20 8.54 M-46% Y Y P I, W
0241-25 14 0 24.20 8.54 M-46% Y Y F I, W
1/ Timber Quality: High = > 67% of volume is quality sawtimber Medium = 33 – 67% of volume is quality sawtimber Low = < 33% of volume in quality sawtimber range
2/ Leave Trees: Y = Well distributed, long-lived, meet objectives Spotty = Available in clumps; not well distributed N = Scarce, scattered, or high mortality risk
3/ Future Removal: Yes = Potential for operable removal of overstory No = Removal will not be operable within 10 years
4/ Access: Good = Less than 0.5 mile from existing haul road Fair = 0.5-1.0 mile from existing haul road Poor = Greater than 1.0 mile from existing haul road
5/ Special Concerns: Conversion = Risk of forest type conversion Wildlife = Modify to provide needs for wildlife Visual = Modify to mitigate aesthetic concerns Insect/Disease = High risk of loss due to SPB and loss due to oak decline Heritage = High risk, existing sites or mitigate needed Botanical = Modify to mitigate botanical concerns Damaged = Damage due to past abiotic/biotic factors
The following table (Table F-2) provides stand descriptors and a summary list of appropriate harvest and logging methods for each stand.
136 Environmental Assessment
Table F-2. Stand description and summary list of appropriate harvest and logging methods for each stand Comp- Year of Acres Forest Type MA Harvest Method Logging Method Stand Origin
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0246-08 36 1937 3B oak Reserves Tired Skidder
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0246-12 27 1925 3B oak Reserves Tired Skidder
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0262-07 34 1918 3B oak Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Rubber Tired 0262-13 40 1925 10-white pine/upland hardwoods 3B Reserves Skidder
Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0262-18 28 1915 41-cove hardwoods/white pine/hemlock 3B Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Rubber Tired 0262-22 12 1920 42-upland hardwoods/white pine 3B Reserves Skidder
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Shelterwood with Rubber Tired 0241-23 17 1920 4D oak Reserves Skidder/ Skyline
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0246-24 13 1918 3B oak Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0246-25 20 1918 42-upland hardwoods/white pine 3B Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Rubber Tired 0247-22 25 1923 10-white pine/upland hardwoods 3B Reserves Skidder
Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0247-32 18 1920 53-white oak/northern red oak/hickory 3B Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0247-35 31 1920 45-chestnut oak/scarlet oak/yellow pine 3B Reserves Tired Skidder
Shelterwood with Skyline/Rubber 0248-18 11 1852 45-chestnut oak/scarlet oak/yellow pine 3B Reserves Tired Skidder
Rubber Tired 0241-11 182 1920 53-white oak/northern red oak/hickory 4D Group Selection Skidder
Rubber Tired 0262-11 64 1915 42-upland hardwoods/white pine 3B Free Thinning Skidder
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Thinning from Rubber Tired 0241-10 25 1920 4D oak below Skidder
137 Armstrong Creek Project
Comp- Year of Acres Forest Type MA Harvest Method Logging Method Stand Origin
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Thinning from Rubber Tired 0241-24 25 1920 4D oak below Skidder
56-yellow poplar/white oak/northern red Thinning from Rubber Tired 0241-25 14 1920 4D oak below Skidder
Timber Cutting Methods Considered
The following is a list of timber cutting methods which were considered in this analysis. Timber cutting methods are organized into regeneration harvesting methods and intermediate treatment harvesting methods. Regeneration harvesting methods are designed to create stands with a single age class (Even-aged systems), stands with two age classes (Two-aged systems), and stands with three or more age classes (Uneven-aged systems). Intermediate treatment harvesting methods are designed to enhance growth, quality, vigor, and composition of stands after establishment of regeneration and prior to the final harvest without regard for the establishment of regeneration; and to salvage dead trees and potential mortality. A brief description is provided to help the reader understand these terms as they are used in this document:
Even-aged Systems
Clearcutting
Regeneration or harvest method that removes essentially all the trees in a single operation to establish a new stand in a fully exposed microclimate. All merchantable trees on an area are harvested, and remaining trees are treated in site preparation. This method will be used only when no other method is feasible.
Shelterwood Cutting
The cutting of most trees, leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade to produce a new age class in a moderated microenvironment. Removal of the overwood is done in a sequence of treatments that can include three types of cuttings: (a) an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed production, usually 50-60 square feet per acre of basal area is left after this cut, (b) an establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class, usually 20-40 sq. ft./acre of basal is left, and (c) a removal cut to release established regeneration from competition with the overwood. Normally, only healthy, wind-firm trees are left as overwood. The usual time frame for the preparatory cut, establishment cut to the removal cut falls within a 10 year period.
Two-aged Systems
Shelterwood with Reserves
Similar to shelterwood cutting except fewer overstory trees are left in place, and they are not subsequently removed, so that two distinct ages of trees are maintained on the same site. Trees left as overwood should be long-lived since they may be expected to live 120 years or more.
Uneven-aged Systems
138 Environmental Assessment
Group Selection
Cutting small openings between 0.2-to-1.5 acres, distributed over a stand size area, with the intent to establish three or more distinct age-classes within a prescribed rotation. Width of an individual opening would be up to 1.5-to-2 times the average height of trees adjacent to the opening. Small trees having good growth potential may be left standing within openings, and priority for openings would be where mature timber occurs. The number of openings would depend on the size of the area where selection would be used, the frequency of timber sale entry, and the desired age of the oldest trees. Intermediate harvests to improve the condition of the residual stand or to establish advance regeneration may be done between openings when needed.
Intermediate Treatment Harvesting Methods
Sanitation Cutting
Cutting trees that have been attacked or appear in imminent danger of attack from injurious agents (such as disease or insects) other than competition between trees. The best trees in terms of species or vigor are left to grow. No minimum basal area is set using this type of cultural treatment.
Crown Thinning
The removal of trees from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes in order to improve the growth of the remaining trees, but leaving enough desirable, healthy trees to recapture the potential of the site and develop into larger merchantable trees themselves in a reasonable time. This may be done with yellow-poplar on a good site, but only once during a rotation. Some minimum basal area is usually set using this type of cultural treatment.
Free Thinning
The removal of trees that are crowding desirable trees without regard to crown position as in selection thinning. The best trees in terms of species, size or quality are left to grow. Some minimum basal area is usually set using this type of cultural treatment.
Low Thinning (thinning from below)
The removal of trees from the lower crown classes to favor those in the upper crown classes. Some minimum basal area is usually set using this type of cultural treatment.
Stand Improvement – Release Treatment
An intermediate treatment made to improve the composition, structure, condition, health and growth of stands by freeing young trees from undesirable, usually overtopping competing vegetation.
Other Forestry Terms Used
Advance Reproduction - Young trees, usually seedlings and saplings, growing in the understory of existing stands.
139 Armstrong Creek Project
Rotation - The time between regeneration and final harvest.
Stand - A community of trees sufficiently uniform in composition, age, site productivity, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities, thereby forming a silvicultural or management entity.
Cutting Cycle - The planned interval between partial harvests in an uneven-aged stand.
Residual - A tree or snag remaining after an intermediate or partial cutting of a stand.
Residual Stand - A stand composed of trees remaining after any type of intermediate harvest.
Basal Area - The cross sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 feet or 1.37 meters above the ground.
Stand Basal Area - The cross sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast height and expressed per unit of land area.
140 Environmental Assessment
Appendix G – Commercial Timber Harvest Financial Analysis Purpose
The purpose of the financial efficiency analysis is to present the estimated costs and revenues of the alternatives considered in the Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Armstrong Creek Project on the Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest. As per Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, each timber sale in the project proposal expected to exceed $100,000 in advertised value requires a financial analysis to determine financial efficiency.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this analysis, the following assumptions will apply:
1. Estimated harvest volumes were obtained from the Forest Service’s National Volume Estimator Library equations, as implemented in the Forest Vegetation Simulator.
2. Estimated timber revenues for pine and poletimber were calculated using base prices from the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests 1st Quarter Adjustment FY 2015 Base Period: FY 2014 1st Quarter to FY 2014 4th Quarter ZONE 1. Base prices for hardwood species are from the Base Price Calculation Worksheet dated 06/01/2015 prepared by the Forest Timber Staff Officer, Supervisor’s Office National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, North Carolina.
3. Sale preparation costs and timber harvest administration costs were obtained from Fiscal Year 2012 budget figures for the National Forests in North Carolina and confirmed by Matt Keyes, Pisgah Zone TMA. Sale preparation costs (layout, cruising and marking) are funded at $10.00/CCF which includes $2,500 per sale package prepared. Timber harvest administration costs are funded at $8,750 per year of Sale (generally sales run 1-3 years depending on size and complexity.
4. Reforestation treatment and stand certification costs are taken from current KV Plans that are similar in size and type of reforestation activities. Current overhead cost (Washington, Regional and Supervisors Offices) of 66.89% is included in this figure.
5. Road reconstruction and construction costs are estimated in terms of heavy reconstruction needs for existing non system road, light reconstruction needs for open system roads, and new construction costs. Costs were added for significant stream crossings depending on whether the alternative proposed temporary or permanent crossings. Permanent crossings will be designed for aquatic organism passage. Cost were also added for close out work on proposed temporary roads.
Limitations of Analysis
Any financial analysis must draw limitations on the amount of data to be included or the entire process would quickly become a mix of different alternatives and expected yields or losses. The following tables are an estimate of total project costs directly associated with a timber sale (sale preparation, essential reforestation and logging costs) and are used to determine timber sale financial analysis for comparison.
141 Armstrong Creek Project
Table G-1. Sale Revenue Estimates for all Alternatives Timber Volume Alternative Revenues ($) (CCF) A - No Action 0 $0 B - Proposed Alternative 12,687 $595,360 C 12,687 $595,360 D 8,572 $404,550
Table G-2. Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative B Total Activity Units Number Cost/Unit Costs Sale Preparation CCF 12,687 $10.00 $126,870 Harvest Administration Year 3 $8,750 $26,250 Required Reforestation (site prep & planting) Acres 340 $391 $132,940 Heavy Road Reconstruction (existing non-system roads) Miles 4.6 $30,000 $138,000 Light Road Reconstruction (open system roads) Miles 9.1 $5,000 $45,500 Road Construction Miles 0.8 $50,000 $40,000
Number of significant Permanent Stream Crossings crossings 2 $36,200 $72,400
Number of significant Temporary Stream Crossings crossings 0 $18,700 $0 Road Closeout Miles 1.2 $2,300 $2,760 Total Costs $584,720
Table G-3. Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative B Discount Year Revenue Cost PNV BCR Factor 0 0 $595,360 $584,720 $10,640 1.02 PNV – present net value BCR - benefit cost ratio
142 Environmental Assessment
Table G-4. Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative C Total Activity Units Number Cost/Unit Costs Sale Preparation CCF 12,687 $10.00 $126,870 Harvest Administration Year 3 $8,750 $26,250
Required Reforestation (site prep & planting) Acres 340 $391 $132,940
Heavy Road Reconstruction (existing non-system roads being considered temporary in this alternative) Miles 4.6 $30,000 $138,000
Light Road Reconstruction (open system roads) Miles 9.1 $5,000 $45,500 Road Construction Miles 0.8 $50,000 $40,000
Number of significant Permanent Stream Crossings crossings 0 $36,200 $0
Number of significant Temporary Stream Crossings crossings 2 $18,700 $37,400
Temporary Road Construction Miles 0.75 $4,000 $3,000 Road Closeout Miles 5.75 $2,300 $13,225 Total Costs $563,185
Table G-5. Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative C Discount Year Revenue Cost PNV BCR Factor 0 0 $595,360 $563,185 $32,175 1.06 PNV – present net value BCR - benefit cost ratio
143 Armstrong Creek Project
Table G-6. Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative D Total Activity Units Number Cost/Unit Costs Sale Preparation CCF 8,572 $10.00 $85,720 Harvest Administration Year 3 $8,750 $26,250
Required Reforestation (site prep & planting) Acres 265 $391 $103,615 Heavy Road Reconstruction (existing non-system roads) Miles 2.5 $30,000 $75,000
Light Road Reconstruction (open system roads) Miles 9.1 $5,000 $45,500 Road Construction Miles 0 $50,000 $0
Number of significant Permanent Stream Crossings crossings 0 $36,200 $0
Number of significant Temporary Stream Crossings crossings 0 $18,700 $0 Temporary Road Construction Miles 0.75 $4,000 $3,000 Road Closeout Miles 1.15 $2,300 $2,645 Total Costs $341,730
Table G-7. Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative D Discount Year Revenue Cost PNV BCR Factor 0 0 $404,550 $341,730 $62,820 1.18 PNV – present net value BCR - benefit cost ratio
144 Environmental Assessment
Appendix H – List of Archaeology Sites
145
Environmental Assessment
1 Armstrong Creek Project
2 Environmental Assessment
3