United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Wanosha Integrated Resource Project Biological Evaluation

Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest, Grafton County, New Hampshire March 2019

Prepared by:

/s/ Brett Hillman______March 13, 2019______

Brett Hillman, District Wildlife Biologist Date

/s/ Daniel Sperduto______March 13, 2019______

Daniel Sperduto, Forest Botanist Date Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

For More Information Contact:

Brett Hillman Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest 71 White Mountain Drive Campton, NH 03223 Phone: 603-536-6127 Email: [email protected] Fax: 603-536-6127

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

1 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Contents Introduction ...... 3 Proposed Project Description ...... 3 Location ...... 3 Proposed Action ...... 5 Methodology ...... 5 Probability of Species Occurrence ...... 6 Effects Analysis of the Proposed Action ...... 6 Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species ...... 8 Northern Long-eared Bat ...... 8 Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...... 14 Woodland Bats ...... 14 Northern Bog Lemming ...... 16 Wood Turtle ...... 17 Headwater Ameletus Mayflies ...... 18 Yellow-banded Bumblebee and Monarch Butterfly ...... 19 Butternut ...... 21 American Ginseng ...... 22 References ...... 24 Appendix A: Effects Evaluation Summary ...... 30 Animals ...... 31 Plants ...... 38 Appendix B: Canada Lynx Habitat and Standards and Guidelines ...... 54 Lynx Habitat ...... 54 Canada Lynx Standards and Guidelines ...... 56 References ...... 61 Appendix C: NLEB Maternity Roost Area Delineation Methodology ...... 62 References ...... 63

List of Tables

Table 1: TEPS that occur or may occur in the action area...... 7 Table 2: Extent of tree felling during the NLEB active season1...... 11 Table 3: Amount of suitable roosting within both NLEB maternity areas...... 12 Table 4: Impacts to maternity areas from tree removal activities...... 13

List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity map...... 4 Figure 2: Delineated northern long-eared bat maternity areas within the action area...... 10

2 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Introduction This document accounts for potential effects of the Wanosha Integrated Resource Project on US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Endangered, Threatened and Proposed species and USDA Forest Service (FS) Region 9 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (TEPS Species collectively). Wildlife biologists and botanists have reviewed this project, and investigated available information on species distributions and habitat (using topographic maps, aerial photos, field reconnaissance, previous surveys, vegetation data, and/or habitat requirement data for each species) to assess the potential for effects to federally-listed and Region 9 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). The Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE) process is intended to identify and document activities that may affect any threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive wildlife, fish and plant species; or designated/proposed critical habitat of record for the action area. This BA/BE is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). This process also complies with the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.42) and White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Wildlife Objectives, Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005a). Proposed Project Description

Location The Project is located on National Forest System lands in Thornton, Livermore, Waterville Valley, Sandwich, and Campton townships in Grafton and Carroll counties, NH (Figure 1). The action area is bound roughly by Tripoli Road on the north, Waterville Valley to the east, the Sandwich Range to the south, and Interstate 93 (I-93) to the west.

The Project is located in portions of the Mad River, Eastman Brook, Johnson Brook, Mill Brook, and Hackett Brook watersheds. Elevation ranges from about 600 feet above mean sea level near Thornton, NH to about 2,500 feet in the Sandwich Range at the south end of the action area. Habitat types within the action area range from upland hardwoods to lowland spruce-fir stands. The majority of the action area consists of northern hardwood stands, with stands and smaller inclusions of mixed-wood, aspen-birch, oak-pine, hemlock, and spruce-fir.

The majority of the action area is in Management Area (MA) 2.1 (General Forest Management) lands. Portions of the action area are within MA 6.1 (Semi-Primitive Recreation) and 6.2 (Semi- Primitive Non-Motorized Recreation) lands. Proposed project activities in each MA are consistent with Forest Plan direction (USDA Forest Service 2005a; pp. 3-3 to 3-8 for MA 2.1 and pp. 3-19 to 3-26 for MA 6.1 and 6.2).

3 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Figure 1: Vicinity map.

4 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Proposed Action The following activities are included under the Proposed Action: 1. Activities to enhance recreational experiences: a. Designate, as part of the WMNF trail system, a trail network on Forest Service land in the Smarts Brook area optimized for mountain bike use. Make improvements (e.g. trail reroutes) as necessary. b. Manage the overstory at Campton Campground and Waterville Campground. c. Redesign the Waterville Campground to accommodate up to 25 recreational vehicles. d. Reconstruct and expand the existing Welch-Dickey Trailhead Parking Lot. 2. Vegetation and wildlife habitat management: a. Treat about 4,000 gross acres of forest stands in the action area through the use of commercial and non-commercial treatments. b. Use a variety of silvicultural treatments to meet objectives, including clearcuts with reserves, overstory removal, shelterwood, thinning, improvement cutting, and group selection. Pre-commercial timber stand improvements, post-timber harvest mechanical site preparation, and expansion of wildlife openings is also proposed on select sites. 3. Transportation system improvements: a. Construct new and improve existing roads to facilitate the proposed vegetation management activities. b. Decommission roads that are no longer needed.

Consult the Environmental Assessment for more details on these activities.

Methodology Literature reviews were conducted to determine the life histories and habitat requirements of each TEPS species. In addition, all past field surveys and other sources of occurrence information were reviewed to determine known locations of TEPS species relative to the action area.

The general habitat condition of the action area was determined from field reviews of stand conditions, which are stored in compartment records, as well as recent field reviews conducted within the action area between 2014 and 2018 by Forest Service staff during the planning of this project. Each compartment received field visits to assess habitat conditions and determine the presence of important or rare habitat features (i.e. vernal pools, milkweed, deer wintering areas, bear-clawed trees, raptor nests etc.).

Acoustic bat surveys were conducted at 110 sites in the action area during 2016, 2017 and 2018 following USFWS survey protocols (USFWS 2016b, 2017, 2018). Most of the acoustic data was collected from late May through late July. A few surveys were conducted in August. The northern long-eared bat, little brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, and tricolored bat, along with several other common species, were identified in the action area (Prout 2018).

Botanical field surveys were conducted throughout the entire action area by Botanical Technicians during the 2012-2013, 2016, 2017, and 2018 field seasons (unpublished WMNF data,

5 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Campton, NH). Prior to surveys, WMNF Botany staff reviewed information on TES and RFSS plant occurrences in the vicinity of the project area and similar geographic settings on the WMNF. Comprehensive data on occurrences of rare plants in New Hampshire are available to the WMNF through regular updates from the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (Biotics database). Botanical surveys were conducted in nearly all stands within the action area as well as within many surrounding stands that are not proposed for activities. All species encountered within a stand were recorded and other habitat and ecological characteristics were documented. Follow-up surveys were conducted in stands that contained appropriate habitat for particular rare plants.

Probability of Species Occurrence All TEPS were considered for evaluation of effects resulting from the Proposed Action (Appendix A). Based on the review of all available information, the species listed in Table 1 have potential to occur or are documented in the action area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) website was used to determine which federally listed species may occur within the action area.

With the exception of the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Appalachian tiger beetle (Cicindela ancocisconensis), effects to the species in this table are discussed in the following section. While potential habitat for the peregrine falcon and Appalachian tiger beetle is present in the action area, the Project activities would have no effect on individuals or their habitats (See Appendix A for more details).

The federally-listed Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) was included in the IPaC-generated list although it is not known or believed to occur in the action area. Despite this, there are Standards and Guidelines in place to protect potential lynx habitat (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-14 through 2-15), which does exist in the action area. See Appendix B for a discussion of lynx habitat in the action area and how the Standards and Guidelines would be addressed under the Proposed Action.

Other TEPS species would not be impacted by the Proposed Action and therefore are not considered further in this analysis.

Effects Analysis of the Proposed Action For each species listed in Table 1, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are evaluated in this section. The spatial and temporal scale of the effects analysis are defined here.

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on TEPS species includes stands proposed for harvest and the immediate areas associated with the connected actions of road reconstruction and maintenance, landing construction and reconstruction, skid trails, expansion and maintenance of wildlife orchards and openings, and recreation projects. The Project Area encompasses approximately 9,993 acres. The temporal scope for direct and indirect effects on TEPS species is the time period that encompasses active harvest operations and connected actions because this is when species would most likely be affected by the proposed activities. This timeframe is estimated to continue for approximately ten to fifteen years after project activities begin. For recreation activities, the temporal scope for direct effects includes only the time when projects are

6 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest being implemented. For indirect effects, there is no time limit because activities that change recreational use patterns may effect species for the foreseeable future.

Table 1: TEPS that occur or may occur in the action area.

Species Status Probability of Occurrence

Northern long-eared bat Federally Known to occur in action area from acoustic surveys. Threatened Potential foraging and roosting habitat in mature stands and riparian areas. Woodland bats (little RFSS Known to occur in action area from acoustic surveys. brown bat, eastern small- Potential foraging and roosting habitat in mature stands and footed bat, tricolored bat) riparian areas. Northern bog lemming RFSS No known occurrences in action area. Potential habitat does occur in riparian areas and softwood stands. Peregrine Falcon RFSS No known occurrences in action area. Potential nesting and roosting habitat occurs on cliff areas with broad foraging habitat in the general vicinity. Wood Turtle RFSS Known to occur near Campton Campground. Turtles may be found in the vicinity or may move through the campground to access preferred upland habitats. Headwater Ameletus RFSS No known occurrences in action area. Potential habitat does Mayflies occur in headwater streams. Monarch butterfly and RFSS No known occurrences in action area but important habitat yellow-banded features (milkweed and other herbaceous, flowering plants) bumblebee do occur in openings, log landings, wetlands, and roadsides in the action area. Appalachian tiger beetle RFSS No known occurrences in action area. Potential habitat does occur on sandy banks of mid-sized rivers. Butternut RFSS Known to occur in the action area along Tripoli Road. In NH it is found in rich, moist, alluvial soils (floodplains) and rocky hillsides (talus) influenced by calcium-rich bedrock; also around old farmsteads. American ginseng RFSS Known to occur in the action area. Found on moist, rich or semi-rich deciduous woods, often rocky or on thick humus in colluvial settings.

The analysis area for cumulative effects for TEPS species resulting from the vegetation management components and connected actions of the project encompasses National Forest lands located inside the two Habitat Management Units (HMU) located within the Project Area: Cone Mountain and Tripoli West. This area was chosen because the habitat objectives for the HMUs provide a measurable assessment of how the Proposed Action contributes to the habitat objectives of the WMNF, as defined in the 2005 Forest Plan. This area is large enough to cover the home ranges of both wildlife and plant species and to account for effects to habitat connectivity and travel and migration corridors of some of the species discussed in this document. This large area also provides for the consideration of habitat diversity at the landscape level as well as recent or proposed projects near the Project Area that may affect habitat diversity. Activities on private land adjacent to these HMUs were also considered.

7 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

In some instances, a more defined cumulative effects analysis area is set based on a species’ life history. The cumulative effects analysis area of the northern long-eared bat, for instance, is delineated as all northern long-eared bat maternity habitat within one mile of the Project Area. See discussion on northern long-eared bat effects for how maternity habitat is defined and delineated. The Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) approach considers Canada lynx habitat at a landscape scale. LAU 11 is located within the Project Area and the map shows denning, suitable foraging, and unsuitable lynx habitat (Forest Plan definitions of Canada lynx habitat are based on age class and vegetation type, USDA Forest Service 2005b, Glossary, page 16, 17). The LAU 11 boundary will be used as the cumulative effects analysis area for the Canada lynx.

The temporal scope for cumulative effects for TEPS species is ten years in the past and fifteen years in the future (2008 to 2033) because this time period encompasses recent and active harvest operations and connected actions as well as reasonably foreseeable future actions that have or would occur concurrently within the cumulative effects analysis area. It also includes the timeframe when any regeneration harvests would move into a young age class.

Activities considered for the cumulative effects analysis include past timber sales, ongoing hazard tree removal, future timber stand improvement work, and future road infrastructure improvements. Federal Threatened, Endangered & Proposed Species This section considers the potential impacts of the project on the only federally threatened, endangered, or proposed species that may occur within the action area: the northern long-eared bat.

Northern Long-eared Bat

Life History and Occurrence Information The northern long-eared bat (NLEB; Myotis septentrionalis) is a wide-ranging species found in a variety of forested habitats during the summer. During the winter, individuals hibernate in caves, mines, and other locations. Daytime roost trees are typically hardwoods (predominately beech, maple, and birch) with cavities or loose bark (Sasse and Pekins 1996) that are at least three inches in diameter at breast height (USFWS 2016a). Studies on the WMNF found that NLEB prefer to roost in hardwoods below 2,000 feet in elevation (Sasse and Pekins 1996). In the WMNF, the mean distance between roosting and foraging areas was 602 meters (approximately 2000 feet), ranging from 60 to 1719 meters (approximately 200 feet to one mile) (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Foraging habitat generally consists of mature forest upland habitats, although wetlands, streams, and other waterbodies are sometimes considered important (Brooks 2009, Brooks and Ford 2005, Schirmacher et al. 2007, VanGorden 2017).

Maternity areas are an important habitat feature of NLEB summer habitat (Johnson et al. 2012, Sasse and Pekins 1996, Silvis et al. 2014). Maternity areas often contain several roost trees occupied by multiple females with their pups.

Northern long-eared bats have been documented throughout the WMNF. A recent species data summary provides a detailed account of this species’ natural history, population trends, and threats (USDA Forest Service 2014).

The most significant limiting factor for the northern long eared bat is white-nose syndrome (WNS) (USFWS 2013, USDA Forest Service 2014). WNS has been detected in bats in

8 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

hibernacula in many eastern states including New Hampshire and Maine (USDA Forest Service 2012). It has caused the deaths of millions of bats in the eastern United States and Canada (Perry 2013).

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects This effects analysis assumes that all Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, in particular those applicable to wildlife reserve trees (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 2-35), and the NLEB conservation measures developed by the Eastern Region of the USDA Forest Service (Sandeno 2015) will be followed.

The action area contains a variety of forest types that may provide suitable NLEB roosting habitat. The action area consists of mature northern hardwoods and spruce-fir intermixed with mixedwoods and aspen-birch. There are no known hibernacula within or adjacent to the action area.

Based on an analysis of the acoustic data, it was determined that the NLEB was likely present at 9 of 110 sites (8.2 percent) sampled in the project area (Prout 2018). These bats were likely foraging or traveling between foraging and roosting habitat. If the bats were adult females (which cannot be discerned by auditory calls), it is likely they belonged to at least one maternity colony. Based on an analysis of the acoustic data and the surrounding landscape, Forest Service biologists delineated two possible maternity areas with the highest likelihood of providing suitable maternity colony habitat. These maternity areas, named Hazelton and Mill Brook, overlap with each other slightly and extend into private land (Figure 3). See Appendix C for the rationale used to delineate these habitat features.

Harvesting trees greater than three inches diameter at breast height (DBH) with cavities or exfoliating bark occupied by NLEB could cause individuals to be displaced or killed. Direct effects are possible during the active, or non-hibernation, season (April 15 to October 31) with the greatest potential during the early spring and summer (April 15 to July 31) and especially when bats are pregnant or taking care of non-volant young (June 1 to July 31). NLEB emerge in early spring from hibernation with low fat reserves. Air temperatures are low which further increases their energy needs. Pregnant females need to find their maternity sites and foraging habitat quickly to successfully reproduce. This time of year is energy demanding, so direct effects could reduce reproductive success (Sasse and Pekins 1996, USFWS 2015).

Activities that might directly affect NLEB in the occupied portion of the action area include all activities that involve tree felling such as timber harvests, road reconstruction, and building new landings during the non-hibernation season. A maximum of 619 acres of tree felling could occur during the summer under the Proposed Action (Table 2). With populations reduced from WNS and ample roost trees available (see Sease and Prout 2015), the likelihood of a bat being in a tree when it is cut is low. Within the two maternity areas, no trees will be removed during June and July when the NLEB is most sensitive to such activities because young are unable to fly.

If displaced from a roost tree, an adult bat would likely relocate to an alternate site nearby. Displacement does not likely pose a major risk as some bats appear to be flexible in roost site selection and often only occupy roost trees for short periods of time (USDA Forest Service 2006).

The recreation projects are not likely to lead to direct effects to the NLEB. The overstory management at the campgrounds would be conducted while bats are hibernating. The Welch- Dickey Trailhead parking lot expansion and Smarts Brook mountain bike trail network activities would not involve the removal of potential roost trees.

9 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Figure 2: Delineated northern long-eared bat maternity areas within the action area.

10 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Table 2: Extent of tree felling during the NLEB active season1.

Activity Gross (acres) Net (acres)

Vegetation treatment Clearcut 165 165 Group selection 300 60 Overstory removal 12 12 Patch cut 118 45 Thinning 143 143 Timber stand improvement 174 174 Opening expansion2 <1 <1

Infrastructure Improvements New road 0.25 miles 1 Road reconstruction3 9.5 miles 12 New landings 8 total 6

Total 619 1 These numbers may change as silvicultural prescriptions are refined during the layout and implementation of individual timber sales, but the total net acreage would not increase. 2 Additional openings expansion is proposed but would be accomplished through commercial timber harvests and is included as part of the other vegetation treatments. Less than one acre would be treated non-commercially with hand tools. 3 Based on field experience, an estimated 50 percent of roads would need clearing during reconstruction and five feet on either side of the road would need to be cleared.

Indirect effects include those that affect bats through alteration of habitat, such as the removal of roost trees when bats are not present. There are numerous trees across the landscape that meet the criteria for potential roost trees (Sease and Prout 2015). Northern long-eared bats appear to seek out summer roost trees that have cavities or defects or trees that are nearly or newly dead. Dead trees are not harvested unless they pose a safety hazard during logging operations. However, some of the live trees removed by tree felling could be potential roost trees. All activities within the action area that involve tree felling in any season have the potential to reduce the number of roost trees available on the landscape.

With the population losses from WNS, plenty of unoccupied available roost trees are likely present throughout the area. It is estimated that there are approximately 94 potential roost trees per acre on the WMNF (Sease and Prout 2015). Certainly individual bats that are flexible in their choice of roost tree, such as males and non-reproductive females, could find numerous alternate roost trees across the landscape after harvest.

Tree felling could result in the loss of maternity roost habitat. The loss of primary or alternate roost trees could affect the suitability of an entire maternity site. Site fidelity is common in NLEB, and females often return to a maternity area over multiple years (USDA Forest Service 2014). Social interactions among colony members may be important in identifying potential new roosts (Silvis et al. 2014), especially for species occupying more ephemeral roost features such as snags. As roost trees deteriorate, new ones must take their place or the area will ultimately lose its suitability. Colonies with more suitable roosting and foraging habitats may be more structurally

11 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

stable than those where individuals have to disperse greater distances to locate new primary roosts (Silvis et al. 2014). If roost trees within a maternity area are lost, female bats emerging from hibernation would have to expend more energy searching for other suitable maternity roost habitat and suitable maternity colony mates.

NLEB may use habitat that has had some level of tree felling. Various studies have shown that NLEB willingly use and return to managed forest stands that have been harvested with various prescriptions (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001, Menzel et al. 2002, O’Keefe 2009, Owen et al. 2003, Perry and Thill 2007, Silvis et al. 2012, Timpone et al. 2010, Titchenell et al. 2011, and Silvis et al. 2014). Studies suggest that NLEB can persist at a maternity site with up to a 20 percent reduction of the roost trees associated with a maternity colony, which would be consistent with the ephemeral nature of snags (Silvis et al. 2014, Silvis et al. 2015). Research on the WMNF showed maternity roost trees were not all located closely together, but could be separated by hundreds of meters (Sasse 1995). In the action area, it is assumed that maternity roost trees are similarly distributed across each maternity site. Consequently, it is assumed that if no more than 20 percent of the suitable habitat is harvested in a maternity area, no more than 20 percent of the maternity roost trees would be cut and the colony would remain intact.

The maternity areas in the action area contain ample suitable roosting habitat. According to the National Land Cover Database (Homer et al. 2015), forested habitats, which include deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forests and forested wetlands, dominate the landscape within both maternity colonies (Table 3). Habitat that is considered unsuitable includes developed areas, cropland and pastures, grasslands, scrub-shrub, and open wetlands.

Table 3: Amount of suitable roosting within both NLEB maternity areas. Hazelton Mill Brook Total Area (acres) 2,258 3,700 Suitable Habitat (percent) 94.6 92.3 Total Suitable Habitat (acres) 2,138 3,418

Table 4 shows the amount of proposed tree removal activities on suitable habitat within both maternity areas. The estimated reduction in the number of suitable maternity trees resulting from project activities would be 9 percent and 2 percent for the Hazelton and Mill Brook maternity sites, respectively. Given that these number are below 20 percent, it is not anticipated that the level of proposed activities would disrupt either existing maternity area under the Proposed Action.

12 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Table 4: Impacts to maternity areas from tree removal activities.

Hazelton Mill Brook Treatment Gross Area Conversion Net Area Gross Area Conversion Net Area (acres) Factor1 (acres) (acres) Factor1 (acres) Clearcut 77 100% 77 41 100% 41 Group selection 246 22% 55 75 22% 17 Overstory removal 0 96% 11 1 96% 1 Patch clearcut 11 37% 4 0 37% 0 Patch clearcut/thinning 37 37% 14 0 37% 0 Shelterwood 11 100% 11 0 100% 0 Single tree/groups 21 37% 8 16 37% 6 Thinning 60 25% 15 0 25% 0 Timber stand improvement 24 25% 6 5 25% 1 Total loss of suitable maternity habitat 501 202 138 66

Total suitable habitat 2138 3418

Percent loss of maternity roosting habitat 9% 2% 1 These factors represent the total percentage of roosting habitat that would be lost due to the proposed silvicultural treatments. Although every tree won’t be removed during clearcuts, improvement cuts, and shelterwood cuts, it is assumed that all of the remaining trees would be unsuitable for roosting NLEBs because the species prefers trees within dense forests. The conversion factors for group selection cuts, overstory removal cuts, and patch clearcuts represent the ratio of net acreage to gross acreage of land proposed for these treatments across the action area. The conversion factors of the remaining treatments – single tree/groups, thinning, and timber stand improvement – are based on the silviculturist’s professional judgment and previous treatments conducted on the WMNF.

Harvesting may create travel corridors and small open areas for foraging which would represent a beneficial effect. There would be no indirect effects to winter habitat for NLEB, as there are no documented caves or other hibernacula within the action area.

Under the ESA, cumulative effects resulting from future state or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area must be considered. The FS is not aware of any such activities, although timber harvests and other vegetation management activities on non- federal land within the action area are likely to occur. The USFWS estimates up to 1.0 percent of the New Hampshire NLEB population will be disturbed and 0.1 percent of the pup population and less than 0.05 percent of the adult population will be harmed annually from the combination of timber harvest, prescribed fire, forest conversion, and wind turbine operation. Therefore, the vast majority of individuals and populations that survive WNS will be unaffected by these activities. This degree of take is not expected to lead to population-level declines in this species (USFWS 2016a). The cumulative loss of roosting habitat is also not anticipated to be adverse because the NLEB is not considered to be limited by the availability of such habitat (Sease and Prout 2015).

For the same reason, any cumulative effects from vegetation management on all lands within the action area in the past and in the future are not expected to be adverse. Additionally, it is unlikely that activities conducted under the Proposed Action in conjunction with activities on non-federal lands within the action area would affect more than 20 percent of suitable habitat in either maternity area.

13 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action may affect the NLEB, although there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016 (USFWS 2016a). Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule because it will not result from activities impacting known hibernacula or occupied maternity roost trees (50 CFR §17.40(o)). Therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the NLEB for this project. Regional Forester Sensitive Species This section considers the potential impacts of the project on RFSS that have the potential to occur within the action area.

Woodland Bats

Life History and Occurrence Information As with the NLEB, the three woodlands bats discussed here have been impacted by WNS. The eastern small-footed bat is the smallest and rarest bat in eastern North America, but perhaps among the hardiest with respect to winter temperatures and preferred hibernating conditions. Summer habitat for small-footed bats is mostly in hilly or mountainous terrain where it roosts in fractures and cracks in exposed rock on ridges, rock faces, and outcrops. Summer roost sites also include caves, mines, and buildings. It has been observed foraging over ponds and streams (Best and Jennings 1997, Amelon and Burhans 2006).

Before the advent of WNS, the little brown bat was abundant and common across most of North America from Alaska to Nova Scotia and south to Florida and central Mexico. The little brown bat inhabits a wide variety of habitats, ranging from margins and openings along forests to fragmented agricultural landscapes to suburban areas. Little brown bats roost during summer in barns or attics, tree cavities, and other places that remain dark throughout the day. These bats generally feed over open water, at the margins of bodies of water and forests, in clearings, and along open forest roads (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Kunz and Reichard 2010).

Tri-colored bats hibernate in parts of hibernacula where temperatures are warmer and more stable. They are among the first bats to enter hibernation each fall and among the last to emerge in spring. During summer, tri-colored bats roost in rock crevices, caves, barns and other buildings, and tree foliage, frequently in edge habitats near open water and areas of mixed agricultural use. This species has a relatively slow, erratic pattern of flight, implying that they are adapted to foraging in canopy gaps, over water, and in forest edge habitats (Fujita and Kunz 1984, Hamlin 2004, USDA Forest Service 2006).

A detailed account of the acoustic survey effort targeted at detecting the NLEB is available in the Project Record (Prout 2018). All three species of woodland bats were recorded within the action area during the survey effort. Of the three, the little brown bat was the most commonly encountered species (recorded at 36 of the 110 surveys sites [32.7 percent]). The eastern small- footed bat (5 sites or 4.5 percent) and tri-colored bat (1 site or 0.9 percent) were less frequently recorded during surveys.

14 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

The most likely limiting factors and threats on the WMNF include WNS, disturbance of summer roosts especially by rock climbers (for small-footed bats), habitat alteration to potential roost sites or water sources, and direct mortality over roads.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects The action area contains large trees with cavities and/or exfoliating bark as potential summer roosting habitat for woodland bats. Several perennial streams, small wetlands on private lands, riparian areas, forest roads and trails, and openings in the action area provide foraging habitat and flyway travel corridors for woodland bats.

It is unlikely that winter tree removal activities would directly affect woodland bats in northern New Hampshire because they would be hibernating. The felling of trees during the bats’ active season could cause direct effects in the form of disturbance, displacement, or death if individual woodland bats are roosting in the trees being felled. This is more of a concern for the little brown and tricolored bats than the eastern small-footed bat, which is more likely to roost among rocks and cliffs.

Adult bats may be able to fly from trees before they are felled, however young may not be capable of flight. The two species that typically roost in trees often change maternity roosts. Mothers are therefore capable of carrying the young for a few weeks after birth. Young are capable of flight within 23 to 30 days (Burnett and Kunz 1982; USDA Forest Service 2006). Therefore, young are vulnerable to timber harvest and other tree felling activities for a relatively short time.

Tree removal activities, including timber harvest and connected actions, could result in the removal of roost trees. Even if bats are not present, this loss of habitat represents an indirect effect. As was the case with the NLEB, it is not believed that the woodland bats discussed here are limited by availability of roosting habitat.

While foraging habitat may be impacted by project activities, these impacts may be beneficial since all three species forage over open habitats. Bats appear to follow physical land features such as roads, trails, streams, and ridge lines. Therefore, there may be indirect beneficial effects to foraging habitat resulting from the creation of new roads and trails, including skid trails, under the Proposed Action. There would be no indirect effects to foraging habitat adjacent to riparian areas and wetlands as these areas are protected (USDA Forest Service 2005, pages 2-24 to 2-26).

These three bat species have habitat requirements similar to the NLEB, although the eastern small-footed bat is less likely to be found roosting in the action area because it prefers roosting in areas containing exposed rock. Cumulative impacts associated with the removal of potential roost trees and impacts to roosting habitat for the little brown and tri-colored bats are similar to those of the NLEB.

Determination of Effects Tree removal activities under the Proposed Action that would take place when bats are not present (November 1 through April 14) would have no adverse effect on bats. Tree removal that occurs during summer, in particular June and July, poses the highest risk to bats. Since some summer tree removal within potentially occupied habitat is proposed, individual bats may be disturbed, displaced, or killed. Therefore, the Proposed Action may impact individual eastern small-footed, little brown, and/or tri-colored bats, but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

15 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Northern Bog Lemming

Life History and Occurrence Information The life history, habitat requirements, known occurrences, and limiting factors for the northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphaginicola) are described in the Biological Evaluation for the White Mountain National Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2002a, USDA Forest Service 2005b, Appendix G, pages 232-234). The northern bog lemming has been found in moist mixed and coniferous forest, sphagnum bogs, and alpine sedge meadows at elevations ranging from approximately 1,300 to 4,500 feet. They appear to prefer site conditions that are moist with dense ground cover. This species uses burrows above and below the ground and may construct nests up to several inches below the ground.

No northern bog lemmings have been documented near the action area. The one recent documented occurrence of a northern bog lemming on the WMNF was in a harvested red spruce/fir/hemlock stand with a ground cover of moss and poorly drained soil. Limiting factors and threats are unknown, though habitat appears to be stable.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Potential habitat within the action area includes mixedwood and spruce-fir areas with dense ground cover near seeps, vernal pools, riparian habitat around ponds, wetlands, and riparian areas along perennial and intermittent streams and swamp areas. Northern bog lemmings would most likely occur in blocks of contiguous habitat rather than in scattered wetland depressions. Despite some habitat features resembling potential northern bog lemming habitat in the action area, the likelihood of an occurrence is assumed to be very low as there are only two historic and one extant occurrence of the species on the WMNF.

Direct effects may occur when heavy machinery compacts snow or soil potentially disturbing, displacing, or killing individuals during timber harvest, road construction, landing construction, installation of temporary crossings, and skid trail construction. These activities may also lead to indirect effects by altering habitat. The potential for these effects is minimized since the wetter portions of harvest units would be excluded and there would be a 25-foot no-cut buffer along all perennial streams, ponds, and vernal pools as per the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-24 to 26 and 2-30 to 32). Additionally, skid trails and landings would be designed to avoid wet areas. There is some potential for temporary disturbance in riparian areas during the installation and removal of temporary crossings and culverts. The duration of disturbance would be short and the amount of riparian habitat impacted by these activities would be minimal.

Past, present, and future actions associated with vegetation management and connected actions associated with road, skid trail, or landing work could result or have resulted in northern bog lemmings being disturbed, displaced, or killed. Generally, areas designated for harvest and the associated transportation system exclude wet areas. Other projects in the analysis area may have resulted in minor disturbance to riparian habitat, such as the maintenance of snowmobile trails. The potential for any effects to the northern bog lemming is very low as this species is extremely rare on the WMNF and in New England. Moreover, implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that protect wetlands and riparian habitat should provide adequate habitat for this species while minimizing the risk of disturbing individual Northern bog lemmings or their associated habitat.

16 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

It is unlikely that the effects of the Proposed Action in conjunction with past and future actions in the analysis area would result in cumulative effects to the northern bog lemming. The species has persisted on the WMNF over time despite habitat altering activities on the landscape (USDA Forest Service 2005b, Appendix G, Page 233), albeit in low numbers. This seems to indicate that the level of activities that have occurred on the WMNF and adjacent private lands have not had an adverse effect on occupancy of the northern bog lemming over time.

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action may impact individual northern bog lemmings, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Wood Turtle

Life History and Occurrence Information The wood turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) uses a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitats that may vary geographically, as well as among individuals (Kaufmann 1992, Compton et al. 2002). Throughout their range, wood turtles spend the winter hibernating in slow-moving streams, rivers, and some ponds, although no evidence of lakeshore use is known. Sites frequently used for hibernation include undercut banks, muskrat burrows, root masses along stream edges, and submerged logs. In the spring (March and April), turtles emerge from aquatic wintering areas. Breeding occurs in shallow streams.

In early summer (May through July), females search for a site with open canopy and sandy or gravelly substrate in which to excavate their nest. Nest sites are selected near water, but also elevated at least one meter above the normal water level, in very sandy sites that are mostly bare of vegetation and exposed to solar radiation (Buech et al. 1997). In addition to natural nesting sites such as sandbars, cut banks, or other eroded features, manmade sites such as gravel pits, railroad beds, and road grades have also been used (Brooks et al. 1992, Buech et al. 1997).

During their active season, which runs generally from March through mid-October in the northeast, they have been found foraging and nesting in uplands up to, and occasionally more than, 3,300 feet (1000 meters) from the streams in which they hibernate, although they typically stay within 1,000 feet of these streams (Bowen and Gillingham 2004, Harding and Bloomer 1979, MNHESP 2007, Parren 2001, VRAA 2017).

The wood turtle is known to occur at one site in the action area within the lower Mad River watershed and near Campton Campground. They are unlikely to occur elsewhere in the action area because of the absence of slow-moving streams with sandy nesting sites nearby.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Any activity that will take place within 3,300 feet of the known wood turtle occurrence would have a reasonable chance to impact the species directly or indirectly, although activities occurring within 1,000 feet have the highest likelihood for effects. The only activity under the Proposed Action that would take place this close to the known wood turtle occurrence is the Campton Campground overstory management. The campground is located within 1,000 feet of the known occurrence.

No direct impacts to the wood turtle are anticipated. The overstory management would occur after the campground closes for the year (the Tuesday after Columbus Day) and before winter (Giles 2018). Both adults and newly hatched wood turtles would have moved back to the stream

17 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

by this time to prepare for hibernation (Bowen and Gillingham 2004). It is unlikely that newly hatched turtles would be found in the campground because there is no nesting habitat in the campground, nor is the campground located between nesting habitat and the occupied waterbody.

Indirect impacts are not likely because the sites where trees would be removed do not provide adequate nesting or foraging habitat. Any turtles that may be found within the campground are likely passing through from the nearby stream to higher-quality upland foraging habitats.

Because no direct or indirect effects to the wood turtle are anticipated, no cumulative effects are expected.

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action would have no effect on the wood turtle.

Headwater Ameletus Mayflies

Life History and Occurrence Information The Ameletus genus of mayfly ranges from southeastern Canada to the northeastern United States (USDA Forest Service 2005c, USDA ForestService 2005d). A. browni has been found in cold, well-oxygenated, fast-moving headwater streams with a cobble/gravel/sand substrate where the drainage is less than ten square miles. It appears to prefer riffles where bankfull width is less than ten feet. It has been found in lateral areas of the stream where there is overhanging vegetation along the banks. It appears to prefer a relatively high pH (Chandler 2009). Larval dispersal is limited by drainage systems as they are entirely aquatic. Recent surveys of some streams on the WMNF found A. browni to occur primarily in first order streams in April and early May. Eggs would likely hatch in early spring.

A. tertius has been found to inhabit larger rivers (Chandler 2009). It has been found in first through fourth order streams with a boulder/cobble/sand substrate. It has been located in erosional sections with secondary depositional areas, in larger rivers and streams, on submerged grasses with detritus along margins of riffles, and in transitional areas. This mayfly prefers a relatively high pH and cold streams, but not as cold as those preferred by A. browni. A. tertius larval dispersal is limited by the extent of drainage systems as they are entirely aquatic.

The population trends of both species are unknown. Limiting factors may include alteration of stream or riparian habitat that would increase water temperature and/or a change in the pH (USDA Forest Service 2005c, USDA Forest Service 2005d).

Neither of the Ameletus mayflies have been recorded in any of the drainages in the action area. A. browni may occur in the lower gradient areas of the cold headwater streams in the action area while A. tertius may occur in larger perennial streams.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Increases in stream temperature, sedimentation into streams, and changes in pH and aluminum in streams could negatively affect both species of Ameletus mayflies. The implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines protects perennial streams from increased temperature by maintaining a 25-foot no-harvest buffer (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-24 to 2-26). There may be a temporary increase in erosion into perennial streams during road construction and skid trail construction near streams and installation and removal of temporary crossings under the Proposed Action. Implementing Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as well as meeting or

18 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

exceeding New Hampshire State Best Management Practices (BMPs) would minimize sedimentation in streams (USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 2-24 to 2-26, 2-29, and 2-30 to 2-32, New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands 2016). Potential effects to the Ameletus mayfly species from increased sedimentation would be minor under the Proposed Action. Harvest activities are not expected to alter the pH of perennial streams as less than fifteen percent of any watershed would be clearcut. Studies have indicated that clear-cutting ten to fifteen percent of a watershed did not measurably change the basic chemistry of the major first and second order perennial streams in the watershed (Martin et al. 1986).

Past, present, and future projects could result in temporary increases in erosion into perennial streams in the analysis area during ongoing road and trail maintenance and temporary bridge placement. These effects would be minor as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and State of New Hampshire BMPs provide guidance to maintain filter strips adjacent to streams as well as design criteria for roads, skid trails, landing locations, and crossings (USDA Forest Service 2005b, New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands 2016). Canopy cover adjacent to streams, gradient, stream width, and pH are not expected to change from these actions as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines buffer and protect riparian habitat along perennial streams on National Forest lands (USDA Forest Service, 2005b, Chapter 2, pages 24-26 and pages 30 -32).

Other past, present, and future projects in the action area would not have any effect, as they do not occur near any perennial streams.

It is unlikely the effects of the Proposed Action in conjunction with the past and future actions within the cumulative effects analysis area would result in cumulative effects to either A. browni or A. tertius. It is expected that suitable habitat would be maintained on the WMNF and adjacent private lands in the future.

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action may impact individuals of both mayfly species, but would not likely cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Yellow-banded Bumblebee and Monarch Butterfly

Life History and Occurrence Information The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and yellow-banded bumblebee (Bombus terricola) are pollinator species that require ample floral resources throughout the growing season. Monarch larva feed only on milkweed (Asclepias spp.) while adults are generalists in terms of their nectar sources. The species migrates south for the winter and is generally gone from the New Hampshire landscape by mid-October before returning in May (Kirschbaum et. al N.D.). The yellow-banded bumblebee will also feed on and collect nectar and pollen from any plant species that is flowering at the time. Unlike the monarch, it is present in Vermont during the winter; mated queens will hibernate in either rotting logs or loose, bare soil or sand. In the spring, the queens will emerge and create colonies in rodent burrows, tree cavities, rock piles, or hollows or cracks in other media available on the landscape (Hatfield et. al. 2015). While queens, workers, and males are not active during the exact same time periods, the species is generally active from April through October (McFarland et al. 2015).

The yellow-banded bumblebee is known to occur on the WMNF. In a recent study, 7.2 percent of bumblebees collected across the WMNF were identified as yellow-banded bumblebees. Out of the 137 species collected, only one was more relatively abundant (Tucker and Rehan 2017).

19 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Although none of the sixteen surveys sites were located within the action area, it is assumed that the species is present in the action area where suitable foraging and wintering habitat exists. Veit (2012) also documented individuals in permanent upland openings.

The monarch butterfly is known to occur throughout the WMNF. Milkweed is abundant in managed openings, roadsides, and other open habitats.

Neither species is likely to occur within the interior forest as these areas are unlikely to support the floral resources required by both species.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Direct impacts to both species could occur from the maintenance and expansion of upland openings, including log landings, and roadsides if individuals are present when activities take place. While adults may be able to fly away from equipment as it approaches, monarch caterpillars and bumblebee colonies, if present on the site, would face heavy mortality.

The activities described above would also pose indirect impacts since the habitat would be unsuitable until the next growing season. However, overall, indirect impacts to both species would be beneficial. The expansion and continued maintenance of openings and maintenance of roadsides would perpetuate the habitat into the future, while timber harvest would temporarily create new habitat since the forb and shrub species that colonize harvested areas would provide floral resources that did not exist prior to tree removal.

Past, present, and future vegetation management and connected actions associated with vegetation management including road and landing construction, reconstruction, or maintenance as well as ongoing maintenance of existing roads, invasive plant control, and prescribed fire in permanent wildlife openings in the cumulative effects analysis area could result in the loss of some existing herbaceous vegetation used by this species. These effects would be of short duration, as these areas would revegetate upon completion of these activities. It is unlikely other projects in the analysis area would affect these species as these activities would occur in habitat that is not likely to be suitable. Some projects likely to benefit potential bumblebee habitat include the creation of new landings, roads, or larger canopy gaps associated with timber harvest activities.

The Forest Service does take measures to minimize the chance for and the magnitude of the direct impacts associated with the maintenance of permanent upland openings. Prescribed burning operations are typically conducted early in the spring before bumblebees emerge and monarchs arrive. Mowing and other mechanical treatments are primarily conducted in October and November to lessen the impact on potential individuals and their habitat. When spraying herbicides to treat infestations of non-native invasive plants, it is standard operating procedure to avoid insects.

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action may impact individuals of both species but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

20 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Butternut

Life History and Occurrence Information The butternut (Juglans cinerea) ranges from New Brunswick through southwestern Quebec and southern Ontario to southeastern Minnesota, south to scattered populations in northwestern Arkansas and northern Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina (Schultz 2003). In New Hampshire, butternut is found at old homesteads and on rich or semi-rich soils including floodplains, talus slopes, and other forest gaps and edges with adequate light. On the WMNF, butternut is found in scattered locations at elevations below 1500 feet, mostly on the Pemigewasset and Saco Ranger Districts.

Butternut is a monoecious, wind-pollinated (Schultz 2003), and relatively short-lived tree among hardwoods, reaching 75 to 100 year maximum ages. Butternut bears seed at age 20 with optimum seed production occurring at age 30 to 60. When ripe, butternut seeds are dispersed by gravity and squirrels or other rodents (Schultz 2003). Mammals don’t transport nuts very far (SVE 2002). Floodplain habitat indicates a likelihood that some seed migration occurs during flood events (Williams 2002). Butternut were also dispersed by Native Americans and early settlers, giving rise to its association with old homesteads, even in areas that have been long revegetated (SVE 2002). Butternuts remain dormant up to 2 years until exposed to temperatures of 68-86 F for 90 to 120 days. Butternut is capable of vegetative reproduction and can also be propagated by grafting (Rink 1990).

Butternut is extremely susceptible to a canker fungus of unknown origin, Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum. Since its identification in 1967, the canker fungus S. clavigignenti-juglandacearum has greatly reduced populations of butternut throughout the tree’s range (NatureServe 2018), and killing mature, immature and seedling trees (Prey and Kuntz 1982). The canker spores are spread by rainwater and possibly insects (Ostry et al 1994). The fungus kills the tree by forming cankers on all woody parts of a tree. The cankers eventually coalesce and girdle the tree (Tisserat and Kuntz 1981). The canker is thought to be an introduced species; putative resistance in butternut is rare, suggesting that the two species did not evolve together. Asian species of Juglandaceae show much higher levels of resistance (Schultz 2003).

Historically, butternut was abundant in parts of the Midwest and common in the Northeast (Schultz 2003). Prior to the spread of the canker, butternut was an important food source for wildlife, especially in the northern part of its range. White-tailed deer, squirrels, cottontail rabbits, and other rodents eat the mast of butternut (Strode 1978). Now butternut is uncommon to rare in many areas, and most trees are infected with the canker (NatureServe 2018). Williams (2002) noted 60 percent infection among 25 trees north of Tripoli Road on the WMNF.

Although the amount of old farmland habitat has decreased in northern New England over the last several decades, resulting in succession to more vigorous, longer-lived and shade-tolerant species, habitat loss is not considered a limiting factor rangewide: the threat of succession is localized and negligible compared to loss from the canker.

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Butternut was documented at a single location along Tripoli Road at the edge of the Project Area. Numerous trees were documented north of Tripoli Road in the former Tripoli East Project Area in 2002 (SVE 2002). It is probable that the butternut along Tripoli Road derived from nearby trees in openings or old habitation sites. It is possible that the individual could be directly impacted by road maintenance activities, mowing, or vehicular accident. Transplanting the sapling to a more

21 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

suitable opening nearby may be attempted prior to implementation of the project to decrease the chances of accidental damage. If transplanting is deemed infeasible, road maintenance staff will be made aware of the location to avoid damage to the sapling.

Heavy machinery could negatively impact undiscovered individuals in other parts of the project area, resulting in damage or death. Undiscovered individuals could be indirectly positively impacted by increased light conditions to the forest floor after completion of harvest, creating appropriate habitat conditions for butternut germination or growth response of established saplings. The potential for unknown individuals to be impacted is low, as botanical surveys did not find butternut in other areas of the Project Area with suitable habitat.

Determination of Effects The Proposed Action may impact a single individual of butternut but would not cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. The effects of the Proposed Action are not demonstrably greater than the No Action alternative because vehicular traffic and road maintenance would occur regardless, and butternut canker remains by far the greatest long term threat to all individuals rangewide.

American Ginseng

Life History and Occurrence Information Northern New England, including the WMNF, is at the northeastern edge of the American Ginseng’s (Panax quinquefolius) range. Within New Hampshire and Maine, occurrences are concentrated in or around the WMNF, making it central to the state ranges. The distribution, life history, and habitat requirements for American ginseng are described in the Species Data Collection Form for this species, which was developed during the Forest Plan revision effort (USDA Forest Service 2002b).

There is no evidence that Panax quinquefolius was ever a common plant in New England. This is a long-lived species that takes several years to mature. It requires cold temperatures during the winter months to prompt the seed to break dormancy. In the Northeast, it is found growing in shady northern hardwood forest on a wide range of sites, but most often under sugar maple in rich or semi-rich hardwood forests. It requires adequate moisture, but does not inhabit wet hollows or swamps (USDA Forest Service 2005b, Appendix G, pp. 153-157). Plants usually occur under a closed canopy, sometimes on slopes and ravines. They may occur on rich soils with limestone or marble parent material (NatureServe 2018), or other calcium-bearing rock types. It prefers high tree density and an open to moderately shrubby understory (Anderson et al. 1993). Recommended light levels to maximize growth range from 8-30% of full sunlight, while high light intensity reduces growth and can cause early senescence (Anderson et al. 2002). Limiting factors include limited suitable habitat, extensive clearing of forest habitats, trampling, grazing by deer and moose, digging of its roots for commercial sale, the small population sizes of most populations, gravity-dispersed seeds, and climate change.

Occurrences of this species were either previously known or newly located during Project Area surveys. Previously documented populations were resurveyed by a qualified botanist and population location and extent of individuals and habitat were verified. Suitable habitat does exist in other locations within the project area as well. These additional areas were surveyed by a qualified individual at an appropriate time of the season and no new populations or individuals were located within these areas.

22 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Habitat Suitability and Analysis of Effects Ginseng was recorded in several locations across the Project Area. Harvest units have been situated to avoid all known American ginseng populations. As such, there would be no direct or indirect effects to known populations of American ginseng under the proposed action. It is possible that individuals could be directly impacted if heavy machinery operating in the snow free season impacted habitats containing undiscovered individuals. Undiscovered individuals could be indirectly impacted by increased light conditions to the forest floor after completion of harvest. However, the potential for unknown individuals to be impacted is low, as botanical surveys did not find ginseng in other areas of the Project Area with suitable habitat.

All other proposed activities under the Action Alternative would have, at most, indirect effects but no direct effects on ginseng, as these projects are not within known ginseng habitat.

Past and proposed timber harvest, road and landing construction, re-construction, as well as ongoing maintenance of existing roads in the cumulative effects analysis area during the snow free season may have negatively affected ginseng by displacing individuals. Actions that open up the canopy and increase sunlight could indirectly affect ginseng individuals or populations by creating unfavorable light conditions. Known and possibly unknown populations in unmanaged areas would continue to exist in the project area following implementation. Unmanaged areas would not be impacted by implementation and may support establishment of new Ginseng colonies. Some managed areas (i.e., single tree selection areas) have the potential to be future colonization sites for American ginseng.

There are known populations of ginseng in the project area. None of the known sites occur in proposed harvest areas. Additional suitable areas were surveyed by a qualified individual at an appropriate time of year and no new populations or individuals were located in areas proposed for harvest.

Much of the private land adjacent to the Project Area has not been surveyed for rare plants. The WMNF does not have access to information on private lands, but it is presumed based on our general knowledge of the landscape that there is likely suitable habitat present in some areas. There is some potential that recent harvesting in these areas may have affected unidentified populations or potential habitat.

Hikers and hunters can trample plants, but there are no trails near the known plant populations; therefore, the likelihood of trampling from a hunter is discountable.

Deer are known to browse on ginseng plants. Deer browse constitutes a significant threat in the central part of the plant’s range (McGraw et al. 2013) where deer densities are high. Deer populations, however, are very low within the cumulative effects analysis area (NHFGD 2015) and browse pressure is presumed to be a less substantive threat here in northern New England.

Determination of Effects Based on review of the best available science, the No Action Alternative would have no impact on American ginseng (existing habitat conditions would be unchanged), and the Action Alternative may impact individual American ginseng plants but would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

23 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

References Amelon, S. and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation Assessment: Myotis leibii (Eastern Small- Footed Myotis) in the Eastern United States. Pages 57-68 in Frank R. Thompson III, ed., Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 pp. Anderson, R., J. Fralish, J. Armstrong, and P. Benjamin. 1993. The ecology and biology of Panax quinquefolius L. (Araliaceae) in Illinois. Am. Midl. Nat. 129:357-372. Anderson, R.C., M.R. Anderson, and G. Houseman. 2002. Wild American ginseng. Native Plants Journal 3(2): 93-105. Best, T. L. and J. B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian Species 547: 1-6. Bowen, K. D. and J. C. Gillingham. 2005. R9 species conservation assessment for wood turtle – Glyptemys insculpta. Prepared for the Eastern Region of the USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. Burnett, C. D. and T. H. Kunz, T.H.1982. Growth rates and age estimation in Eptesicus fuscus and comparison with Myotis lucifugus. Journal of Mammalogy 63:33-41. Brooks, R. J., C. M. Shilton, G. P. Brown, and N. W. S. Quinn. 1992. Body size, age distribution, and reproduction in a northern population of wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta). Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 462 -469. Brooks, R. T. 2009. Habitat-associated and temporal patterns of bat activity in a diverse forest landscape of southern New England, USA. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:529-545. Brooks, R. T. and W. M. Ford. 2005. Bat activity in a forest landscape of central Massachusetts. Northeastern Naturalist 12(4):447-462. Chandler, D. 2009. Aquatic insect survey in White Mountain National Forest, 2009. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. Compton, B. W., J. M. Rhymer, and M. McCollough. 2002. Habitat selection by wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology 83:833-843. Fenton, M., and R. M. R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species 142: 1-8.

Fujita, M. S. and T. H. Kunz. 1984. Pipistrellus subflavus. Mammalian Species No. 228. American Society of Mammalogists. 6 pp.

Giles, T. (Assistant District Ranger - Recreation & Wilderness, Pemigewasset Ranger District). 2018. Personal communication via email to Brett Hillman, Assistant District Ranger - Wildlife, Pemigewasset Ranger District, September 27, 2018.

Hamlin, M. 2004. Pipistrellus subflavus (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed October 17, 2018 at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Pipistrellus_subflavus/

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, & S. Colla. 2015. Bombus terricola. The IUCN Red List of threatened species 2015: e.T44937505A46440206. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 2.RLTS.T44937505A46440206.en. Downloaded on 22 October 2018.

24 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Homer, C. G., J. A. Dewitz, L. Yang, S. Jin, P. Danielson, G. Xian, J. Coulston, N. D. Herold, J. D. Wickham, and K. Megown. 2015. Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States - Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 81(5):345-354.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication RI-13-19, Missoula, MT. 128 pp.

Johnson, J. B., W. M. Ford, and J. W. Edwards. 2012. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231.

Kaufmann, J. H. 2004. Habitat use by wood turtles in central Pennsylvania. Journal of Herpetology 26(3):315-321.

Kirschbaum, K., S. Trull, J. Kudell-Ekstrum, M. Brzeskiewicz, M. Lechner. No date. Monarch Butterfly Conservation Strategy for the Eastern Region of the USDA Forest Service. 45 pp. plus appendices.

Kunz, T.H. and J.D. Reichard. 2010. Status review of the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and determination that immediate listing under the Endangered Species Act is scientifically and legally warranted. Boston University’s Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston, MA. 30 pp.

Lacki, M. J. and J. H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-roost characteristics of northern bats in mixed mesophytic forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:482-488

Martin, C. W., R. S. Pierce, G. E. Likens, F. H. Bormann. 1986. Clearcutting affects stream chemistry in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. Research Paper NE-579. 12 pp.

McFarland, K.P., L. Richardson, and S. Zahendra. 2015. Vermont Bumble Bee Survey. Vermont Center for Ecostudies – Vermont Atlas of Life. Retrieved from http://val.vtecostudies.org. 26 October 2017.

MNHESP (Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program). 2007. Massachusetts forestry conservation management practices for wood turtles. Version 2007.1 (revised December 2016). Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.

Menzel, M.A., S.F. Owen, W.M. Ford, J.W. Edwards, P.B. Wood, B.R. Chapman, and K.V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian Mountains. Forest Ecology Management 155:107-114.

NatureServe. 2018. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.

25 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

New Hampshire Division of Forest and Lands. 2016. New Hampshire Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations. Concord, NH. 90 pp.

NHFGD (New Hampshire Fish and Game Department). 2015. New Hampshire White-Tailed Deer Assessment. Concord, NH. 168 pp.

O'Keefe, J.M. 2009. Roosting and foraging ecology of forest bats in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. PhD Dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. Ostry, M.E.; Mielke, M.E.; and Skilling, D.D. 1994. Butternut-strategies for managing a threatened tree. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-165. St. Paul MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, J. W. Edwards, and P. B. Wood. 2003. Home-range size and habitat use by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist 150(2):352-359.

Parren, S. G. 2013. A Twenty-five year study of the wood turtle (Glyptemys Insculpta) in Vermont: movements, behavior, injuries, and death. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8(1):176–190.

Perry, R. W. 2013. White-nose syndrome in bats: an overview of current knowledge for land managers. Gen Tech Rep SRS-184. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 9 p.

Perry, R.W. and R.E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long-eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247:220-226.

Prey, A.J. and Kuntz, J.E. 1982. The distribution and impact of butternut canker in Wisconsin. Prout, L. 2018. Wanosha Integrated Resource Project: bat acoustic survey report. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 7 November 2018. 365 pp.

Rink, G. 1990. Juglans cinerea L. Butternut. Silvics of North America Volume 2. Hardwoods Agric. Handb. 654:386-389.

Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 pp.

Sandeno, C. 2015. Programmatic Biological Assessment Northern Long-Eared Bat for Land and Resource Management Plans of the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Region. USDA Forest Service Eastern Regional Office, Milwaukee, WI. 219 pp.

Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54 pp. and Appendices.

Sasse, D. B. and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Pages 91-101 in Bats and Forestry symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, editors). British Columbia Ministry of Forests working paper 23/1996, Victoria, Canada.

26 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Schirmacher, M. R., S. B. Castleberry, W. M. Ford, and K. V. Miller. 2007. Habitat associations of bats in South-central West Virginia. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 61:46-52. Schultz, J. 2003. Conservation Assessment for Butternut or White walnut (Juglans cinerea) L. USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. Sease, J. and L. Prout. 2015. Biological assessment for ongoing project activities with determinations of no effect or may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the northern long-eared bat on the Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forest. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 2 March 2015. 120 pp.

Silvis, A., W.M. Ford, E.R. Britzke and J.B. Johnson. 2014. Association, roost use and simulated disruption of Myotis septentrionalis maternity colonies. Behavioral Processes 103:283– 290.

Silvis, A., W.M. Ford, E.R. Britzke, N.R. Beane, and J B. Johnson. 2012. Forest succession and maternity roost selection by Myotis septentrionalis in a mesophytic hardwood forest. International Journal of Forestry Research, Volume 2012, Article ID 148106, 8 pp. Strode, D. D. 1978. Butternut/Juglans cinerea L. in A practical field method of site evaluation for eight important southern hardwoods. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report SO-14. Baker and Broadfoot. SVE Panel. 2002. GMNF/WMNF species viability evaluation expert panel for upland forest plants. Panel held June 3-4, 2002, Concord, NH. Timpone, J. C., J. G. Boyles, K. L. Murray, D. P. Aubrey, and L. W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting habits of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) and Northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). The American Midland Naturalist 163(1):115-123. Tisserat, N.A. and J. E. Kuntz. 1981. Epidemiology of butternut canker. Gen. Tech.Report NC- 74. Black walnut for the future. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. Titchenell, M. A., R. A. Williams, and S. D. Gehrt. 2011. Bat response to shelterwood harvests and forest structure in oak-hickory forests. Forest Ecology and Management 262:980-988 Tucker, E. M. and S. M. Rehan. 2017. High elevation refugia for Bombus terricola (Hymenoptera: Apidae) conservation and wild bees of the White Mountain National Forest. Journal of Insect Science 17(1):4;1-10. USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Species data collection form – Northern bog lemming (Synaptomys borealis sphagnicola). Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 18 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2002b. Species Viability Evaluation: Panax quinquefolius. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the White Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2005c. Species data collection form – Ameletus browni. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. 10 pp.

27 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

USDA Forest Service. 2005d. Species data collection form – Ameletus tertius. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Laconia, NH. 11 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Conservation assessment for five bat species in the Eastern United States. Edited by Frank R. Thompson III, General Technical Report NC 260. St. Paul, MN. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Canada lynx analysis unit (LAU) mapping and habitat designation for the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire and Maine. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 8 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2012. White Mountain National Forest review of new information and Supplemental Information Report for white-nose syndrome. October 2012. Unpublished report. Campton, NH. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Northern long-eared bat species data summary. Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. 42 pp. USFWS. 2009. Revised designation of critical habitat for the contiguous US distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Feb. 24, 2009 Federal Register Notice. USFWS. 2013. Proposed Rule. 12-Month finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as endangered or threatened species; listing the Northern long-eared bat as endangered. Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 191. October 21, 2013. USFWS. 2015. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Threatened species status for the northern long-eared bat with 4(d) rule: Final rule and Interim rule. Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 63. April 2. 2015. USFWS. 2016a. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the northern long-eared bat and activities excepted from take prohibitions. 5 January 2016. 109 pp.

USFWS. 2016b. Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidelines. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2016IndianaBatSu mmerSurveyGuidelines11April2016.pdf. 48 pp. USFWS. 2017. Range-wide Indiana bat summer survey guidelines. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2017INBASumme rSurveyGuidelines9May2017.pdf. 48 pp.

USFWS. 2018. Range-wide Indiana bat survey guidelines. Available: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/inba/surveys/pdf/2018RangewideIB atSurveyGuidelines.pdf. 62 pp.

VanGorden, K.D. 2017. The role of wetlands as habitat for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. MS Thesis. Plymouth State University. Plymouth, New Hampshire.

Veit, M. 2012. 2011 WMNF Bee Survey Summary. Unpublished report, White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH. 28 January 2012. 6 pp. VRAA (Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas). 2017. Glyptemys insculpta, wood turtle. Available online: http://vtherpatlas.org/spp_pages/sppG-insculpta.php

28 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Williams, J. R. 2002. Personal knowledge from John R. Williams based on plant survey efforts in 1990, 2000, and 2002.

29 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Appendix A: Effects Evaluation Summary This appendix incorporates information from pre-field and field review of federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species and Regional Forester Sensitive Species within the Wanosha Integrated Resource Project.

Note: Plants are grouped according to their primary habitats or communities, and may occur occasionally in other habitats. Consult the detailed habitat requirement description provided below, project level assessments of habitats, distribution of the species on the Forest, and summary of potential occurrence for each plant within the action area.

Capital letters in the “Comments” field that apply to plants correspond to the following notations:

A) Project area is out of range of the species in this part of the Forest or in this part of the state.

B) The species has a low potential to occur because the habitat observed was marginal (i.e. rocky slopes were not exposed enough; not nutrient rich enough; and/or lacked typical plant associates indicative of appropriate habitat conditions).

C) Suitable or potentially suitable habitat was searched and the species was not found.

D) Known occurrences and portions of the Project Area that contain suitable or potentially habitat would not be affected by the Proposed Action due to location (i.e., steeper slopes, excluded stands, or designated reserve areas).

30 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Animals Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area Prairies, woodlands, marshes, Suitable habitat Rusty-patched agricultural landscapes and residential within action area; No further analysis bumblebee Endangered Insect No effect. parks and gardens with abundant species not known to required. (Bombus affinis) wildflowers. occur on WMNF.

No Further Analysis Required. While some suitable habitat may exist within the action Denning habitat is spruce-fir 120+ area, it is unlikely that years old, white pine / hemlock 150+ Canada lynx will move years old, and Mixed wood 120+ years Habitat present; their breeding range old. Foraging habitat is spruce-fir, Canada lynx species not known or south and colonize the Threatened Mammal coniferous, mixed wood forests and No effect. (Lynx canadensis) believed to occur action area in the brushy wetlands frequented by within action area. foreseeable future. The snowshoe hare and red squirrel. Travel Forest Plan includes corridors include ridges, saddles, and Standards and riparian corridors. Guidelines to protect Canada lynx habitat. See Appendix B for a discussion on these.

31 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area May affect, Winter hibernacula include caves and Habitat present; although there are mines. Summer roost sites include tree known occurrences no effects beyond Northern long- cavities and under loose bark; may within action area. those previously eared bat Threatened Mammal take shelter in outbuildings and human Species was disclosed in the See effects analysis. (Myotis dwellings. Studies on the WMNF found detected through programmatic septentrionalis) that NLEB prefer to roost in hardwoods acoustical surveys biological opinion <2,000 feet in elevation. (2016-2018). on implementing the final 4(d) rule.

May adversely Uses caves, mines and old buildings Habitat present; impact individuals, for winter hibernacula. Uses rock known occurrences but not likely to Eastern small- outcrops and crevices in cliffs within action area. result in a loss of See combined effects footed bat RFSS Mammal exposed to sun, buildings and Species was viability in the analysis for woodland (Myotis leibii) bridges. Most likely forages in detected through Planning Area, nor bats. openings and along forest roads and acoustical surveys cause a trend wetlands. (2016-2018). toward federal listing.

May adversely Habitat present; impact individuals, Hibernates in abandoned caves and known occurrences but not likely to mines. Roosts in barns, attics, within action area. result in a loss of See combined effects Little Brown Bat RFSS Mammal outbuildings, and tree cavities. Feeds Species was viability in the analysis for woodland (Myotis lucifugus) over wetlands and still water. Unlikely detected through Planning Area, nor bats. to occur in high elevation forests. acoustical surveys cause a trend (2016-2018). toward federal listing.

32 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area May adversely Habitat present; impact individuals, known occurrences but not likely to Tri-colored bat Hibernates in caves, mines, and other within action area. result in a loss of See combined effects (Perimyotis RFSS Mammal structures. Roosts in live or dead Species was viability in the analysis for woodland subflavus) foliage of deciduous tree. detected through Planning Area, nor bats. acoustical surveys cause a trend (2016-2018). toward federal listing.

May adversely impact individuals, Northern bog Uses sedge meadows, bogs, riparian but not likely to Suitable Habitat lemming areas, openings, krummholz, and result in a loss of within action area; no (Synaptomys RFSS Mammal softwoods. Requires moist to wet viability in the See effects analysis. known occurrences borealis loose soils and dense herbaceous or Planning Area, nor within action area. sphagnicola) mossy understory & burrows. cause a trend toward federal listing.

Occupied habitats are characterized by high numbers of standing dead Bicknell’s thrush conifers with a dense understory of No suitable habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Bird No effect. (Catharus bicknelli) red spruce, black spruce balsam fir, within action area. Required. birch, and krummholz communities of high elevations >2,500 feet.

33 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area Nesting habitat occurs within action area but Suitable habitat for would not be impacted American foraging and nesting by proposed activities. peregrine falcon Nests on high rocky cliffs and forages does occur near cliff Impacts to foraging RFSS Bird No effect. (Falco peregrinus in open areas. areas; no known habitat would be anatum) occurrences within insignificant and action area. discountable. No Further Analysis Required.

Nests on lakes greater than 6.5 ha (16 ac) but prefer lakes smaller than 24 ha (60 ac) with clear water, small Common loon No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Bird islands, and an irregular shoreline. No effect. (Gavia immer) within action area. required. Also found on major rivers. Requires prey base of small fish and amphibians for young.

Nests in dead snags, living trees, cliffs, utility poles, wooden platforms No Know Osprey No Suitable Habitat No further analysis RFSS Bird on poles usually near or above rivers, Occurrences within (Pandion haliaetus) within action area required. lakes, ponds, & water bodies. action area Typically feed on fish. Freshwater marsh & water bodies Pied-billed grebe usually ≥12 acres (5 hectares) with No Know No Suitable Habitat No further analysis (Podilymbus RFSS Bird open water & emergent vegetation Occurrences within within action area required. podiceps) Requires prey base of fish, action area amphibians and invertebrates.

34 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area Found along permanent low gradient streams and rivers and in forest, pasture, shrub-land and riparian Limited suitable Wood turtle margins. Eggs are laid in open sunny habitat; known (Glyptemys RFSS Reptile No effect. See effects analysis. areas sandy or gravelly soil, occurrence near insculpta) commonly in clearings. Overwintering Campton Pond. occurs in bottoms or banks of streams.

Larvae prefer erosional areas in cold, Brown’s ameletus fast moving, well-oxygenated No Known Suitable Habitat mayfly RFSS Insect headwater streams of relatively high Occurrences within See effects analysis. within action area (Ameletus browni) pH, with canopy cover, rocks or action area boulders present

Larvae found in well oxygenated small & large streams with high pH, Third ameletus No Known canopy cover & rocks or eroding Suitable Habitat mayfly RFSS Insect Occurrences within See effects analysis. banks in depositional areas & within action area (Ameletus tertius) action area submerged grasses & detritus along margins of riffles & transitional areas

Lush, moist areas near sheltered White mountain spots, wet springs, & rocky outcrops fritillary No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Insect > 4,500 feet in Presidential Range. No effect. (Bolaria chariclea within action area. required. Alpine goldenrod food. Larval host montina) maybe blueberry, violets or willow.

35 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area Suitable habitat within action area; a May adversely Frequent meadows, crop fields, recent survey found impact individuals, orchards, gardens, wetlands and this species but not likely to Yellow-banded other locations with flowering plants. throughout WMNF, result in a loss of bumblebee RFSS Insect They require loose soil and although the action viability in the See effects analysis. (Bombus Terricola) decomposing logs for overwintering area was not Planning Area, nor as well as abandoned burrows for surveyed. Presence cause a trend their underground nests. of the species is toward federal assumed in adequate listing. habitat. Suitable habitat but no known Appalachian tiger Open sand or mix of sand and cobble occurrences within beetle of mid-sized rivers; feed & live on the No further analysis RFSS Insect action area. Activities No effect. (Cicindela sandy areas exposed by receding required. would not take place ancocisconensis) rivers. near preferred habitats.

May adversely impact individuals, Suitable habitat but not likely to General breeding habitat occurs in within action area; result in a loss of Monarch butterfly RFSS Insect openings and fields with abundant species is known to viability in the See effects analysis. (Danaus plexippus) milkweed and wildflowers. occur within action Planning Area, nor area. cause a trend toward federal listing.

36 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable habitat/Known Effects Species Status Taxa Habitat requirements Comments occurrences within determination the action area White mountain It inhabits alpine and subalpine butterfly communities above 4,900 feet, No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Insect No effect. (Oenesis melissa specifically the dwarf shrub/sedge‐rush within action area. required. semidea) meadow community.

Incurvate emerald Breeds in bogs, fens, and similar No suitable habitat No further analysis (Somatochlora RFSS Insect peatlands, usually in sphagnum No effect. within action area required. incurvata) moss.

37 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Plants

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

No further analysis required. The project area is beyond the Primarily in maturing stands of current and historical deciduous or mixed deciduous- range of this species. coniferous forests (often with an oak Nonetheless, the Small-whorled Hardwood component); also often on soils with species was surveyed pogonia No suitable habitat Threatened and Mixed hardpan or occasionally shallow No effect. for in stands with (Isotria within action area. Forests bedrock, but not very dry or enriched. appropriate elevation medeoloides) Less than 1,500 feet in elevation on and stand conditions. southerly aspects (west to south to The species was not east). encountered and habitat was deemed not suitable enough to support the species.

Autumn Hardwood Can be found in a variety of deciduous A. Coralroot No suitable habitat RFSS and Mixed and mixed forest habitats. Requires No effect. No further analysis (Corallorhiza within action area. Forests mycorrhizal host, but details unknown. required. odontorhiza)

A, B, C. Only occurs in eastern Nodding Pogonia Hardwood Mid-elevation beech hardwoods No suitable habitat and southern portions (Triphora RFSS and Mixed usually on south-facing slopes. Deep No effect. within action area. of the National Forest trianthophora) Forests leaf litter with humus. east of the Pemigewasset River.

38 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Potentially suitable In northern New England, primarily in habitat within action Rich mesic to dry-mesic, enriched Climbing area was searched B, C, D. Hardwood hardwood forests, including rich talus Fumatory RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis Forests and and other rocky slopes; reports in the (Adlumia fungosa) not found; no known required. Talus Slopes region of occurrence on burned sites occurrences in (not known on WMNF presently). action area.

Potentially suitable Rocky, open forests and woodlands of habitat within action Rich rich mesic or dry-mesic slopes, Smooth Rock- area was searched A, B, C, D Hardwood particularly on talus slopes on cress RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis Forests and southern side of the Forest. Typically (Arabis laevigata) not found; no known required Talus Slopes south or west-facing slopes below occurrences in 1,500 ft. elev. action area.

Likely restricted on the WMNF to Potentially suitable semi-open conditions of richer sites, habitat within action Missouri Rock- Rich particularly on talus slopes on area was searched A, B, C, D cress Hardwood southern side of the Forest. Typically RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis (Arabis Forests and south or west-facing slopes below not found; no known required missouriensis) Talus Slopes 1,500 ft. elev. Associated species occurrences in include red oak, ash, basswood, action area sugar maple.

39 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Rich woods species. In Maine, typical A, B, C. habitats are rich woods, wooded Only known bottoms and calcareous rocky banks. occurrences of this Cutleaf Rich In New Hampshire, habitats include species located on Toothwort Hardwood nutrient rich mesic forests, talus No suitable habitat RFSS No effect. the western edge of (Cardamine Forests and slopes, and cliffs/ledges. Often within action area. the WMNF in calcium concatenate) Talus Slopes growing in association with other rich soil. spring ephemerals such as spring beauty (Claytonia caroliniana) and No further analysis trout lily (Erythronium americanum). required.

A, B, C., D Only known occurrences of this Rich Mesic, typically rich, upland and species located on Pubescent Sedge Hardwood No suitable habitat RFSS riparian, deciduous forests; possibly in No effect. the eastern edge of (Carex hirtifolia) Forests and within action area. meadows. the WMNF in calcium Talus Slopes rich soil. No further analysis required.

Potentially suitable habitat within action Fogg’s Rich Cliff bases, rocky talus slopes and area was searched A, B, C, D Goosefoot Hardwood outcrops, and in sparsely wooded RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis (Chenopodium Forests and areas; apparently associated with not found; no known required foggii) Talus Slopes circumneutral habitats. occurrences in action area.

40 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Potentially suitable Greater Yellow habitat within action Rich Rich forests and wetlands. In NH, Lady’s-slipper area was searched A, B, C, D Hardwood occurs in dry-mesic to wet, nutrient- (Cypripedium RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis Forests and rich forests, woodlands, and seepage parviflorum var. not found; no known required Talus Slopes wetlands. pubescens) occurrences in action area.

Potentially suitable habitat within action Goldie’s Rich area was searched C, D Woodfern Hardwood Damp woods in rich mesic hardwood RFSS and the species was No effect. No further analysis (Dryopteris Forests and forests. not found; no known required goldiana) Talus Slopes occurrences in action area.

May affect A sapling occurs on Rich Suitable habitat individuals but not the edge of Tripoli Rd Rich, moist, alluvial soils and dry, Butternut Hardwood exists, known likely to result in (possibly derived from RFSS rocky hillsides (talus) influenced by (Juglans cinerea) Forests and occurrences in the trend toward listing an old farmstead calcium-rich bedrock. Old farmsteads. Talus Slopes action area. of affect viability of outside the project the species. area).

Mountain Sweet- Rich Rich to semi-rich, moist, deciduous, A. Cicely Hardwood montane woods in northern New No suitable habitat RFSS No effect. No further analysis (Osmorhiza Forests and Hampshire; also roadside within action area. required. berteroi) Talus Slopes embankments within these forests.

41 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

All known populations May affect and individuals individuals, but not American Rich Suitable habitat Are either protected in Moist, rich or semi-rich deciduous likely to result in a Ginseng Hardwood exists; known to reserve areas RFSS woods often rocky or on thick humus trend toward federal (Panax Forests and occur in the within in colluvial settings. listing or affect the Or occur outside of quinquefolius) Talus Slopes action area. viability of the treatments and will not species. be affected by the proposed action.

Limy deciduous woods below 1500’. Potentially suitable Most occurrences on steep slopes. habitat within action Three-leaved Rich Appears associated w/ dense, lush area was searched B, C, D Black Snake Hardwood RFSS ground cover and relatively closed and the species was No effect. No further analysis Root Forests and canopy but has been found near not found; no known required (Sanicula trifoliate) Talus Slopes clearcuts and cliffs which may indicate occurrences in tolerance of gap conditions. action area.

High elevation boggy habitats and damp humus in high-elevation balsam Northern High- fir and spruce-fir forests, typically with Comandra Elevation No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS peaty/mossy cover and semi-open No effect. (Geocaulon Spruce-Fir within action area. required. canopy (including fir waves). Most lividum) Forests sites (n=8) at 3300 – 4300 feet elevation; two at 2200-2400.

42 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Prefers cool, somewhat rich seep Forest Seeps A, B, C. Seeps are too habitat in the mountains with non- Boreal Bedstraw and Swamps far south and low channelized flowing near-surface No suitable habitat (Galium RFSS (mostly above No effect. elevation. water within wet hardwood, mixed, or within action area. kamtschaticum) 2,000 feet No further analysis conifer woods, swamps, and elevation) required. streamsides.

Forest Seeps A, B, C. Seeps too far Broad-leaved Wet, cold woods, usually in deep and Swamps south and low Twayblade shade; peaty glades, spruce/fir No suitable habitat RFSS (mostly above No effect. elevation. (Listera woods; thickets, nutrient poor mossy- within action area. 2,000 feet No further analysis convallarioides) forested seeps. elevation) required.

Forest Seeps Seeps and wet, cold woods, A, B, C. Seeps too far Heartleaf and Swamps sphagnum bogs, and ascending to south and low No suitable habitat Twayblade RFSS (mostly above sub-alpine scrub; bases of wet, seepy No effect. elevation. within action area. (Listera cordata) 2,000 feet ledges, outcrops/cliffs, spruce/fir No further analysis elevation) woods on lime. required.

Most often found in open, wet sphagnum bogs, in full sunlight. Dragon’s Mouth Swamps and Commonly associated with such No suitable habitat No further analysis (Arethusa RFSS Open minerotrophs as alder, sweet gale No effect. within action area. required. bulbosa) Wetlands (Myrica gale), several sedges (Carex sp.), bog rosemary and leather leaf (Chamaedaphne calyculata).

43 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Wetland species of circumneutral Swamps and Bailey’s Sedge fens, swampy woods and meadows. No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Open No effect. (Carex baileyi) Ditches and disturbed openings in within action area. required. Wetlands regions of calcium-rich bedrock.

Boggy or peaty soils, including Not far enough north Swamps and montane bogs; acidic soils of drier, or high enough Wiegand’s Sedge No suitable habitat RFSS Open shrubby, sometimes disturbed, No effect. elevation for this (Carex wiegandii) within action area. Wetlands margins of acidic Sphagnum bogs or species. No further poor fens. analysis required.

Variety of early-successional, seasonally moist to wet habitats, including open fens, bogs, marsh Potentially suitable Northern Adder’s edges, pastures, old fields, grassy Swamps and habitat within action B, C. Tongue shores, wet thickets, cedar and RFSS Open area was searched No effect. No further analysis (Ophioglossum hardwood swamps, floodplain woods, Wetlands and species was not required. pusillum) wet swales, damp sand, and roadside found. ditches. WMNF occurrence is in an old log landing that has been mowed during roadside mowing.

Sweet Colt’s-foot Swamps and Swampy woods, meadows with No suitable habitat No further analysis (Petasites frigidus RFSS Open circumneutral or rich soils. White No effect. within action area. required. var palmatus) Wetlands cedar swamps.

Anderson's Swamps and Low hummocks in very poor sphagnum No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Open ericaceous fens. Largely high No effect. (Sphagnum within action area. required. Wetlands elevation. anderson-ianum)

44 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Angerman's Swamps and Sphagnum Poor fens, including at edges of No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Open No effect. (Sphagnum ponds. Largely high elevation. within action area. required. Wetlands angermanicum)

Medium to tall hummocks in bogs and Sphagnum Swamps and poor fens. Occurs in Sphagnum No suitable habitat No further analysis (Sphagnum RFSS Open No effect. rubellum/Vaccinium oxycoccus dwarf within action area. required. flavicomans) Wetlands heath moss lawn in New Hampshire

Temporarily flooded and seasonally Riparian ice-scoured riverbanks with Auricled (Streams, calcareous soils. Stream banks, No suitable habitat No further analysis Twayblade RFSS No effect. Rivers, mossy woods, alder thickets, boggy within action area. required. (Listera auriculata) Alluvium) alluvial woods, cedar swamps, gravel riverbank, and lake and pond shores

Rich or moist woods and swamps; Riparian moist alluvial woods of low river Pink Wintergreen (Streams, No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS terrace forests. In broader region, in No effect. (Pyrola asarifolia) Rivers, within action area. required. calcium-rich soil areas, including Alluvium) northern white cedar swamps

Potentially suitable C, D. Best habitat is on Open ledges, dry sandy soils; open habitat within action open outcrops above Piled-up Sedge Rocky Ridges oak forests or hardwood talus; RFSS area was searched No effect. action area. (Carex cumulate) or Sandplains clearings; burned oak-pine rocky and species not No further analysis summit woodlands. found. required.

45 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

White Mountain Mid-elevation, bare rocky summits, Silverling Rocky Ridges ledges, and cliffs; sand/gravel barrens No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS No effect. (Paronychia or Sandplains of Saco River between Bartlett and within action area. required. argyrocoma) Fryeberg.

Dry, rocky openings just below treeline into krummholz zone, and on Canada Mountain moderate elevation rocky ridges and Ricegrass Rocky Ridges No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS talus slopes; sandy deciduous No effect. (Piptatherum or Sandplains within action area. required. woodlands; early successional plant canadense) communities; along sandy roadsides, and on open, sparsely brushy ground.

Prefers exposed rocky-gravelly slopes C, D. Best habitat is on and hillside ledges in well-drained soil Potentially suitable Douglas open outcrops above where little other vegetation grows. habitat within action Knotweed Rocky Ridges and outside the action RFSS Can also grow in nutrient-enriched area was searched No effect. (Polygonum or Sandplains area. hardwood forests if the canopy is and species not douglasii) No further analysis open enough; often associated with found. required. rocks even in forest.

Robbins’ In northern New England, this species milkvetch is found on calcareous or No suitable habitat No further analysis (Astragalus RFSS Cliffs No effect. circumneutral cliffs and ledges, within action area. required. robbinsii var. sometimes in riverside settings. minor)

46 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Prefers cracks on typically cool, seasonally dry, shaded, overhanging Fragrant Fern cliffs influenced by periodic calcium- (Dryopteris rich seepage. Associated species No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Cliffs No effect. fragrans var. include Woodsia ilvensis, Campanula within action area. required. remotiuscula) rotundifolia, Cystopteris fragilis, C. tenuis, Diervilla lonicera and various calciphilic bryophytes.

In NH, restricted to exposed cliff-tops Creeping Juniper and faces on calcium-bearing rocks; No suitable habitat No further analysis (Juniperus RFSS Cliffs otherwise mainly coastal in northern No effect. within action area. required. horizontalis) New England, including headlands, cliffs, and sandy or rocky fields.

Occurs primarily on dry, calcareous Prairie cliffs and ledges. May also occur in Goldenrod No suitable habitat No further analysis RFSS Cliffs open fields and roadsides. All known No effect. (Oligoneuron within action area. required. NH occurrences are on calcium-rich album) soil or bedrock.

Typically on the exposed end of the dry/mesic heath meadow system of Alpine Bearberry alpine communities. Arctostaphylos No suitable habitat No further analysis (Arctostaphylos RFSS Mesic Alpine No effect. alpina is usually found in small, within action area. required. alpine) isolated populations on ridgelines of the Presidentials

47 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Strongly associated with Scirpus-like circumneutral or calcareous rocky No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis Sedge RFSS Mesic Alpine summits, outcrops, and cliffs. In NH, Occurrences within within action area Required (Carex scirpoidea) only known from open ledges and action area subalpine habitats.

Alpine to subalpine barrens in open, Sitka clubmoss stony, or well-drained habitats. In No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Lycopodium RFSS Mesic Alpine Maine alpine, summits of snowbank Occurrences within within action area Required sitchense) gullies. action area (= Diphasiastrum sitchense)

Typically occurs in snowbank communities and on rocky slopes and No Known Mountain Sorrel No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Mesic Alpine ledges of headwalls. May occur near Occurrences within (Oxyria digyna) within action area Required alpine streamsides. Above 3500’ in action area northern New England.

Robbin’s No Known Cinquefoil Alpine zone in Presidential Range of No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Mesic Alpine Occurrences within (Potentilla WMNF. within action area Required action area robbinsiana)

Boott’s Variety of alpine habitats, moist No Known Rattlesnake Root tundra, steep cirque ledges and No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Mesic Alpine Occurrences within (Prenanthes crests, and disturbed alpine sites such within action area Required action area boottii) as trail-sides and hut areas

48 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Alpine Meadow In NH, occupies nutrient poor soils in No Known Grass alpine/subalpine dry-mesic heath and No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Mesic Alpine Occurrences within (Poa pratensis meadow communities, including within action area Required action area ssp. alpigena) Bigelow sedge meadows.

Little Yellow Open alpine habitats; extant locations Rattle No Known have moderate human disturbance, No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Rhinanthus minor RFSS Mesic Alpine Occurrences within although historic locations included within action area Required ssp. action area natural settings. groenlandicus)

Moss Campion No Known Moist, alpine meadows. Gravelly No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Silene acaulis var RFSS Mesic Alpine Occurrences within barrens. within action area Required exscapa) action area

Boreal Blueberry Alpine and subalpine meadows, No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Vaccinium RFSS Mesic Alpine heaths, and bogs, often exposed Occurrences within within action area Required boreale) gravelly or rocky sites. action area

Alpine ravines, damp banks and rock ledges. At low elevations on rocky No Known Arnica No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine river banks, gravel bars, beaches, and Occurrences within (Arnica lanceolate) within action area Required alluvial flats of rivers and streams at action area low elevations.

Dwarf White Bogs and wet, rocky alpine slopes, No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis Birch RFSS Wet Alpine summits and gullies. Acidic rocky Occurrences within within action area Required (Betula minor) barrens and peaks. action area

49 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Langsdorf’s Blue Joint Wet-mesic snowbank habitat in alpine No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Calamagrostis RFSS Wet Alpine ravines and near alpine lakes or Occurrences within within action area Required canadensis var. streams. action area langsdorfii)

Alpine Bitter No Known Cress Cold ravines or on wet mossy rocks in No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within (Cardamine the alpine area. within action area Required action area bellidifolia)

In New England, wet alpine or subalpine open habitat, such as wet Black Sedge cliffs, calcareous alpine seeps, river No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Carex RFSS Wet Alpine shores, ravines, and open meadows. Occurrences within within action area Required atratiformis) On WMNF, restricted to wet or damp action area alpine habitats, including brooks and ravine snowbanks.

NH plants are ssp. fuscidula, which occur in wet-mesic alpine meadows. No Known Hair-like Sedge No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Elsewhere in NE, the ssp. capillaris Occurrences within (Carex capillaris) within action area Required occurs in high-pH boreal cliffs, seeps, action area and Rivershore outcrops.

Head-like Sedge Wet, acidic, rocky or gravely soil in No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Carex capitata RFSS Wet Alpine the alpine. May also occur in similar Occurrences within within action area Required ssp. arctogena) dry habitats. action area

50 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

In New Hampshire and Maine, alpine Pale painted cup snowbank and rill habitats, particularly No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Castilleja RFSS Wet Alpine on alpine ravine headwalls and Occurrences within within action area Required septentrionalis) brooks; rarely adventive at lower action area elevations (historically).

Oakes’ Eyebright No Known Alpine. Exposed gravelly slopes or No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Euphrasia RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within ledges or open ledgy areas. within action area Required oakesii) action area

Proliferous No Known Alpine, in cool, wet snowbank ravine No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis Fescue RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within settings, and along alpine brooks. within action area Required (Festuca prolifera) action area

Moist alpine areas. Snowbank, wet No Known Mountain Avens meadow, streamside communities in No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within (Geum peckii) the alpine. Occurs rarely at low within action area Required action area elevation sites, in rocky streams.

Moss Bell- No Known heather Snowbank communities, wet seeps, No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within (Harrimanella and crevices in alpine habitats. within action area Required action area hypnoides)

Alpine Cudweed Gravelly slopes and ravines at high No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Omalotheca RFSS Wet Alpine altitudes; exposed alpine areas and Occurrences within within action area Required supina) snowbank communities. action area

51 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Typically found on high, wet cliffs, especially beneath little overhangs on cliffs; also in dry/mesic heath meadow Wavy Bluegrass No Known system of alpine communities in NH, No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Poa laxa ssp. RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within which includes an array of Carex within action area Required fernaldiana) action area meadows, strong heaths, Diapensia shrublands, fell fields, and barren rock.

Viviparous Snowbank communities, wet mossy No Known Knotweed No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine rocks and seeps, and near streams in Occurrences within (Polygonum within action area Required alpine and subalpine areas. action area viviparum)

Silverleaf Willow Moist soils in alpine or subalpine No Known No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis (Salix RFSS Wet Alpine streamside, ravine and snowbank Occurrences within within action area Required argyrocarpa) habitats. action area

In NH, typically occurs in cool, wet ravines, snowbank communities, and No Known Dwarf Willow along alpine brooks. Grassy, sandy, No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within (Salix herbacea) or rocky places in alpine areas; often within action area Required action area on thinner soils than other snowbank/wet ravine species.

White Mountain Typically alpine areas with exposed No Known Saxifrage calcareous gravel and rocks. Can No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine Occurrences within (Saxifraga grow below alpine on limy, seepy, within action area Required action area paniculata) open cliffs.

52 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Suitable Natural habitat/Known Effects Species Status Habitat requirements Comments community occurrences within determination the action area

Alpine ravines, wet and mossy areas, Alpine Brook wet cliffs, and some dry-mesic heath No Known Saxifrage alpine/subalpine communities. May No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine occurrences within (Saxifraga benefit from reduced competition within action area Required action area rivularis) associated with moderate disturbance. May be a nitrophile.

Arizona Snowbank/wet meadow/streamside No Known Cinquefoil No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine alpine communities; only occurrence occurrences within (Sibbaldia within action area Required is at bottom of a snowfield. action area procumbens)

Mountain In northern New England, is limited to No Know Hairgrass No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine the alpine/subalpine zone, especially occurrences within (Vahlodea within action area Required herbaceous snowbanks communities. action area atropurpurea)

American alpine Wet, seepy, and sometimes rocky No Known speedwell No Suitable Habitat No Further Analysis RFSS Wet Alpine alpine ravine snowbank settings, Occurrences within (Veronica within action area Required including along brooks or rills. action area wormskjoldii)

53 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Appendix B: Canada Lynx Habitat and Standards and Guidelines Lynx Habitat The Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy describes a process to define suitable, unsuitable, and non-lynx habitat and management units for lynx on federal lands (Ruediger et al. 2000). The WMNF used these criteria to define Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and determine the percentage of suitable, unsuitable, denning, and non-lynx habitat within each one (USDA Forest Service 2007). Table 1 shows current suitable and unsuitable habitat within LAU 11 which encompasses the action area. Figure B-1 shows suitable and unsuitable lynx habitat in the action area, as based on information in the WMNF GIS database.

Table B-1: Current composition of lynx habitat in LAU 11. Total Area Total Lynx Habitat Suitable foraging Denning Total suitable (acres) (acres) habitat 45,272 26,505 6,690 acres 6,073 acres 11,800 acres

24% of total lynx 23% of total 45% of total lynx habitat lynx habitat habitat1 1 This is not equal to the sum of suitable foraging and denning habitat because there is some overlap (963 acres) of the two habitat types.

54 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Figure B-1: Mapped Canada lynx habitat within the action area.

55 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

The following units proposed for harvest are located within lynx habitat in LAU 11:

• Suitable foraging habitat: units 17, 44, 85, 112, and 124. • Unsuitable habitat: 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 32, 35, 37, 38, 45, 48, 49, 52, 57, 59, 64, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 88, 94, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 141, 142, 143, 145, and 146. • Denning: units 8, 9, 10, 23, 24, 33, 34, 74, 87, 91, 92, 94, 95, 106, 107, 108, 113, 117, 118, 121, 122, 126, 127, 129, 130, 140, 148, and 112. All other units in the action area are considered to occur within non-lynx habitat. Canada Lynx Standards and Guidelines Table B-2 provides the Standards and Guidelines for the Canada lynx as well as how they will be addressed for the Proposed Action (Forest Plan, Chapter 2 pp. 14-16).

56 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Table B-2: Canada Lynx Standards and Guidelines. Standard (S) or Measure Description regarding how measure would be met Guidelines (G) Number S-1 Standards and Guidelines for lynx apply only to lynx habitat within a Lynx The Wanosha IRP spans LAU 11 (a large LAU with suitable Analysis Unit (LAU). foraging and denning habitat, see Figure B-2). S-2 LAUs shall not be adjusted without agreement between the USDA Forest Neither alternative of the Wanosha IRP would involve Service & US Fish and Wildlife Service. adjusting or changing the LAU 11 boundaries. S-3 Unless a broad-scale assessment of landscape patterns that compares a) Although 56 percent of the LAU is categorized as historical and current ecological processes and vegetation patterns is unsuitable habitat, treatments would not result in increasing developed, disturbance must be limited in the following manner: that percentage. On the whole, unsuitable habitat would a) If more than 30 percent of lynx habitat within a LAU is currently in decrease because regeneration treatments on certain blocks unsuitable condition, no further reduction of suitable conditions of unsuitable habitat would convert them, at least temporarily, shall occur because of vegetation management activities by federal into suitable foraging habitat by improving conditions for agencies unless the activity is proposed specifically to improve snowshoe hare. future snowshoe hare habitat. b) The objective for some of the treatments in the Wanosha b) Vegetation management projects in lynx habitat should promote IRP is to increase the amount softwood, especially in the increases in suitable snowshoe hare habitat and retain/enhance understory, which would eventually improve conditions for habitat conditions for important alternate prey (particularly red snowshoe hare. squirrel) where possible. Overstory harvest treatments that retain or enhance existing softwood understories are allowed provided denning habitat within the LAU does not fall below 10 percent. S-4 Prior to any action that may affect lynx, lynx habitat within affected LAUs The WMNF delineated LAUs forest-wide and mapped must be mapped, including potential foraging and denning habitat. foraging and denning habitat using the previously described Mapping should also include identification of topographic features that criteria. Field groundtruthing of the broad scale LAU mapping may be important for lynx movement (e.g. major ridge systems, during individual projects may result in minor map changes prominent saddles, riparian corridors). due to habitat validations at the stand level. Suitable lynx foraging and denning habitat was mapped within LAU 11 (Figure 2 and Table 2). The action area (southwest corner of LAU 11) contains a majority of unsuitable habitat (appropriate type but not age class) and/or non-lynx habitat. There is a relatively small amount of suitable foraging and denning habitat in the Area. Ridge systems, prominent saddles, and riparian corridors within the action area that are important for wildlife movement would be protected and/or avoided under the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would not interrupt habitat connectivity in or between LAUs.

57 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Standard (S) or Measure Description regarding how measure would be met Guidelines (G) Number S-5 Within an LAU, denning habitat in patches generally larger than five LAU 11 exceeds the 10 percent threshold for denning habitat. acres, comprising at least 10 percent of lynx habitat must be maintained. A total of 515 acres in denning habitat would receive Where less than 10 percent denning habitat is currently present within an treatment under the Proposed Action. Even if these LAU, management actions that would delay development of denning treatments were to make these units unsuitable for denning, habitat structure must be deferred. Projects may still move forward if the amount of denning habitat would only fall from 23 to 21 other lynx habitat areas within the LAU can be identified that will not be percent. treated (e.g., RNAs) and which will subsequently move into denning conditions at some future time. S-6 On-the-ground management actions must not change more than 15 As discussed above (S-3), the Proposed Action would not percent of lynx habitat within an LAU to an unsuitable condition within a result in a net decrease of suitable habitat. No other 10-year period. management actions are anticipated in the LAU in the next ten years, nor did any occur within the past ten years, that would convert 15 percent of suitable lynx habitat to unsuitable. S-7 Existing and potential diurnal security habitat around highly disturbed Activities at recreation sites would occur within the existing recreation developments (e.g., ski areas) must be maintained. footprints of these sites. Any existing diurnal security habitat would remain unaltered. G-1 In lynx habitat, no net increase in groomed or designated over-the-snow No additional groomed or designated over-the-snow routes or routes and snowmobile play areas by LAU is allowed unless: snowmobile play areas are included under the Proposed Action. a. The designation serves to consolidate unregulated use and improves lynx habitat. b. Existing snowmobile trails must be temporarily rerouted to avoid conflicts around active timber sales. c. Preexisting trails or corridors on private land come into National Forest ownership.

Groomed or designated over-the-snow routes include the following: designated winter route, groomed winter route, and authorized winter route/use area. Groomed or designated over-the-snow routes are generally compacted during the winter season, but do not include plowed roads or roads/trails accessing private land. Winter logging and alpine ski areas are not subject to this guideline. Nordic ski areas should have a “concentrated trail area” delineated by a Forest Service biologist within which existing trails are so networked that a competitive advantage for lynx does not likely exist. These “concentrated trail areas” are not subject to this guideline.

58 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

Standard (S) or Measure Description regarding how measure would be met Guidelines (G) Number G-2 For trails constructed primarily for summer use but which may also be The activities associated with designating the Smarts Brook used in winter (e.g., hiking trails), new construction should result in no Mountain Bike Trail System would overlap with mapped lynx net increase in trail mileage in lynx habitat by LAU. Designating or habitat (Figure B-3). No existing trails would be closed within grooming these routes for winter use should include closures of other LAU 11. However, recent camera trapping efforts have similar routes in lynx habitat so no net increase in routes occurs by LAU. detected lynx competitors off-trail in the vicinity (Siren 2018). a. Exceptions to this guideline may be considered when an increase in over-the-snow routes would not increase the potential for competitors to gain access to an area, e.g., constructing a snowmobile trail that closely parallels an existing winter road. Exceptions may also be allowed in areas where snow depth or snow condition is insufficient to limit competing predators in winter, and consistent presence by competing predators off-trail is documented. Exceptions must be recommended by a Forest Service wildlife biologist. G-3 Following disturbances such as blow down, fire, or insects/pathogens No salvage harvest is proposed in lynx habitat. Denning resulting in mortality that could contribute to lynx denning habitat, habitat in LAU 11 is 26 percent (exceeds 10 the percent salvage harvest should not occur when the affected area is smaller than threshold). five acres. Exceptions to this include: a) Areas such as developed recreation sites or other areas of high human concentration; and b) LAUs where denning habitat has been mapped and field-validated (not simply modeled or estimated) and comprises more than 10% of lynx habitat within a LAU. In these cases, salvage harvest may occur, if at least the minimum amount of denning habitat is maintained in a well-distributed pattern. c) Already active timber sales where removal of blowdown trees is necessary to ensure access, reduce safety hazards, or otherwise meet the project objectives. G-4 In lynx habitat, pre-commercial thinning may be allowed only when All proposed removal of understory trees in lynx habitat stands no longer provide snowshoe hare habitat (e.g., self-pruning would be to promote softwoods and mixedwood processes have eliminated snowshoe hare cover and forage availability regeneration. during winter conditions with average snowpack). However, timber stand improvement may be used in softwoods or mixed wood stands to enhance or maintain softwood regeneration. This practice would be acceptable in stands that have suitable stem density (greater than or equal to 7,000 stems per acre in softwoods or mixed woods) for snowshoe hare cover if that stem density is retained across most of the stand.

59 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Standard (S) or Measure Description regarding how measure would be met Guidelines (G) Number G-5 Key linkage areas must be maintained to allow lynx movement. Native There would be no change in linkages between blocks of plant communities and patterns, and habitat for potential lynx prey, suitable lynx habitat in the LAU (Figure B-2). should be maintained or enhanced within identified key lynx linkage areas where feasible. Habitat connectivity (e.g. along large riparian zones and across major ridges, and prominent saddles) should be retained across the landscape to support lynx movement. Creation of permanent linear routes (e.g., roads, fuel breaks, trails) that could facilitate increased over-the-snow access by competitors should not be built on ridges and saddles or in riparian zones. Clearcuts should be placed near softwood cover where possible. G-6 Snow compaction off designated trails and roads should be minimized The Proposed Action does not authorize new special uses when authorizing and monitoring special uses in lynx habitat. that would allow snow compaction off designated trails or roads. G-7 New temporary roads constructed in lynx habitat should be closed to All roads created to access timber under the Proposed public use. The ability to implement effective closures should be Project would be closed to vehicle traffic after project use. provided in the initial road designs. Upon project completion these roads should be reclaimed or obliterated if not needed for other forest management objectives. G-8 Dirt and gravel roads (particularly those that could become highways) Under the Proposed Action, the existing dirt or gravel roads traversing lynx habitat should not be paved or otherwise upgraded (e.g., in the action area would not be paved or upgraded in a way straightening of curves, widening of roadway) in a manner that is likely to that would lead to significant increases in traffic volumes, lead to significant increases in traffic volumes, traffic speeds, or would speed, or human activity in lynx habitat. contribute to development or increases in human activity in lynx habitat, unless road safety hazards exist.

60 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

References Siren, A. (Graduate Fellow, Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center). 2018. Personal communication via email to Brett Hillman, Assistant District Ranger - Wildlife, Pemigewasset Ranger District, November 15, 2018.

61 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Appendix C: NLEB Maternity Roost Area Delineation Methodology Based on Sasse and Pekins (1996), NLEB on the WMNF often forage within two kilometers of a roost site. Individual roost sites could occur across the landscape. Male NLEB have been found to be more flexible in roost tree selection and may select smaller trees than females (USDA Forest Service 2014). Maternity areas are important because several individuals with young will occupy a complex of trees with a primary roost tree over a period of years (Johnson et al. 2009, Sasse and Pekins 1996, Sease and Prout 2015). Whether bats detected in the action area are solitary males or reproductive females is unknown. However, the fact that NLEB were detected at multiple sites, some of which had multiple nights of NLEB activity, suggests there may be multiple resident bats, and maternity areas, in certain locations.

Maternity areas are an important habitat feature of NLEB summer habitat (Johnson et al. 2012, Sasse and Pekins 1995, Silvis et al. 2014). Maternity areas often contain several roost trees occupied by multiple females with their pups. Individual females frequently switch roost trees and roost trees tend to be clustered together (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Subsets of individuals maintain preferred associations on both a short term and long-term basis (Garroway and Broders 2007, Johnson et al 2012, Patriquin et al. 2010, Silvis et al 2014). General use of space within the roosting network tends to be similar, with all colonies exhibiting a distinct core roosting area surrounded by other, less frequently used roosts. Since bats have low reproductive rates, loss of maternity habitat could have an effect on recruitment and the ability to survive (Sasse and Pekins 1996).

Since maternity habitat is an important feature and it is possible the bats documented in the action area could have been reproductive females, an analysis was done to determine which portions of the action area may be most suitable for NLEB maternity habitat. Past research on the WMNF (Sasse 1995, VanGorden 2017) suggests that maternity areas are likely located near large wetland complexes. All of the known maternity roost trees found at two maternity areas identified on the Forest were located within one mile of a wetland complex (Sasse 1995, Sease and Prout 2015). Moreover, almost all NLEB acoustic detections on the Forest were within 0.5 miles of a wetland at least five acres in size. Other research also has found NLEB maternity areas close to wetlands or riparian areas. Garroway and Broders (2008) noted that cavity roosting bats select roost trees closer to water. Foster and Kurta (1999) also identified NLEB roost trees near wetlands. Some studies have located roost trees on ridge tops and mid-slopes, but these were in other geographic areas (USDA Forest Service 2014). Research in these areas suggests that NLEB maternity roosts occur predominantly where disturbance creates snags and other suitable roosts. While the information from Sasse (1995) is only a small sample size, it (along with additional WMNF survey data) does provide some information about where NLEB might select maternity areas on the WMNF. Based on this information, it is assumed that: 1) a NLEB maternity area would most likely occur within 0.5 miles of a large wetland complex and almost certainly within two kilometers (1.2 miles) of the same wetland complex given that is the maximum distance they are known to travel from a roost site, 2) roosting and foraging habitat would most likely occur where the topography is relatively flat and lower in elevation (the highest elevation at which a NLEB was detected in the action area was 1,660 feet), and 3) if a NLEB had both roosting and foraging habitat within a potential maternity area, it would be unlikely to fly over surrounding steep terrain to another maternity area because it would be unnecessary to expend the additional energy to do so. Potential maternity area boundaries were delineated without regard to ownership. Using these criteria, two maternity areas were delineated within the action area. These maternity areas, named Hazelton and Mill Brook extend

62 Pemigewasset Ranger District, White Mountain National Forest

into private land. The detailed justification for the delineation of the boundaries of these areas, displayed in Figure 2, is as follows:

Hazelton: Five NLEB acoustic detections were recorded within 1.2 miles of a large (> 25 acres) wetland complex along Mill Brook in Thornton. Therefore, a 1.2-mile radius was drawn around this wetland complex. The resulting polygon includes two other wetlands around which NLEB were detected: the Brown Ash Swamp (also along Mill Brook) and some smaller wetlands along tributaries of Mill Brook on private land.

Since NLEBs were not detected at elevations of over 1,660 feet, and since it is not believed that NLEBs would expend energy to fly over steep terrain when they are already occupying high-quality maternity habitat, areas over 1,660 feet in elevation were excluded from this maternity area.

Mill Brook: This maternity area also centers on Mill Brook. It is located further downstream of the Hazelton maternity area and there is some overlap between the two. Although only one NLEB was detected in the vicinity, there is a large (twelve-acre) wetland complex on private land along an unnamed tributary of Mill Brook. Since much of the land within 1.2 miles of this wetland complex is privately owned, it was not surveyed intensely. It’s possible that additional surveys closer to the wetland would have yielded more NLEB detections.

None of the Mill Brook maternity area is above 1,660 feet in elevation. While it is unlikely that NLEBs would fly up the steeper slopes located in this maternity area, the overall topographic relief is relatively low. Therefore, the entire area within 1.2 miles of the wetlands was retained to estimate the extent of the maternity area. References Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80:659-672. Garroway, C. J. and H. G. Broders. 2007. Nonrandom association patterns at northern long-eared bat maternity roosts. Canadian Journal of Zoology 85(9):956-964.

Garroway, C. J. and H. G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Ecoscience 15(1):89-93.

Johnson, J. B., J. W. Edwards, W. M. Ford, J. E. Gates. 2009. Roost tree selection by northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies following prescribed fire in a Central Appalachian Mountains hardwood forest. Forest Ecology and Management 258:233–242.

Johnson, J. B., W. M. Ford, and J. W. Edwards. 2012. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266:223-231.

Patriquin, K. J., M. L. Leonard, H. G. Broders, and C. J. Garroway, 2010. Do social networks of female northern long-eared bats vary with reproductive period and age? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64:899-913.

63 Wanosha Integrated Resource Project

Sasse, D. B. 1995. Summer roosting ecology of cavity-dwelling bats in the White Mountain National Forest. M.S. Thesis, University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH. 54 pp. and Appendices.

Sasse, D. B. and P. J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. Pages 91-101 in Bats and Forestry symposium (R. M. R. Barclay and R. M. Brigham, editors). British Columbia Ministry of Forests working paper 23/1996, Victoria, Canada.

Sease, J. and L. Prout. 2015. Biological assessment for ongoing project activities with determinations of no effect or may affect, not likely to adversely affect for the northern long-eared bat on the Green Mountain and White Mountain National Forest. 120pp. Unpublished document, March 2, 2015 White Mountain National Forest, Campton, NH.

Silvis, A., W.M. Ford, E.R. Britzke and J.B. Johnson. 2014. Association, roost use and simulated disruption of Myotis septentrionalis maternity colonies. Behavioral Processes 103:283– 290. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Northern long-eared bat species data summary. Eastern Region, USDA Forest Service, Milwaukee, WI. 42 pp. VanGorden, K.D. 2017. The role of wetlands as habitat for the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. MS Thesis. Plymouth State University. Plymouth, New Hampshire.

64