BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for Activities Related to

Vegetation, Transportation, Wildlife Habitat, Stream, Fire, and Trail Management in the Conacat Project Area

Cherokee National Forest South Zone Monroe and McMinn Counties, Tennessee

Prepared by Philip Earhart South Zone Wildlife Biologist Tellico Ranger District 250 Ranger Station Road Tellico Plains, TN 37385 (423) 253-8416 (voice) (423) 253-2804 (fax) [email protected]

Reviewed by Mary Miller Forest Wildlife Biologist 2800 Ocoee Street North Cleveland, TN 37312 423-476-9756 (voice) [email protected]

With input from Jim Herrig, Forest Aquatic Biologist Mark Pistrang, Forest Botanist/Ecologist

March 14, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 ACTION AREA, SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...... 1 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 3 1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED ...... 10 2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY ...... 11 3.0 SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED ...... 11 4.0 HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS ...... 12 4.1 AQUATIC ORGANISMS ...... 14 4.2 INDIANA BAT ...... 15 4.3 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT ...... 17 4.4 SMALL WHORLED POGONIA ...... 20 5.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS ...... 23 6.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF PREPARER(S)...... 22 7.0 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES ...... 23 ATTACHMENT A: PET SPECIES CHECKLIST ...... 29 ATTACHMENT B: PROJECT REVIEW CODE ...... 32

Appendix B - Biological Assessment i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological assessment (BA) is to document any potential effects of the proposed action on Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened (PET) species or their habitat, and to ensure land management decisions are made with the benefit of such knowledge. The objectives of this assessment are to:

1) Ensure Forest Service actions do not contribute to a loss of viability of any plant or animal species. 2) Comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act that actions by Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of Federally listed species. 3) Provide a process and a standard by which PET species receive full consideration in the decision-making process.

These objectives are in compliance with direction given in Forest Service Manual 2670 (USDA FS 2005).

1.1 ACTION AREA, SCOPE OF ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Aquatics: The action area for aquatic resources includes all of the streams within the project area boundary and extends approximately 5 miles downstream in the Tellico River from the confluence with Lyons Creek and 5 miles downstream in Conasauga Creek from the confluence with Hatter Branch. Bounds for cumulative effects include any reasonably foreseeable activities (next 10 years) on state and private lands within the action area.

Wildlife and Plants: The action area for wildlife and plant resources includes the project area (approximately 18,338 acres) and the encompassing private lands for a total of approximately 27,205 acres (see map below). The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal actions and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. These spatial bounds were chosen because vegetative cover types, forest structure, and habitats are similar. These bounds also allow for a “snap-shot” of the overall current condition of a selected area and to focus management needs and analysis in that area. Bounds for cumulative effects include any reasonably foreseeable activities (next 10 years) on state and private lands within the action area.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 1

The environmental baseline provides context for the impacts of the proposed action with regard to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable Federal, state, and private actions within the action area that may be affecting listed species. The activities in the table below are activities within the action area that have received concurrence from the USFWS (10 years prior (2004) to 10 years post-treatment (2024)).

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Big Ridge Timber Sale 2010 One 35 acre timber sale (210 acres) and Grindstone (Tellico Environmental Timber Sale 2010 (88 acres) Assessment) Creation of 7 ephemeral ponds in Big Ridge Site preperation/slashdown/planting of areas impacted by southern pine beetle

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 2

Past Present Reasonably Foreseeable Tellico Mountain/East Gravelstand and Big Ridge Cataska prescribed burns prescribed burns Noxious weed treatments Noxious weed treatments Noxious weed treatments Wildlife opening maintenance Wildlife opening Wildlife opening maintenance maintenance Hemlock wooly adelgid treatment

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION

Forest Health and Wildlife Habitat Improvements

Maintain or restore natural oak and oak-pine communities and create early successional habitat through silvicultural treatments on approximately 361 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly upland sites that would support mostly “dry to mesic oak forest” or “dry and dry mesic oak-pine forests”. Silvicultural treatments would include all or a part of the following: 1) shelterwood with reserves type harvest; 2) post-harvest slash down of non- merchantable saplings between 1-inch and 7-inch diameter for the purpose of removing mid- level shade which would inhibit healthy growth of seedlings (natural and planted) (some suppressed oak and hickory may be slashed down with the intent of coppice sprouting and forming a healthier more vigorous seedling from the cut stump); 3) growing or dormant season burning of stands which would have fire lines installed, or already have existing features that could serve as fire breaks, in close proximity to the stand boundary. The burning would help serve the purpose of providing more available space for planting, less competition to desired natural regeneration (oaks) or supplemental planted seedlings, and a reduction in existing non- desirable seedlings not removed by the slash down (total of 6 stands equaling approximately 149 acres would be site prep burned); 4) natural regeneration or supplemental planting of oak or oak and shortleaf or pitch pine or combination; and 5) specifically targeted application of herbicide (triclopyr) in the second year after harvesting (for natural regeneration stands) or the second year after planting (for supplemental regeneration stands) whichever applies, and oak and/or pine may be targeted for release depending on the most healthy seedling on an approximate spacing of 20’ x 20’. Seedlings chosen to be released would be ‘freed’ from competition for approximately a 6 foot radius around each seedling. Regeneration sources would consist of existing seedlings and coppice or stump sprouts, and supplemental oak and/or pine planting. Three stands (totaling approximately 37 ac) would be planted in both hardwood and pine seedlings. Each of these stands would be managed for Dry and Dry Mesic Oak-Pine, are relatively small in acreage, and currently have a fairly evenly distributed basal area between pine and oak species.

Maintain or restore shortleaf pine, pitch pine and associated pine-oak communities and create early successional habitat through silvicultural treatments on approximately 88 acres of existing forested stands. These stands are mostly ridge sites that would support “xeric pine and pine-oak forests” within which fire has likely played an important historical role in shaping species composition. Silvicultural treatments would include the following: 1) seedtree with

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 3 reserves and clear-cut with reserves type harvest; 2) post-harvest slash down of non- merchantable saplings between 1-inch and 7-inch diameter for the purpose of removing mid- level shade which would inhibit healthy growth of seedlings (natural and planted); 3) growing or dormant season burning of stands which would have fire lines installed, or are already existing, in close proximity to the stand boundary. The burning would help serve the purpose of providing more available space for planting, less competition to desired natural regeneration (mast producers or shortleaf pine) or supplemental planted pine seedlings, and a reduction in existing non-desirable seedlings not removed by the slash down; 4) planting of pitch or shortleaf pine approx. 15’ X 15’ spacing; and 5) specifically targeted application of herbicide (triclopyr) applied in the second year after planting, and either oak or pine may be targeted for release depending on the most healthy seedling on an approximate spacing of 15’ X 15’. Seedlings chosen for release would be ‘freed’ from competition for approximately a 6 foot radius around each seedling. Regeneration sources would be existing seedlings, coppice or stump sprouts, and supplemental pine planting.

Improve forest health, promote stand diversity and improve tree vigor through silvicultural treatments on approximately 348 acres of existing forested stands that have varying levels of advanced oak regeneration and numerous oak seedlings in the understory of primarily mature forested stands. Silvicultural treatments would consist of one of the following:

• Mid-story Control – non-commercially cutting mid-story sapling to medium-sized pulpwood trees (approximately 3-8 inch diameter breast height – DBH) for the purpose of reducing the competition against the wildlife-favored mast producing seedlings and saplings while possibly producing coppice (stump sprouts) from existing mast producing saplings and pulpwood sized trees that have been suppressed in order to grow a more competitive, vigorous and healthy seedling; • Tree Release – selecting and releasing approximately 200 wildlife-favored trees (15’ X 15’ spacing) including hard and soft mast producing species by slash down of all stems competing with the upper ½ of crown of selected crop trees within a 6 foot radius from the edge of the crop tree. The cut stems would not be removed as part of a commercial timber sale, but could be removed as firewood through a permit process; • Removal – non-regeneration (harvested acres would not count for early successional) harvest of white and Virginia pine to favor mast producing seedlings and saplings present in the understory and remove some competition from mid-sized sawtimber and other residual oaks and shortleaf pines. • Thinning – One stand (103/05) would be a commercial thinning to reduce the basal area to approx. 50 square feet per acre. Then a slashdown of the non-merchantable saplings (approx. 2” to 7”) to allow additional sunlight and further reduce competition while removing much of the shade tolerant red maple, white pine and black gum and shade intolerant yellow poplar. Supplementally underplant white oak on an approx. 30’X30’ spacing (approx. 50 trees per acre) and monitor any potential competition for a possible 2nd year chemical release of hard mast producing seedlings. The planted oak seedlings would be monitored for at least 3 years after planting for survival. A further monitoring of the stand and its’ development would be important in determining any need for a possible future reduction in basal area to allow the hard mast seedlings to continue to grow and develop into a mature stand similar to the one present.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 4

These four treatments listed as “improving forest health” would increase sunlight into the forest with the intent to stimulate growth of advanced oak regeneration and oak and other mast producing seedlings already present.

Growing or dormant season site preparation burning of thirteen units totaling approximately 267 acres harvested could result in up to a total of approximately 505 acres burned if all acres burn that are within control lines. The control lines would consist of the following: 1.1 miles of handline, 3.6 miles of streams, 4.0 miles of existing roads, and 3.9 miles of dozer line.

Prescribe burn T44-Tellico Mountain, T45-East Cataska, O3-Black Mountain B, and T18-Natty (dormant only). These units total approximately 4,318 acres of dormant or growing season and 1,337 acres of dormant season burning. In order to minimize fireline construction, some of the burn blocks employ natural or existing man-made fuel breaks such as streams, roads and trails. Approximately 2.8 miles of dozer line and 2.2 miles of handline would be utilized as holding lines. Burn areas would typically be burned at 2-5 year intervals, depending on vegetative response. Pre- and post-burn monitoring would be implemented to determine burn frequencies, seasonality, and intensities. Fire intensity would vary depending on vegetation type, slope, aspect, and weather conditions. Some of the objectives of burning are described below:

• Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the planning area, specifically improving habitat for game and non-game species and managing for identified natural plant communities. • Prepare sites for seeding, planting, and natural regeneration. Prescribed fire would be used to prepare an adequate seedbed and control competing vegetation until seedlings become established. Prescribed fire would also be used to promote regeneration of hardwood forests. • Manage competing vegetation. Low-value, poor-quality, shade-tolerant hardwoods often occupy or encroach upon land best suited for pine and oak species. Unwanted species may crowd or suppress pine and oak seedlings. Prescribed fire could be used to limit competition of undesirable species with desired species. Prescribed fire may also be used to in mature hardwood stands to control the composition of advanced regeneration to favor oak species. • Reduce fuel accumulations to acceptable levels thereby reducing the possibility of severe wildfire events from occurring and damaging natural resources, recreation, and wildland-urban interface areas present near the project area. • Perpetuate oak-pine/grassland and woodland cover types by increasing the amount of available sunlight to the ground to encourage native grasses and forbs to re-establish and improving habitat conditions for fire-adapted plant species. • Prescribed burning could maintain open stands, produce vegetative changes, and increase numbers and visibility of flowering annuals and biennials. Improved visibility and accessibility may also be beneficial to hikers and hunters.

Wildlife stand improvement, mid-story reduction (non-commercial)- 774 acres A diameter class cut generally ranging from 1-8 inches diameter breast height (dbh) would be used to select

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 5

trees for mid-story removal. Chainsaws would be used to fell mid-story trees while retaining oaks, hickories, and shortleaf pine and/or pitch pine in addition to soft mast producers. Parameters for selecting trees for removal include: undesirable species (such as Virginia pine), poor growth form, and disease. Felled trees would be left and utilized as micro-habitats by forest floor species. Snags would be retained unless they pose a safety hazard.

The stands proposed for mid-story reduction are composed predominately of Virginia pine. Several stands are mixed with pine and hardwoods species. The understory in these stands is predominately lacking due to overstocked stands with little sunlight reaching the forest floor. Mast producing species such as oak and hickory are being encroached by Virginia pine or other species. The objective is to improve wildlife habitat by removing the mid-story component of the stands to allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, thus increasing grass, forb, and shrub production. Grass, forb, and shrub production is important as browse for various wildlife species as well as nesting habitat for a variety of bird species.

Specialized Wildlife Habitat Improvements

Wildlife opening improvements- 19 acres Maintaining the size of the opening while improving vegetation within the wildlife openings typically include, but are not limited to mowing, fertilizing, sowing, burning, and herbicide treatment (triclopyr, glyphosate, and imazapyr) of non-native plants and encroaching woody plants. Improvements would occur in the following areas:

• Spot openings 87-1 and 107-1 • Linear openings- NFSRs 220C, 2002, 3410, and 40641

Treatments of spot (5 acres) and linear openings (7 miles or 14 acres) would reduce non-native plant species and improve open areas for wildlife forage, nesting, and brood-rearing. Linear openings also serve as wildlife travel corridors.

Daylighting of linear wildlife openings- 42 acres Daylighting 25 feet each side of linear openings where roads are shaded (up to 42 acres). Only mid-story trees would be cut (trees less than 12 inches in diameter) and left. Preferred retention trees would be oaks, hickories, and soft mast producers. Spot herbicide applications (glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr) would be used to treat non-native invasive plants and native woody plants that are competing with mast producers. Proposed daylighting would occur on NFSRs 220C, 2002, 3410, and 40641.

Daylighting would reduce competition and promote beneficial vegetative growth (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) for wildlife habitat and food. This management technique would allow more sunlight to reach areas of shaded roads. Shaded areas inhibit the growth of seed planted for wildlife forage.

Edge feathering of spot openings- 3.5 acres Spot wildlife opening edges (50 foot buffer) would be feathered by cutting predominantly mid-story trees using hand tools such as chainsaws. Some overstory trees may be felled; oak and hickory trees would be the preferred leave trees. All felled trees would be left on the ground to provide microhabitat. This edge effect would be

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 6

maintained using hand tools. Edge feathering locations include spot opening 107-1

Edge feathering provides a transitional zone between mature forest conditions and spot openings. These transitional zones provide vertical habitat structure for nesting, cover, and browse for species that do not benefit from mature forest conditions or wildlife openings. Wider edges also reduce nest predation.

Wildlife pond (ephemeral pool) construction- up to 30 ponds Pond locations would be selected in areas where water sources or pond habitat is needed. Locations would typically be located in log landings, skid trails, openings, and old roads accessing project areas. Ponds are small (0.1 acre or less) and shallow with gradually sloping sides to provide amphibian habitat in the edges of the pond. Ponds would typically be built in terrain that is fairly flat and in areas that provide good watershed for holding water for a portion of the year (ponds may be ephemeral and dry up during summer months). A bulldozer would be used to construct ponds.

Wildlife ponds provide valuable water sources for game and non-game animals, including the endangered Indiana bat and threatened northern long-eared bat, and also provide habitat for amphibians.

Native cane habitat improvements- 9 acres Management of existing cane to establish canebrakes would be accomplished through prescribed fire and removal or girdling of overstory trees using chainsaws. Fire maintains cane by eliminating competing woody vegetation and increasing culm density. Burning stands of cane would occur on a 5-10 year rotational basis (early growing or dormant season). Mechanical treatment (chainsaws or other hand tools) may be necessary to remove vegetation competing with cane. Mechanical and herbicide treatment (aquatic approved glyphosate and/or triclopyr) of non-native invasive plant species would also be necessary to reduce competition. Herbicide may also be used on small native woody vegetation that is competing with cane. A hand line following an old road bed and creek would serve as fire breaks.

Native cane occurs predominately as an understory species in streamside forest stands along Conasauga Creek. The goal is to return stream side stands from forested with a cane understory to cane dominated stands or canebrakes. Cane develops under moderately intense regimes of natural and man-made disturbances. Canebrakes provide cover for a wide variety of wildlife and the high nutrient content found in cane foliage and shoots serves as a valuable food source for several wildlife species.

Nest box installation- up to 60 boxes Nesting boxes would be installed on trees or poles. Boxes would be placed in proposed silvicultural or wildlife stand improvement, log landings, and/or wildlife openings.

Artificial roost boxes for bats would be installed to provide additional roosting habitat. Boxes may provide roost sites for the endangered Indiana bat and threatened northern long-eared bat. Nest boxes for cavity nesting birds or small mammals would also be placed in forest stands to provide habitat for animals where natural cavities are limited.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 7

High Elevation Early Successional Habitat on Waucheesi Mountain– 27 acres An initial treatment would include a non-commercial mid-story tree reduction (target dbh is approximately 1-8 inches) using chainsaws followed by stump-surface herbicide application (triclopyr or glyphosate). Tree removal would be highest in the area immediately adjacent to the existing opening and moving downslope would focus primarily on areas where thinning the mid-story would accomplish project objectives without compromising the integrity of the mature canopy trees. Retention trees throughout the project area would be large, overstory trees. A mosaic of basal areas would occur throughout the project area. A lower basal area would occur near the opening (0-40 BA). Moving downslope, the residual basal area would increase (40-60 BA). Basal areas would be higher in the steep and more mesic portions of the project area (60+ BA). A growing season burn in the drier portion of the project area would be used to further reduce the total basal area from the initial mid-story treatment. Road and hand line would serve as fire breaks. Alternating between growing and dormant season burns on a 2-5 year cycle would help maintain structural diversity and suppress woody growth. Ultimately, the frequency and timing of burning will depend on vegetative response, and varying fire intensities will be utilized to reach desired composition and structure of the vegetation. Herbicide (glyphosate, triclopyr, imazapyr) or hand tools would also be utilized to control woody vegetation in the understory.

Stand composition within the proposed project consists predominately of mature oaks (chestnut, white, red) with some hickories and maple in the mid-story. Young trees surround the opening at the top of Waucheesi Mountain. Down slope, the canopy becomes interspersed with trees of varying age, some exhibiting old growth characteristics. The objective is to reduce overall basal area to increase herbaceous growth in the understory while maintaining the mature overstory tree component. Herbaceous growth would improve forage, nesting and escape cover, and soft mast production for wildlife. High elevation early successional forests provide essential habitat for several birds including ruffed grouse, chestnut-sided warbler, and golden-winged warbler; a bird of special concern due to declining early successional forests across its range. This habitat is also beneficial to game species such as deer, bear, and turkey.

Wildlife Plantings- 10 acres Plant native hard or soft mast producing trees and/or shrubs in log landings, temporary roads, skid trails, or other open areas created by project activities. Provide or increase the amount of quality mast producing plants throughout the project area.

Stream Improvements

Restore up to 0.3 miles of Conasauga Creek in the areas surrounding fords 1 and 2. Stream restoration may include the following activities.

• Clearing debris from the channel to restore a more natural flow pattern; • Dropping trees into and across stream channels to add large woody debris; • Stabilizing banks with log cribbing, rootwads, and/or boulders; • Creating pools with channel constrictors, wing deflectors, log wedge dams, and rock cross veins; and • Re-shaping stream channels, restoring floodplains, and planting riparian vegetation.

Native materials such as logs and boulders would be used whenever possible. Heavy equipment

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 8

(backhoe, track hoe, and bulldozer) may be used for some structures. Ground disturbance would generally be confined to stream channel and a corridor of 20 feet back from stream bank (when building large structures with equipment).

Transportation Improvements

Reconstruct approximately 7.4 miles of existing NFSRs to bring them up to haul standards. Work would consist of widening curves, spot placing gravel, brushing, minor re-shaping, cleaning and constructing dips and other drainage structures to improve overall drainage, upgrading culverts, and replacing gates.

Construct approximately two miles of temporary roads to access treatment units. Temporary roads will be closed and stabilized following completion of the project.

Decommission a portion of; NFSR’s 2109 (Cataska Mountain 0.39 mi), 11092 (North Pine Mountain 0.53 mi), 5013 (Murr Branch 0.19 mi), and 341A (0.17 mi.). Decommission NFSR 341C (0.50 mi) and 76B (0.60 mi).

Perform prehaul maintenance on approximately 13 miles of NFSRs to prepare the roads for timber haul.

Place a gate on NFSR 40661 at its intersection with NFSR 40781.

Add approximately 0.7 mile NFSR 2104A to the system where it intersects with NFSR 2109. This road exists and is used instead of the portion of NFSR 2109 that is listed for decommissioning above.

Trail Improvements

Construct a trailhead along NFSR 76 to provide parking for 3-4 cars and access to the north end of Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail. Currently the area indicated on the map is approximately 0.5 acre. This 0.5 acre permits the space to design a parking area but the footprint of the parking area would be approximately 2,000-3,000 sq. ft. (60 ft. by 50 ft.).

The only existing parking available for the Warrior’s Passage National Recreation Trail is along the side of NFSR 76. The best available parking is in a curve along NFSR 76, where the trail intersects the road. There is a need to provide safe parking set off the road for forest users to park and unload for use of the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail and allow for safe use and passage of vehicular traffic along NFSR 76.

Design of the trailhead parking would allow for the parking of 3-4 vehicles, using the typical 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep parking size per vehicle. Placement of the trailhead would allow for a line of sight for vehicular traffic using NFSR 76. Due to the safe line of sight, parking depth off the road would allow for backing into the road for ingress and egress of the trailhead parking.

Reroute approximately a 1/3 mile segment of Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 9

to provide access to the newly constructed trailhead parking area. In order to facilitate trail usage without using NFSR 76, a short reroute of the Warriors Passage National Recreation Trail would be necessary to connect to the trailhead. Most of the new trail connection would use an existing legacy road, though the corridor built (using hand or mechanical tools) and maintained for the trail would only be for that for use of a designated Trail Class 3 found in the Forest Service National Design Parameters. After construction of the new trail segment the abandoned section (0.2 mi.) would be decommissioned and obliterated.

1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA TO BE EMPLOYED

Proposed management actions would be conducted in accordance with the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) (USDA FS 2004a) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS) (USDA FS 2004b) on a site-by-site basis. All Forest-wide standards would be followed except that prescribed burning may occur after May 1 in accordance with the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat Biological Opinions.

The following design criteria would also be followed:

1. Use broad-based dips or water bars on all access ways on non-level slopes. 2. Implement Tennessee Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a minimum to achieve soil and water quality objectives. When Forest Plan (RLRMP) Standards exceed BMPs, the standards shall take precedence over Tennessee BMPs. 3. Streamside management zones (riparian corridors and filter zones) would be established, as specified in the RLRMP. 4. Any new threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive species locations discovered within a project area may result in all actions being delayed or interrupted within the area. The appropriate district wildlife/fisheries biologist or botanist would be consulted to determine effects of the action on the species. 5. Trees known to have been used as roosts by Indiana bats or Northern long-eared bats are protected from cutting and/or modification until they are no longer suitable as roost trees unless necessary for public safety. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) must occur before cutting or modification within 150 feet. 6. Snags with exfoliating bark are not intentionally felled unless necessary for public safety. Exceptions may be made for small-scale projects such as insect/disease control, salvage harvesting, and facility construction. 7. During all silvicultural treatments in hardwood forest types, retention priority is given to the largest available trees that exhibit characteristics favored by roosting Indiana and Northern long-eared bats. 8. Mixing-water for herbicide use would be brought to the site by work crews and not obtained from streams or other bodies of water. 9. No herbicide would be applied within 30 feet of open water except for selective treatments that use herbicides labeled for aquatic use. 10. Skid trails and temporary roads for the purpose of timber harvest would not be constructed for sustained distances over 200 feet in areas with slopes of 40% or greater (“steep area”). The 200-foot length can be exceeded however where the skid trail and/or

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 10

temporary road is needed to traverse a steep area in order to access the remaining harvest unit(s). Trees within the traversed steep area would not be harvested, except where possible through cable winching to equipment placed outside the steep area.

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY

Informal consultation/conferencing between the Forest Service, Cherokee National Forest and the Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville, Tennessee began in April 2014. Laura Morris (USFS) notified David Pelren (USFWS) about the Conacat Project. Philip Earhart (USFS) contacted David Pelren (USFWS) in March of 2016 regarding the updated status of the Conacat Project and discussed the implementation of the programmatic biological opinions for Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cookeville Tennessee Field Office, issued a final Biological Opinion on January 22, 2015 addressing potential impacts of South Zone CNF management on the Indiana bat. This project is consistent with the guidelines of the Biological Opinion and tiers to that document.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the final 4(d) rule and Programmatic Biological Opinion which identifies Endangered Species Act protections for the northern long-eared bat, published in the Federal Register January 14, 2016. The final 4(d) rule and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic Biological Opinion went into effect on February 16, 2016. This project is consistent with the guidelines of the Biological Opinion and tiers to that document.

3.0 SPECIES EVALUATED AND METHODS USED

Analysis of the project was conducted using best available science. Using information from project area habitat conditions, species habitat requirements, and species distributions and limiting factors, the entire 2001 Cherokee National Forest PET list was reviewed to determine if any PET species were likely to occur in or near the project area. PET Database Maps that include TN Natural Heritage and CNF data (April 2014) were examined to locate any records of PET species currently in the project area. Other pertinent survey data for this area include botanical surveys (Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2010 and 2013, Falcon Engineering 2011, Pistrang 2013) and bat surveys (Cochran et al. 1999, Cochran et al. 2000, Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2009, Sewell et al. 2007, Harvey et al. 1991, Kiser and Kiser 1999, Leftwich et al. 2008, Libby 2004-2005, 3-D International 1998, and O’ Keefe 2011-2012).

Attachment A lists the CNF PET species. Attachment B lists the Project Review Codes (PRC) used to determine whether further analysis is needed. The status of each species within the south zone of the CNF and within the project area is based on known surveys, literature review, and information as cited. The Threatened and Endangered species list on the CNF (Jennings 2014) was also reviewed.

• For species with PRC of 1a, the project is located out of the species known range, or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area. The project is expected to have no effects on PET species. No further analysis will be done for these species.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 11

• For those species coded 2a, all requisite habitats have been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project and therefore the project is expected to have no effects on PET species regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. No further analysis will be done for these species • For those species coded 7a, a site specific inventory was conducted, but the species was not found in the project area. Based upon this, the project is expected to have no effects on PET species. No further analysis will be done for these species.

Any species given one of the remaining codes (3a, 4a, 5a, 6a, 7b) will be further evaluated in this BA (see Table below). For an explanation of the remaining codes see Appendix B.

4.0 HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECTS

Based on absence of habitat in the action area or the project occurring outside of the species range, the Conacat Project would have “no effect” on the following CNF PET species and therefore will not be further analyzed in this Biological Assessment.

TABLE 4.0 PET SPECIES OF THE CNF WITH A “NO EFFECT” DETERMINATION

Group Scientific Name Common Status Habitat in Determination Name Project Area of Effect Arachnid Microhexura montivaga Spruce-fir moss E None No Effect spider Fish Cyprinella caerulea Blue shiner T None No Effect Fish Percina antesella Amber darter E None No Effect Fish Percina jenkinsi Conasauga E None No Effect logperch Fish Percina tanasi Snail darter T None No Effect Mammal Corynorhinus townsendii Virginia big- E None No Effect virginianus eared Mammal Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina E None No Effect coloratus northern flying squirrel Mollusk Alasmidonta raveneliana Appalachian E None No Effect elktoe Mollusk Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster mussel E None No Effect Mollusk Epioblasma florentina Tan riffleshell E None No Effect walkeri Mollusk Epioblasma metastriata Upland E None No Effect combshell Mollusk Epioblasma othcaloogensis Southern E None No Effect acornshell Mollusk Hamiota altilis Fine-lined T None No Effect pocketbook Mollusk Medionidus acutissimus Alabama T None No Effect moccasinshell Mollusk Medionidus parvulus Coosa E None No Effect moccasinshell

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 12

Mollusk Pleurobema decisum Southern E None No Effect clubshell Mollusk Pleurobema georgianum Southern pigtoe E None No Effect mussel Mollusk Pleurobema hanleyianum Georgia pigtoe E None No Effect Mollusk Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell E None No Effect Mollusk Pleuronaia dolabelloides Slabside pearly E None No Effect mussel Mollusk Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular E None No Effect kidneyshell Mollusk Ptychobranchus subtentum Fluted E None No Effect kidneyshell Mollusk Villosa trabalis Cumberland E None No Effect bean pearly mussel Reptile Glyptemys muhlenbergii Bog turtle T None No Effect Nonvascular Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome E None No Effect Plant lichen Vascular Geum radiatum Spreading avens E None No Effect Plant Vascular Hedyotis purpurea montana Roan Mountain E None No Effect Plant bluet Vascular Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden E None No Effect Plant aster Vascular Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge T None No Effect Plant goldenrod Vascular Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T None No Effect Plant

The following CNF PET species are either known to occur in the Conacat Project area or have suitable habitat present in the Conacat Project area and therefore will be analyzed in this Biological Assessment.

TABLE 4.1 PET SPECIES OF THE CNF ANALYZED IN THIS ASSESSMENT

Group Scientific Name Common Name Presence Status

Fish Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub Known to T Occur Fish Etheostoma sitikuense Citico darter Known to E Occur Fish Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom Known to E Occur Fish Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom Known to T Occur

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 13

Mammal Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Habitat E Present / Known to Occur Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat Habitat T Present / Known to Occur Plant Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia Habitat T Present

4.1 AQUATIC ORGANISMS

The Spotfin chub (Erimonax monacha) was once a widespread species historically known from 24 streams in 12 tributaries of the upper and middle Tennessee River system, in Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The species now survives in only five isolated tributary systems: Duck River and very small segment of the Buffalo River; Emory River system; North Fork Holston River; South Fork Holston; and Little Tennessee River. Conservation Fisheries, Inc. has reintroduced the species into Abrams Creek and a nonessential experimental population in the Tellico River. Habitat includes cool and warm, typically clear, large creeks or medium- sized rivers of moderate gradient, in upland and montane areas, generally in or near moderate and swift currents over gravel to bedrock, rarely over sand or silt. Eggs are laid in stone cracks, crevices, or in the narrow interface of two touching rocks. Breeding sites are in moderate current of shallow portions of runs, in areas strewn with unsilted rubble and boulders. Adults and young eat mainly benthic immature aquatic insects, largely small chironomids and simuliids, plus some mayfly nymphs and caddisfly larvae. Causes of decline include siltation, coal sedimentation, pollution, inundation by reservoir development, releases of cold water from reservoirs, stream channelization, and interspecific competition); some of these factors affect extant populations. Collecting may significantly reduce local subpopulations (NatureServe 2014).

The Citico darter (Etheostoma citikuense) is endemic to tributaries of the Tennessee River systems; one extant population persists (Citico Creek); however, two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). Preferred habitat is large streams with low gradient at low elevation. Gently flowing pools with large, flat rocks for spawning; bedrock, sand or gravel substrate are essential. Citico darters are very sensitive to sedimentation because of spawning, foraging and escape cover.

The Smoky madtom (Noturus bailey) is endemic to the Little Tennessee River system; one extant population persists (Citico Creek); however, two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). Critical habitat (Citico Creek) is defined for this species on the Cherokee NF. Habitat is typically found in large streams with low gradient at low elevation. Gently flowing riffles between large pools that contain flat rocks sitting on a sand or gravel substrate are preferred for spawning, feeding and escape cover. This species is very sensitive to sedimentation because spawning, foraging, and escape cover may be impacted.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 14

This Yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis) is endemic to the upper Tennessee River (above Chattanooga, TN); four extant populations persist. It occurs naturally on the Cherokee NF in Citico Creek. Two experimental populations have been established (Abrams Creek and Tellico River). Habitat is typically large streams to large rivers with low gradients at low elevation. Deep pools associated with flat rocks and leaf packs for cover and spawning are preferred. Impoundments, pollution and habitat modification are key threats to this species (NatureServe 2014).

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects to aquatic organisms happen only when an activity occurs in the water. There would be no direct effects to these fish or the Critical Habitat since they are restricted to perennial streams and no equipment would enter the streams that drain to the Tellico River or Citico Creek.

Indirect effects to aquatic organisms arise from activities outside the stream channel that allow sediment or herbicides to enter and alter aquatic habitats. Reddington (2014) analyzed the proposed actions and determined the ground disturbances associated with the vegetation management, transportation, wildlife habitat management, stream improvements, fire management, and trail improvements would follow Forest Plan standards and limit impacts to soil and water resources to acceptable levels. Consequently, there should be no adverse indirect effects to any of the aquatic T&E species or the Critical Habitat.

Cumulative Effects No known State or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to spotfin chub, Citico darter, smoky madtom, yellowfin madtom, and smoky madtom would occur. There would be no cumulative effects to critical habitat.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” spotfin chub, Citico darter, smoky madtom, or yellowfin madtom.

4.2 INDIANA BAT

Habitat Relationships The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) occurs from Iowa, south to Oklahoma and Alabama, west to South Carolina and north to New Hampshire. Caves are used for hibernacula. Over 90% of the population hibernated in five states (IN, MO, KY, IL, NY) in 2005. No hibernacula are known from the Cherokee National Forest (CNF), but one is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Four additional hibernacula are located within 40-70 miles of the Cherokee National Forest (USFWS 2007). This bat has only been documented on the Cherokee National Forest during the summer months in Monroe County. In the Southern Appalachian region, females currently establish primary maternity roosts under the sloughing bark of dead yellow and white pines and eastern hemlock (O’Keefe 2012). However, bats are able to adapt to their surroundings and use roost trees that are available on the landscape. Reproductive females require multiple alternate roost trees to fulfill summer habitat needs. Single bats also use a variety of tree species for roosts, as long as there is available

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 15

sloughing bark or crevices on those trees. The majority of roosts are on mid and upper slopes in mixed pine-hardwood stands, but some roosts have been found near streams. This bat forages for flying insects along river and lake shorelines, in canopy gaps over upland waterholes, and along roads and trails. The Indiana bat returns to hibernacula beginning in late August (NatureServe 2014). Indiana bats are threatened by white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (USFWS 2013). Large-scale population declines are expected over the next several years as the disease continues to spread. Environmental Baseline Although suitable maternity and roosting habitat occurs within the action area, the closest known Indiana bat maternity colony (Monroe County record) is approximately 11 miles from the action area boundary. The closest Indiana bat capture site is approximately 8.5 miles from the action area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. To date, no known maternity colonies exist within the action area. However, should maternity colonies be present in growing season burn areas, there may be adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a,b,c). The likelihood of any adverse effects toward Indiana bats are anticipated to be minimal, because: 1) no known maternity colonies or records of Indiana bats are known from the action area; 2) activities would not occur simultaneously but over an approximate 10-15 year implementation period; and 3) standards from the RLRMP would be followed (except prescribed burning may occur after May 1). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. During harvest activities, standards from the RLRMP would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units. Snags with exfoliating bark would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Herbicide application used in silvicultural activities would help maintain open

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 16

forested stands. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Perry 2012, Taylor 2006). Insects are also attracted to post-fire dead wood (Dickinson 2010). Bats may also benefit from reduced clutter in the canopy and a more open flight space. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would also provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Temporary road construction may be beneficial by providing additional travel corridors within the action area. Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). If snags are consumed by the fire, they would likely be those that do not provide optimal habitat for this bat (snags with large plates of sloughing bark). There is a need to create new snags as old snags deteriorate and lose sloughing bark. Loss of potential roosting habitat should not cause bats to be “stressed” in finding lost roost trees after emergence from hibernacula. Since roost trees are ephemeral, bats are adapted to finding new roost trees should previous roosts be lost during the fire (O’Keefe 2011). In a 2010 study, prescribed burning caused no change in male Indiana bat roost selection (Johnson et al. 2010). Indirect effects from prescribed burning would be beneficial by improving roosting and foraging habitat for Indiana bats. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine-oak forests these bats prefer.

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to Indiana bats are expected.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” Indiana bat. However, the activities connected with this project are consistent with the RLRMP and with those described by previous formal consultations (USDA 2014, FWS #2014-F-0387 Section 7 Consultation for Activities Affecting Indiana Bats on the Southern Districts of the Cherokee National Forest). As a result of those previous consultations, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a non-jeopardy Biological Opinion (FWS 2015) establishing annual incidental take authorizations. This project tiers to that Biological Opinion and no additional formal consultation is required.

4.3 NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT

Habitat Relationships The Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) is found throughout the eastern United States and Canada (USFWS 2013). This bat uses caves and man-made structures for hibernation. The nearest known hibernaculum is located in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. They leave their hibernacula March-May and return August-November (USFWS 2014). In summer, bats roost singly or in small colonies, mainly in trees but occasionally in caves. NLEB typically use large, tall trees (either live or dead) and roost under loose bark or in cavities or

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 17

crevices. NLEB are somewhat opportunistic when selecting roost trees, not depending on a particular tree species. Structural complexity of roosting habitat may be more important. Forest canopy cover has been found to range from 56 to 84%, with some studies finding roosts in stands with lower canopy cover than the surrounding forest, particularly females (USFWS 2013). NLEB has also been occasionally found roosting in structures like barns and sheds. Males and non-reproductive females may also roost in cooler places, like caves and mines (USFWS 2014). NLEB forage for insects by hawking and gleaning on forested ridges and hillsides. Gleaning behavior suggests that these bats have the ability to maneuver and forage in a cluttered environment (USFWS 2013). The single greatest threat to NLEB is white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that attacks hibernating bats (USFWS 2013). Large-scale population declines may occur in the future as the disease continues to spread. Environmental Baseline On the Cherokee National Forest, this bat has been documented in every county. Mist net and ANABAT surveys have been conducted on the Cherokee National Forest since 1998, with over 1,100 net nights and 1,000 NLEB captures. The population numbers of NLEB are highest in Kentucky and Tennessee (Miller 2013). NLEB have been captured during mist net surveys within the action area boundary, however no activities will occur within 0.25 mile of a known hibernacula or within 150 feet of known, occupied maternity roost trees

Direct and Indirect Effects Under the proposed activities, heavy equipment operation and tree felling may cause individual bats to fly out of trees or cause bats to be crushed if trees containing roosting bats are cut down or pushed over during implementation. Direct effects to bats from prescribed burning include displacement, injury, and mortality. Bats in roosts may be exposed to gases and heat in the plume generated by the spreading fire. Exposure would depend on how high bats roost aboveground, fire behavior, winds, and terrain. Dickinson’s research (2010) found that burning later in the season reduces risk to bats because they are less likely to be deeply in torpor during warm weather. The ability to arouse and move during fires is strong evidence that NLEB adjust to changed habitats resulting from fires (Lacki et al. 2009). Growing season prescribed burning may cause adverse effects to flightless pups. Female bats are able to carry their young after birth (until they are too heavy), which may reduce vulnerability (Dickinson et al. 2009). If bats leave roost trees during prescribed burns, bats are likely to return to the burn area after completion of the burn. Herbicide applications would not have any direct effects on bats because herbicide would be applied directly to vegetation and it is unlikely that they would come in to contact with any insects exposed to herbicides. However, should bats encounter insects exposed to herbicides, triclopyr, glyphosate, and impazypyr are considered low to practically non-toxic towards mammals (USEPA 1993, 1998, 2006, SERA 2011a,b,c). Under the proposed activities, open areas would be created and/or maintained through tree removal, prescribed fire, herbicide application, and heavy equipment use. Open areas would increase sunlight on the forest floor, increasing herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey (Owen et

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 18 al. 2003, Taylor 2006, Dickinson et al. 2009, Dickinson 2010, Lacki et al. 2009, Perry 2012). Insects are also attracted to post-fire dead wood (Dickinson 2010). An increase in open areas would potentially make previously unsuitable roost trees suitable because of an increase in solar radiation (Johnson et al. 2009). During tree removal activities, standards from the RLRMP for Indiana bat would ensure roosting habitat would remain in harvested units for NLEB. Snags would also be retained unless removal for safety to the public was necessary. Studies have found that female NLEB roosts are more often in areas with partial harvesting than in random sites, which may be due to trees located in more open habitat receiving greater solar radiation and therefore speeding up development of young (USFWS 2013). Silviculture management of pine dominated stands may also be beneficial to this species in the long-term since they have been found to forage in or near pine- dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands. Because this bat is better suited for foraging in cluttered habitats, shelterwood, thinning and mid-story cuts would be more beneficial to this bat than seedtree and clear cut harvests. In addition to creating and maintaining small openings in the forest, prescribed fire would improve and/or maintain pine-oak forests. NLEB forage in or near pine-dominated stands more often than hardwood dominated stands, in burned habitats more than unburned habitats (Lacki et al. 2009). Although prescribed fire activities may eliminate some potential roosting and maternity colony snags or live trees, fire would also create new snags, providing additional roosting habitat. Research has found that bats often take advantage of fire-killed snags (Perry 2012). Lacki et al. (2009) found that female NLEB preferentially choose roost trees in burned habitats compared to unburned habitats. There is also a need to create new snags as old snags fall down. Construction of ephemeral pools in open areas would provide additional feeding and drinking sites for bats. Temporary road construction may be beneficial by providing additional travel corridors within the action area. Placement of artificial roost structures in the project area after activities are completed may provide additional roosting habitat for bats. Overall, indirect effects from the proposed activities would improve bat roosting and foraging habitat across the landscape and manage the pine dominated forests these bats prefer. Flexibility in roosting habitats allows NLEB to be adaptable in managed forests (USFWS 2013).

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to the northern long-eared bats are expected.

Determination of Effects: This project “may affect, is likely to adversely affect” the northern long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR §17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the RLRMP, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service’s responsibilities

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 19 under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

4.4 SMALL WHORLED POGONIA

Habitat Relationships Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is a federally threatened species that has an historic range that includes most of the eastern United States. Despite its wide geographical distribution however, it is extremely rare throughout its range. According to NatureServe 2014 this is “a widely distributed species with approximately 93 extant sites with better than poor viability known. The largest cluster of sites is centered around the Appalachian Mountains of New England and coastal Massachusetts, with two moderate-sized clusters centered around (1) the southern Appalachians and (2) the Coastal Plain and Piedmont of Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey. There are also a few widely scattered outlying sites. Populations are typically very small and the total number of individuals is estimated to be less than 3000.”

Environmental Baseline The species is known to occupy a wide range of habitats, thus making it one of the more difficult species to look for based upon habitat parameters. The 1992 Recovery Plan describes habitat requirements as follows: “The small whorled pogonia occurs on upland sites in mixed- deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third-growth successional stages. Characteristics common to most Isotria medeoloides sites include sparse to moderate ground cover in the species’ microhabitat, a relatively open understory canopy, and proximity to features that create long-persisting breaks in the forest canopy. Soils at most sites are highly acidic and nutrient poor, with moderately high soil moisture values. Light availability could be a limiting factor for this species” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). However, in regards to the description of “typical” habitats and site conditions, the recovery plan also states “Beyond this “common ground” of habitat characteristics, there are a myriad of exceptions and variations that may occur regionally and/or locally.” According to NatureServe 2014, typical habitats include “acidic soils, in dry to mesic second-growth, deciduous or deciduous-coniferous forests; typically with light to moderate leaf litter, an open herb layer (occasionally dense ferns), moderate to light shrub layer, and relatively open canopy. Isotria medeoloides frequently occurs on flats or slope bases near canopy breaks.” “Nearly all Isotria medeoloides populations are described as occurring in "second growth" or successional forest communities. This fact alone should not elicit the notion that Isotria medeoloides therefore requires such relatively young- aged forests. Rather, Isotria medeoloides is a forest plant and virtually all forests in the region reflect past logging or clearing” (NatureServe 2014).

Direct and Indirect Effects All areas of proposed ground disturbance associated with the various elements of this project as described above were surveyed (Copperhead Environmental Consulting, Inc., 2010a and 2010b; Falcon Engineering, Inc., 2011; Pistrang, project record) in order to determine the potential effects of the action alternatives on this species. Isotria medeoloides was not found within any surveyed area and thus no direct or indirect effects to the species from ground disturbing activities would occur. The use of herbicides as a part of the various silvicultural activities that are proposed would conform to standards outlined in the Cherokee National Forest RLRMP

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 20

(USDA Forest Service 2004a) that are designed to eliminate any potential effects to PET plant species (FW Standard 87).

Prescribed burning includes both dormant and growing season burns. Dormant season prescribed burning would be conducted when above ground stems of this species are absent, thus there would be no effects to Isotria medeoloides in areas of proposed dormant season burns. Prescribed burning conducted during the growing season has some potential to affect this species if present within the burn area, however, there appears to be little to no current information in the literature regarding the effects of fire on this species (Hessl and Spackman 1995). In a paper entitled “The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants” (Owen 2004), the effect of fire was classified for all 186 federally listed, proposed, or candidate plant species that were known to occur on federal lands at that time. Plants were classified into four categories; those that require fire, those that tolerate it, those that are never exposed to fire based upon their habitats, and those that are adversely affected by fire. While not specifically mentioned in that paper, Isotria medeoloides was lumped into the group of species that is tolerant of some fire based upon habitats in which it is found (pers. com. Wayne Owen 2005). There is no mention of fire within the 78 page recovery plan for this species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992) though the plan does state that the species tends to occur on sites with soils that have relatively high moisture content. This suggests the species would occur within vegetative communities that would only burn during periods of drought. There are currently no records of this species known on the Cherokee National Forest. There are two known occurrences within the state of Tennessee, one located in Washington County on private land near the Forest and the other in extreme western Hamilton County.

The Cherokee National Forest has been conducting botanical surveys on all areas of proposed ground disturbing activities for well over 20 years. Many thousands of acres representing all major habitat types on the forest have been inventoried, and this species has never been detected. Habitat modeling developed in the northeast United States where the species has many more known occurrences suggests that occupied sites require overland vernal flows in conjunction with an impervious soil layer which leads to the seasonally high moisture content of soils (VonOettingen, pers com. 12/10/12). While the project area falls within the overall range of the species, the lack of previous detections combined with the xeric nature of the habitat proposed to be burned within the burn areas, presents an extremely low likelihood that the species would be present. Based upon this any potential impacts to the species would be discountable and the finding would be “not likely to adversely affect” for this species (Geoff Call, pers com. 12/10/12).

Cumulative Effects No known state or private activities are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. Therefore, no cumulative effects to the small whorled pogonia are expected.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may affect, is not likely to adversely affect” small whorled pogonia.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 21

5.0 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS

Species Federal Status Determination of Effect Spotfin chub Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect Citico darter Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Smoky madtom Endangered May affect, not likely to adversely affect Yellowfin madtom Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect Indiana bat Endangered May affect, is likely to adversely affect Northern long-eared Bat Threatened May affect, is likely to adversely affect, but will not result in prohibited take Small whorled pogonia Threatened May affect, not likely to adversely affect

6.0 SIGNATURE(S) OF PREPARER(S)

Prepared by:

/s/ Philip W. Earhart March 14, 2016 Philip W. Earhart Date South Zone Wildlife Biologist

Reviewed by:

/s/ Mary C. Miller March 14, 2016 Mary Miller Date Forest Wildlife Biologist

With contributions from: Jim Herrig: Forest Aquatics Biologist Mark Pistrang: Forest Botanist/Ecologist

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 22

7.0 DATA SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Call, J. 2012. Personal Communication. US Fish and Wildlife Service Tennessee Field Office.

Cherokee National Forest. TES Database Maps.

Cherokee National Forest. 2013. Cherokee National Forest 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Cleveland , TN.

Cherokee National Forest Aquatic Database. 2014. (Ver. 342014). Cleveland, TN.Cherokee National Forest. 2013.

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

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

Copperhead Consulting. 2009. Terrestrial Snail, Botanical, and Indiana Bat Surveys of the Middle Upper Tellico Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0012.

Copperhead Consulting. 2010. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys of the Conasauga Wildcat Project Area, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-10-0009 Order Number: AG-4756-D-10-0032.

Copperhead Consulting. 2013. Terrestrial Snail and Botanical Surveys for the South Zone Cherokee Prescribed Fire Dozer Lines, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee Contract Number: AG-4756-C-13-0014 Order Number: AG-4756-D-13-0029.

Dinkins, G.R. 1984. Aspects of the Life History of the Smoky Madtom Noturus baileyi Taylor, in Citico Creek. UTK. Knoxville, TN. 50 pp.

Dickinson, M. B, M.J. Lacki, and D.R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the Endangered Indiana Bat. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-46.

Dickinson, M. 2010. Burning and Bats: Fire’s Effect on the Endangered Indiana Bat. Fire Science Brief, Issue 109. Available: www.firescience.gov.

Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial Effects of Prescribed Fire on Quality of Soil and Streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Volume 29, No.1. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, NC.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 23

Etnier, D. A., P. W. Shute and G. R. Dinkins. 1984. Management Plan for the Yellowfin and Smoky Madtoms in Citico Creek, Monroe County, Tennessee. Prepared under Contract for USDA Forest Service, Cherokee National Forest, Cleveland, TN. 23 pp.

Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press. 681 pp.

Falcon Engineering, Inc. 2011. Biological Surveys, Cherokee National Forest: Bulldozer Lines and Conasauga/Wildcat. Contract AG-4756-C-11-0007. Task Order AG-4756-D-11-0022.

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

Harvey, M.J., J.S. Altenbach, and T.L. Best. 2011. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Herrig, Jim. 2014. Aquatic Analysis for the Conacat Environmental Analysis. Cherokee National Forest. Cleveland, TN. 10 pp.

Hessl, A. and S. Spackman. 1995. Effects of Fire on Threatened and Endangered Plants: An Annotated Bibliography. Information and Technology Report 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service. Washington D.C.

Jennings, M. 2014. Letter of Threatened and Endangered Species to Consider on the CNF. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

Johnson, J.B., W.M. Ford, J.L. Rodrigue, J.W. Edwards, C.M. Johnson. 2010. Roost Selection by Male Indiana Myotis Following Forest Fires in Central Appalachian Hardwood Forests. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management. 042010-JFWM-007R1.

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

Lacki, M.J, D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd, and M.B. Dickinson. 2009. Response of Northern Bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to Prescribed Fires in Eastern Kentucky Forests. Journal of Mammology, 90(5):1166-1175.

Leftwich, C, D. Dourson, and P. Roby. 2008. Terrestrial land snail and Indiana bat surveys of Hurricane Branch, Middle Citico, and Spring Creek, Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 24

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

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

Miller, Mary. 2013. Tennessee Bat Working Group Meeting Notes, November 21, 2013.

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

O’Keefe, J. 2011-2012. Indiana Bat Research. Indiana State University.

O’Keefe, J. 2011. Personal communication on Indiana bats and the use of ephemeral roost trees.

O’Keefe, J. 2012. Personal communication on new Indiana bat maternity colonies on the Cherokee National Forest.

Owen, S.F., M.A. Menzel, W.M. Ford, B.R. Chapman, K.V. Miller, J.T. Edwards and P.B. Wood. 2003. Home-range Size and Habitat used by the Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist, 150(2):352-359.

Owen, W. 2004. The Effects of Fire on Rare Plants. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service. Washington D.C.

Owen, W. 2005. Personal communication.

Parmalee, P. W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. Univ. of Tenn. Press. Knoxville, TN. Perry, R. 2012. A Review of Fire Effects on Bats and Bat Habitat in the Eastern Oak Region. Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-102.

Petty, M. A., P. L. Rakes, J. R. Shute, and C. L. Ruble. 2012. Captive Propagation and Population Monitoring of Rare Southeastern Fishes in Tennessee: 2011. Cherokee National Forest Challenge Cost Share Agreement: 07-CS-11080400-001 Mod 4.

Pistrang, M. 2013. Botanical surveys for Smith Mountain dozer lines.

Pistrang, M. 2014. Personal communication regarding the effects of dormant season prescribed burning on TES plants.

Prescribed Fire and Indiana Bat Workshop. 2013. Fontana Village, NC.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 25

Reddington, Allison. 2014. Environmental Consequences – Soil and Water. Report for the Conacat Analysis Area. Cherokee National Forest. Cleveland , TN.

Sewell, P, M Gumbert, P. Roby, and D. Foster. 2007. Mist net bat survey and rare species telemetry for the Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee, 2006.

Shute, P. W. 1984. Ecology of the Rare Yellowfin Madtom (Noturus flavipinnis) Taylor, in Citico Creek, Tennessee. UTK. Knoxville, TN. 101 pp.

Starnes, Wayne, C. 1977. The Ecology and Life History of the Endangered Snail Darter Percina (Imostoma) Tanasi Etnier. Tennessee Wildlife resources Agency Tech. Report No. 77-52. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 144 pp.

Swift, L.W., K.J. Elliot, R.D. Ottmar, and R.E. Vihnanek. 1993. Site Preparation Burning to Improve Appalachian Pine-Hardwood Stands: Fire Characteristics and Soil Erosion, Moisture, and Temperature. Canadian Journal of Forestry. Vol. 23. pp. 2242-2255.

Swift, L.W. 1985. Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In: Proceeding of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-south Symposium. Little Rock, Arkansas. May 8-9, 1985. pp. 140-151.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Imazypyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011. Triclopyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Manlius, New York.

Taylor, D. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2014. Tennessee Natural Heritage Inventory Program Records.

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

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

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 26

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

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

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 2600. National Headquarters, Washington D.C., USA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1983. Yellowfin Madtom Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 33 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Smoky Madtom Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 26 pp.

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

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Duskytail Darter Recovery Plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 25 pp.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. 1994. 50 CFR Part 17. RIN 1018-AC11. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final rule to reclassify the plant Isotria medeoloides (small- whorled pogonia) from endangered to threatened. Federal Register. Vol 59, No. 193.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Small Whorled Pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) Recovery Plan, First Revision. Prepared by S.L. Von Oettingen, New England Field Office. Region Five. Newton Corner, Mass.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4. Species Accounts: Small whorled pogonia. Available: http://endangered.fws.gov/i/q/saq1q.html.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 5-Year Review of 19 Southeastern Species. Summary and Evaluation for Yellowfin Madtom (Noturus flavipinnis), Smoky Madtom (Noturus baileyi), and Duskytail Darter (Etheostoma percnurum). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cookeville, TN. 36 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Eastern Small-footed Bat and the Northern Long- eared Bat as Endangered or Threatened Species; Listing the Northern Long-Eared Bat as an Endangered Species. Federal Register 78: 61046- 61080.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 27

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Northern Long-eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance. Available: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Programmatic Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Activities Affecting Indian Bats on the Southern Districts of the Cherokee National Forest. FWS #2014-F-0387 Issued January 22, 2015.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Activities Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat on Southern Region National Forests. FWS Log #04E00000-2015-F-0003 Issued August 5, 2015.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. R.E.D. FACTS-Glyphosate. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. R.E.D. FACTS-Triclopyr. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/2710fact.pdfEP.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. R.E.D. Imazypyr. Available: www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/imazapyr_red.pdf. von Oettingen, S. 2012. Personal communication.

White-nose Syndrome.org. 2013. White-nose Syndrom.org: North America’s Response to the Devastating Bat Disease. Available: http://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 28

ATTACHMENT A

PET Species Checklist

Proposed, Endangered and Threatened Species List Cherokee National Forest dated 7/6/2015

Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Arachnids Moss and liverwort mats on Microhexura 3 TDEC records; Roan 1a Spruce-fir moss spider Mountains of NC, TN rocks/boulders in mature spruce-fir E G1 montivaga Mtn.; Carter Co. forest > 5400 ft. Fish

Large streams, small to medium-sized 5 occ Conasauga R #1 & 1a Cyprinella caerulea Blue shiner C rivers, moderate gradient, low T G2 #2; Jack’s R; Sheeds Cr elevation & Mooneyham Cr

Large streams, moderate gradient, low 7b Erimonax monachus Spotfin chub LT,FB,SH 1 occ Experimental pop. T G2 elevation in Tellico R #1

2 occ Citico C r#1 & Large creeks & small-med rivers 10- 7b Etheostoma sitikuense Citico darter LT E G1 Experimental pop. in 80 m wide; moderate gradient, warm

Tellico R #1 2 occ Citico Cr #1 (Critical Habitat) & Large streams, low gradient, low 7b Noturus baileyi Smoky madtom LT E G1 Experimental pop. in elevation. Tellico R #1 2 occ Citico Cr #1 & Large streams to large rivers, low 7b Noturus flavipinnis Yellowfin madtom LT Experimental pop. in T G1 gradient, low elevation Tellico R #1. Large streams and small rivers, low 1a Percina antesella Amber darter C 0 occ E G1G2 gradient, low elevation 2 occ Conasauga R #1 Medium river, moderate gradient, low 1a Percina jenkinsi Conasauga logperch C (Critical Habitat) & E G1 elevation Jack’s R 2 occ Hiwassee R #1 & Large streams to medium rivers, low 2a Percina tanasi Snail darter O, H, LT T G2G3 Citico Cr #1 to moderate gradient, low elevation. Mammals Uses caves year round; Karst regions Western NC, Eastern TN, 6 records just off forest Corynorhinus Virginia big-eared dominated by oak-hickory, or beech- 1a southwest VA, Eastern in NE Carter & SE E G3G4T2 townsendii virginianus bat maple-forest. Bluff lines are KY, and southwest VA Johnson Cos. important. Mature spruce fir and adjacent Glaucomys sabrinus Carolina northern 4 TDEC records; Monroe northern hardwood/hemlock forests 1a Mountains of NC, TN, VA E G5T1 coloratus flying squirrel and Carter Cos. above 4000 feet; abundant snags & woody debris, fungi 4 TDEC records, Cocke Uses caves year round; forages along VA to KS south, from TN 2a Myotis grisescens Gray bat & Greene Cos.; pvt in riparian areas/shorelines with forest E G3 to OK; SC to FL, AL Carter & Sullivan Cos. cover Hibernates limestone caves; maternity 2 TDEC records; Monroe VT to MI south, to SC, roosts primarily trees with loose bark; 4a Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Co; addtl. ANABAT E G2 AL; IA to AR, OK forages riparian areas and upland records Monroe Co. water holes Hibernates in caves and cave-like ME to NC; west to ND and Over 1000 mist net Northern long-eared structures; summer maternity roosts in 4a Myotis septentrionalis SD; south from GA to LA; captures on the CNF; all T G1G2 bat cavities, loose bark, crevices, or eastern MT and WY CNF counties hollows of both live and dead trees; Mussels Alasmidonta Small to medium rivers, moderate 1a Appalachian elktoe N, P, FB,LT 1 occ. Nolichucky R. E G1 raveneliana gradient, moderate elevation

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 29

Scientific Name Common Name Range/Watersh/Co* CNF Records Habitat Information TES G-Rank Epioblasma 0 occ , nearest record 5 2a Oyster mussel H Large rivers, fast, shallow riffles E G1 capsaeformis miles below forest bdy Epioblasma florentina 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Small to large rivers, low gradient, 2a Tan riffleshell H E G1T1 walkeri #5 low elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Epioblasma metastriata Upland combshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E GH to moderate gradient, low elevation Epioblasma Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Southern acornshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E GHQ othcaloogensis to moderate gradient, low elevation Hamiota altilis 2 occ Conasauga R #1 & Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Finelined pocketbook C T G2 #2(Critical Habitat) to moderate gradient, low elevation Medionidus Alabama Large streams, low gradient, low 1a C O occ (Critical Habitat) T G2 acutissimus moccasinshell elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccasinshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G1Q elevation Large streams to medium rivers, low 1a Pleurobema decisum Southern clubshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G2 to moderate gradient, low elevation Pleurobema Southern pigtoe 2 occ. Conasauga R #1 & Medium rivers, moderate gradient, 1a C E G1 georgianum mussel #2 (Critical Habitat) low elevation Small streams to large rivers, Pleurobema 1 occ Conasauga R #1 1a Georgia pigtoe C moderate to high gradient, low E G1 hanleyianum (Critical Habitat) elevation Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell C O occ (Critical Habitat) E G1 elevation Pleuronaia 1 occ Hiwassee R 1-5 Large streams, low gradient, low 2a Slabside pearly musselH E G2 dolabelloides (Critical Habitat) elevation 1 occ Conasauga R #1 Large streams, low gradient, low 1a Ptychobranchus greenii Triangular kidneyshell C E G1Q (Critical Habitat) elevation Ptychobranchus Large streams, low gradient, low 2a Fluted kidneyshell H O occ E G2 subtentum elevation Cumberland bean 2 occ Hiwassee R. #4 & Large streams and small rivers, low 2a Villosa trabalis H,N E G1 pearly mussel #5 gradient, low elevation Reptiles 1 TDEC record Johnson Slow, shallow, mucky rivulets of Glyptemys 1a Bog turtle MA south to GA, TN Co.; CNF record Carter sphagnum bogs, seeps, wet cow T (SA) G3 muhlenbergii (S. pop) Co. pastures, & shrub swamps Non-vascular Plants 1 Record, Roan High elevation rocky summits and 1a Gymnoderma lineare Rock gnome lichen TN, NC, SC, GA E G2 Mountain rock outcrops. Vascular Plants Thin soil on rocky summits, cliffs, & Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Geum radiatum Spreading avens 3 Records ledges; open, grassy balds near E G1 Sevier, Blount, Carter. Rhododendron catawbiense; >4200’. Habitat includes crevices in rock Hedyotis purpurea var. Mountains of NC, TN. 1a Roan Mountain bluet 1 Record outcrops and gravelly soils at the E G5T2Q montana Carter edges of grassy balds. ME to GA; Midwestern Open deciduous, or mixed pine- Small whorled 4a/7a Isotria medeoloides US and CAN. Washington, 0 Records deciduous forests, often on dry to T G2G3 pogonia Hamilton. moist leaf litter. Crevices in phyllite & graywacke 1a Pityopsis ruthii Ruth's golden aster Southeast TN 13 Records; Polk Co. boulders in historical flood zone E G1 Ocoee & Hiwassee Rivers. Mountains of NC, TN. Rocky places (outcrops, ledges, cliffs, 1a Solidago spithamaea Blue Ridge goldenrod 1 Record T G1 Carter Co, Roan Mtn. balds) above 4500 ft. 1 Record, no longer Riverbanks and riverside shrub AL, GA, KY, LA, NC, 1a Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea extant; Unicoi Co., thickets; rocky areas susceptible to T G2 OH, PA, TN, VA, WV Nolichucky River flood scour. Riparian dependent.

*PRC = Project Review Code; to get the appropriate code for each species use the Project Review Code Key. * Co. = Counties from which the species is currently known. Does not represent potential occurrence. Counties of occurrence for vascular plants obtained from University of TN Plant Atlas, online version, 4/04.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 30

*Range abbreviations refer to the major watersheds on the Cherokee NF: Conasauga, Ocoee, Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, Pigeon, French Broad, Nolichucky, Watauga, and South Holton.

*Forest Occurrence Data is based upon currently known records. It is NOT necessarily reflective of potential occurrence, especially for plants.

*Habitat Information is only a summary. For a more thorough discussion on species, refer to the individual species write-ups that have been provided. For streams the following definitions apply: Orders Gradients Elevations small 3, 4 low <=2% low<=1200' medium 5, 6, 7 moderate>2% - <=4% high>1200' large 8, 9 high>4%

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 31

ATTACHMENT B

List for determining the Project Review Code (PRC) for each PETS Species

1a = The project is located out of the species known range, or suitable habitat does not exist in the project area. Determination of Effect: PET – No Effect; Sensitive – No Impact.

2a = All requisite habitat has been identified and excluded from disturbance associated with the project. Therefore, the project is expected to have no effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. Determination of Effect: PET – No Effect; Sensitive – No Impact.

3a = The project is being implemented for the benefit of the species, and is expected to have totally beneficial effects regardless of the number and location of individuals in the area affected by the project. Determination of Effect: T&E – May affect, not likely to adversely affect; Sensitive – Beneficial effect.

4a = It is assumed that the species is present. Additional information on the number and location of individuals is not needed to improve the design and/or application of mitigation to reduce adverse effects, or to allow a better assessment of effects to viability of the population.

5a = The species is already covered by a current site-specific inventory for the project area and additional inventories are not needed.

6a = Inventory methods are not technically or biologically feasible and effective for providing substantial information on the number and location of individuals. It is assumed that the species is present.

7a = A site-specific inventory was conducted, but the species was not found in the project area. Determination of Effect: PET– No Effect; Sensitive – No Impact.

7b = A site-specific inventory was conducted, and the species was found in the project area.

Appendix B - Biological Assessment 32