united states forest national forests in north carolina...

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

National Forests in North Carolina Nantahala National Forest Tusquitee Ranger District

123 Woodland Dr. Murphy, NC 28906-3145 828-837-5152

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

File Code: 1950 Date: February 26, 2009

Dear Interested Reader:

Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for releasing seedlings in “oak demonstration plots” on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Twelve plots ranging from 2 to 5 acres in size, and totaling approximately 35 acres have been planted with nursery grown oak trees. The EA discloses the effects of using herbicides to release the immature oak trees from competing vegetation. I am seeking your input regarding this analysis before I reach a decision. In accordance with 36 CFR 215.6 this project is subject to a 30-day notice and comment period. Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments, and to be eligible to appeal the decision, must provide the following information during the 30-day comment period:

• Your name and address; • Title of the Proposed Action (Seedling Release in Oak Demonstration Plots); • Specific facts or comments on the proposed action, along with supporting reason that the

person believes the Responsible Official should consider in reaching a decision; and • Your signature or other means of identification verification. For organizations, a

signature or other means of identification verification must be provided for the individual authorized to represent your organization.

Comments must be postmarked or received within 30 days beginning the day after publication of a legal notice in the newspaper of record, The Asheville Citizen Times in Asheville, North Carolina. Only those who submit timely comments or otherwise express interest in the proposed action will have eligibility for appeal purposes. In order to have appeal eligibility, each individual or representative from each organization submitting comments must either sign the comments or verify identity upon request. Written comments should be sent to Attn: Oak Demo Release, Tusquitee District Ranger, 123 Woodland Drive, Murphy NC 28906, or you may phone (828) 837-5152 or fax (828) 837- 8510. Oral or hand-delivered comments may be made at the Ranger District office within the normal business hours of 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Comments may also be mailed electronically to this office in a common digital format (without attachments), using the following email address: [email protected]. In accordance with regulations, all written comments received, including those submitted electronically, will be placed in the project file and will become a matter of public record.

For additional information on this project, please contact Rick Semingson at our Tusquitee office in Murphy, NC at (828) 837-5152 Ext. 108. Thank you for your continued interest in management of the National Forests in North Carolina.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve Lohr STEVE LOHR District Ranger

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January, 2009

Environmental Assessment

Seedling Release in Oak Demonstration Plots Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests

Responsible Official Marisue Hilliard Forest Supervisor National Forests in North Carolina For Information Contact: Rick Semingson Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, NC 28906 [email protected] (828) 837-5152

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Environmental Assessment Seedling Release in Oak Demonstration Plots

Seedling Release in Oak Demo Plots i 01/26/2009 Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS��1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION................................................................................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA........................... 1 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL (ALTERNATIVE B) ....................................... 2 1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 3 1.5 DECISION TO BE MADE ................................................................................................ 3 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVMENT .................................................................................................. 3 1.7 ISSUES................................................................................................................................. 4

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 4 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................... 4 2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .................................................... 5 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES............................................................................ 5 2.5 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES (DESIGN CRITERIA) ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES............ 9 3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 9 3.2 HERBICIDES (GENERAL) .............................................................................................. 9 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 BOUNDS OF ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) .................................................. 11 3.3.3 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIAL HABITAT ............................. 12 3.3.4 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES............................................................................... 14 3.3.5 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ........................ 15

3.4 WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................................... 19 3.5 SOIL RESOURCE............................................................................................................ 20 3.6 HUMAN HEALTH ........................................................................................................... 20 3.7 HERITAGE RESOURCES.............................................................................................. 21

5.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES............................................................................ 21 6.0 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 7: Biological Evaluation...................................................................................... 39

Seedling Release in Oak Demo Plots 1 01/26/2009 Environmental Assessment

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The National Forests in North Carolina is proposing to use herbicides in “oak demonstration plots” to release immature oak trees from competing vegetation. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would result from the proposed action, as well as alternatives to the proposed action. The document is organized into six sections: 1.0: Purpose and Need for the Action: This section includes background information about the project proposal, the purpose and need for the project, the Forest Service’s proposal for addressing the purpose and need, and a summary of the public involvement process. 2.0: Comparison of Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposal: a no-action alternative and an alternative to release oak seedlings using handtools only. This section also includes design criteria, or measures that are taken to prevent potential adverse effects of an action. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 3.0: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: In this section the potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives are examined. This section is organized by the environmental resource being examined, including: biological resources, heritage resources, soil and water, and human health. 4.0: Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. 5.0: References: This section provides a list of references and data sources used in the analysis. 6.0: Appendices: The appendices include summary tables and other information used to support the analysis presented in the EA, including the Biological Evaluation. 1.2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA Twelve oak demonstration plots ranging from 2 to 5 acres in size, and totaling approximately 35 acres, were established on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests from 1995 to 2004 for the purpose of evaluating the survival of planted oak seedlings, to assess the development of acorns in planted seedlings, and to demonstrate the role artificial regeneration can play in restoring oak species on sites that have been difficult to restock with oaks through natural regeneration. The twelve “demo” plot sites were cleared of all competing vegetation. Each site was then planted with nursery grown northern red oak, white oak and black oak seedlings. Ranger Districts with demo plots are the Grandfather District (4 plots) and Pisgah District (2 plots) on the Pisgah


National Forest, and the Cheoah District (2 plots), Nantahala District (3 plots) and Tusquitee District (1 plot) on the Nantahala National Forest (refer to the attached maps). Competition for space, sunlight and nutrients is now occurring on the demo plots from natural sprouting and growth of other vegetation. There is a need to release the planted oak trees to a “free-to-grow” condition by controlling these competing tree and shrub species. Treatment with herbicides is the most effective means of controlling competing vegetation. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL (ALTERNATIVE B) 35 acres on 12 sites would be treated with herbicides on an as-needed basis to remove trees and shrubs that are competing with the planted oak trees for space, sunlight and nutrients. Two types of herbicides and several application methods would be used. Glyphosate (trade names such as Forester, Accord or Rodeo, and the same active ingredient that is found in the commonly used Roundup Brand), and Triclopyr (trade names such as Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, Tahoe 3A and Tahoe 4E) would be used. Each of these herbicides is unique in the species of plants it effectively treats, in the method it is applied, and the time of year it is applied. They are designed to interfere with the normal growth process and viability of treated trees and shrubs. Application methods will include: • Direct application to the foliage of unwanted vegetation using a backpack carried spray

applicator (Glyphosate or Triclopyr). This treatment method is commonly used to suppress or kill up to shoulder high brush. A citrus oil called Cide-kick may be added to the herbicide formulation to allow better penetration and uptake of the herbicide;

• A streamline application, in which the herbicide is carried in a backpack, is sprayed directly onto the bark of the lower 2-3 feet of the stem of a tree (Triclopyr). Cide-kick and/or a mineral or natural vegetable oil additive are used in the formulation to allow the herbicide to spread around the stem and penetrate the bark. This method is used on small trees less than 3 inches in diameter (dbh);

• A cut surface treatment referred to as “hack and squirt” in which the bark of a standing tree is cut with a hatchet and the herbicide is applied with a squirt bottle (Glyphosate or Triclopyr). This treatment method is used to suppress or kill trees larger that 2 inches in diameter;

• A cut surface treatment referred to as “slashdown and stump spray” in which the competing tree is cut with a chain saw and herbicide is applied to the cut surface of the stump with a squirt bottle (Glyphosate or Triclopyr). This treatment method is used to suppress or kill trees larger than 2” dbh.


Table 1.1: Areas to be treated.

# District Site Name Year

Planted Species Planted

Compartment/ Stand MA Acres

1 Grandfather Witness Rock Univ. Study 2002 NRO 261/16 3B 4

2 Grandfather NRO Research Plot 1990 NRO 246/07 3B 3

3 Grandfather Witness Rock Demo 2001 WO,NRO 262/18 3B 2

4 Grandfather Jonas Ridge Demo 1995 NRO 106/4,19 4D 3

5 Pisgah Long Branch Demo 2002 WO,NRO,BO 96/28 4A 3.5

6 Pisgah North Mills University Study 2002 NRO 44/05 4D 5

7 Cheoah Bert Creek Demo 1995 NRO 118/09 3B 2

8 Cheoah Poison Cove Demo 2003 NRO 121/19 3B 2

9 Tusquitee Bates Creek Demo 2000 NRO 37/10 3B 2

10 Nantahala Jones Creek Demo 1995 NRO 126/28 4D 2

11 Nantahala Highlands Office Demo 2004 NRO 18/36 4A 3.5

12 Nantahala Lloyd Cove Demo 2004 NRO 78/37 4D 3 NRO - Northern red oak, WO - White oak, BO - Black oak, MA – Management Area

1.4 PURPOSE AND NEED Treatment is needed to control competing vegetation in order for the planted oak seedlings to survive and grow. Proposed treatments would achieve the goals, objectives, and desired future conditions identified in the Forest Plan. The activities would contribute in bringing the best science to bear on management of the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forest, integrating research and management to continually improve the scientific basis of ecosystem management (Forest Plan, p.III-2). Lands on the Forest are assigned to administrative units called Management Areas (MA’s). Each MA has unique goals attributed to it, with appropriate management direction and standards to achieve these goals. Proposed activity areas are located in MA’s 3B, 4A, and 4D where in:

MA3B - Emphasis is on a sustainable supply of timber, achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time.

MA4A and 4D - Timber production is permitted, but modified to emphasize visual quality objectives and wildlife habitat needs.

1.5 DECISION TO BE MADE The decision to be made is whether to proceed with the proposal as described to release the oak seedlings using herbicides, or to release the oak seedlings by other means (manual or mechanical), or to not release the seedlings from competing vegetation. 1.6 PUBLIC INVOLVMENT Scoping is defined by the National Environmental Policy Act as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and for identifying the issues related to a proposed action.” Scoping continues throughout project planning and analysis.


Scoping for this proposal began in February 21, 2008 when a letter was sent to groups and individuals known to be interested in the Management of National Forest lands in North Carolina. This letter invited the public to comment on the proposal. The scoping notice was also posted on the Forest website on Feb. 21, 2008. Notification of the proposal was published in the National Forests in North Carolina Quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions on October 2007, which was mailed to 100+ recipients. The project has been listed in every quarterly Schedule of Proposed Action since then. We only received comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1.7 ISSUES Significant Issues - An “Issue” is defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects of the Proposed Actions. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDTeam) identified the following key issues which would be used in determining the effects:

Issue 1: The effect of herbicides on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species (PETS), Management Indicator Species (MIS), forest concern species, and rare and sensitive biological communities. Issue 2: The impacts to water quality and aquatic habitats. Issue 3: The effects of herbicides on human health. Issue 4: Effectiveness of manual release in controlling competing vegetation.

Nonsignificant Issues - Issues are considered to be nonsignificant and therefore not analyzed in detail if they are outside the scope of the proposal; are already decided by law or the Forest Plan; are not in conflict with the proposed action; are not supported by scientific evidence; or are limited in duration, extent, or intensity. Though these issues are considered to be nonsignificant, there may still be some discussion of their environmental effects in Section 3 of the EA. Based on the IDTeams evaluation of public comments there are no nonsignificant issues. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section discusses the proposed action and the alternatives considered by the Forest Service, including alternatives eliminated from detailed analysis. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION


The No-Action Alternative provides a baseline against which the proposed action is compared. Under this alternative, no specific action would be taken to release the oak seedlings from competing vegetation. 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION The Forest Service proposes to use herbicides to release oak seedlings from competing vegetation. Refer to section 1.3 for a detailed description of the proposed activities. 2.2.3 ALTERNATIVE C In Alternative C only handtools such as chainsaws and brush axes would be used to release the oak seedlings from competing vegetation. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL There are no alternatives that were considered and then eliminated from further detailed study. 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES The table below summarizes the impacts of implementing each alternative. A more complete analysis of impacts is discussed in Section 3 of this EA– Environmental Consequences. Table 2.1: Summary of Effects by Alternative �

Issue-Resource Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Alternative C (Handtools Only)

Proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive Species (PETS) No Effect

No Impact when design criteria are applied. No Impact.

Forest Concern Species No Effect No Impact when design criteria are applied. No Impact.

Management Indicator Species/Communities No Effect


Water quality and aquatic habitats No Effect


Human Health No Effect No Impact when design criteria are applied.

No Impact. A risk of injury to workers.

� 2.5 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES (DESIGN CRITERIA) Labeling


1. Herbicides are applied according to labeling information and site-specific analysis. Labeling and analysis are used to choose the herbicide, rate, and application method. They are also used to select measures to protect human and wildlife health, non-target vegetation, water, soil, and threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species.

Choice of Herbicide 1. Only herbicide formulations and additives registered by the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and approved by the Forest Service for use on national forests are applied. 2. Herbicides and application methods are chosen to minimize risk to human and wildlife

health and the environment. Application Rate 1. Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and

according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health. Application rate must not exceed typical levels. Typical application rates, in pounds per acre of active ingredient, are as follows: • 1.0 lb/acre for glyphosate applied with a manual foliar broadcast treatment, • 1.3 lb/acre for glyphosate applied with a cut-surface treatment; • 1.4 lb/acre for triclopyr amine applied with a manual foliar broadcast treatment; • 1.0 lb/acre for triclopyr ester applied with a manual foliar broadcast treatment, • 1.9 lb/acre for triclopyr ester applied with a manual basal treatment.

Application Method 1. Public safety during such uses as viewing, hiking, berry picking, and fuel wood gathering is

a priority concern. Method and timing of application are chosen to achieve objectives while minimizing effects on non-target vegetation and other environmental elements.

Drift Control 1. Weather is monitored and the project is suspended if temperature, humidity, or winds

become unfavorable as follows: not applicable for cut-surface treatment; for manual foliar broadcast treatment and manual basal treatment if temperatures are higher than 98F, humidity less than 20%, and wind greater than 15 mph at the target site.

2. Nozzles that produce large droplets or streams of herbicide are used. Nozzles that produce fine droplets are used only for hand (manual) treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet.

Supervision and Training 1. A certified applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew

members in personal safety, proper handling and application of herbicides, and proper disposal of empty containers.


2. Each Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), who must ensure compliance on contracted herbicide projects, is a certified pesticide applicator. Contract inspectors are trained in herbicide use, handling, and application.

Protection of Workers 1. Forest Service workers who handle herbicides must wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants

made of tightly woven cloth that must be cleaned daily. They must wear a hardhat with plastic liner, waterproofed boots and gloves, and other safety clothing and equipment required by labeling. They must bring a change of clothes to the field in case their clothes become contaminated.

2. Each Forest Service crew must take soap, wash water separate from drinking water, eyewash bottles, and first aid equipment to the field.

3. Contractors ensure that their workers use proper protective clothing and safety equipment required by labeling for the herbicide and application method.

4. Workers must not walk through areas treated by broadcast foliar methods on the day of application.

5. Supervisors must ensure that monitoring is adequate to prevent adverse health effects. Workers displaying unusual sensitivity to the herbicide in use are medically evaluated and, if tested as sensitive to the herbicides in use, are reassigned to other activities.

Protection of the General Public and Private Land 1. Notice signs are clearly posted, with special care taken in areas of anticipated visitor use. 2. No herbicide is broadcast within 100 feet of private land or 300 feet of private residence,

unless the landowner agrees to closer treatment. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Protection of Non-Target Vegetation 1. No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of non-target vegetation

(e.g., den trees, hardwood inclusions, adjacent stands) within or next to the treated area. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Protection of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species 1. Triclopyr is not ground-applied within 60 feet of known occupied gray, Virginia big-eared,

or Indiana bat habitat. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

2. No herbicide is ground-applied within 60 feet of any known threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Protection of Water and Soil


1. Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers

2. Aquifers and public water sources are identified and protected by consulting with the state of North Carolina to ensure compliance with their ground water protection strategies.

3. No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or sinkholes. No soil- active herbicide with a half-life longer than 3 months is broadcast on slopes over 45 percent, erodible soils, or aquifer recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

4. No herbicide is ground-applied with 30 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams. No herbicide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

Control of Spills 1. During transport, herbicides, additives, and application equipment are secured to prevent

tipping or excess jarring and are carried in a part of the vehicle totally isolated from people, food, clothing, and livestock feed.

2. Only the amount of herbicide need for the day’s use is brought to the site. At day’s end, all leftover herbicide is returned to storage.

3. Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or other sensitive areas.

4. During use, equipment to store, transport, mix, or apply herbicides is inspected daily for leaks.

5. Containers are reused only for their designated purpose. Empty herbicide containers are disposed of according to 40 CFR 165.9 Group I & II Containers.

6. Accident preplanning is done in each site-specific analysis. Emergency spill plans are prepared. In the unlikely event of a spill, the spill is quickly contained and cleaned up, and appropriate agencies and persons are promptly notified.


3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section discloses the potential environmental effects or impacts of each of the alternatives described in Section 2. The intent of this section is to provide the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of the alternatives. Discussion of the impacts is in relation to the issues described in Section 1. The analysis in this document tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Forest Plan) and to the FEIS for Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains. 3.2 HERBICIDES (GENERAL) Alternatives B – Proposed Action The herbicides that are proposed for use (triclopyr and glyphosate) are relatively safe herbicides which when used according to label direction pose little risk to the forest environment. The analysis of the effects of herbicides in this project incorporates the general discussions presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains (Veg. Mgmt-FEIS.). This Veg. Mgmt-FEIS documents a very rigorous analysis of the environmental effects of using herbicides in vegetation management. Appendix A of the Veg. Mgmt-FEIS takes a hard look at potential risk to human and wildlife health from 11 herbicides, including triclopyr and glyphosate. In addition, this project incorporates the information found in the most recent Forest Service risk assessments that is available for these two herbicides, glyphosate (281 pages) and triclopyr (264 pages). The Veg. Mgmt-FEIS and the risk assessments may be viewed at the Tusquitee District Office in Murphy. The risk assessments are also available on the internet at www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/index.shtml. Vegetation management requirements for herbicide application found in the Forest Plan and in the Veg. Mgmt-FEIS would further reduce the risk of herbicide use. In general, herbicides would be applied according to labeling and site-specific analysis; all formulations and additives are registered with the EPA and approved for Forest Service use; application rates would be at or below those listed as typical rates in the Record of Decision for the Veg. Mgmt-FEIS; selective applications would be used, rather than broadcast applications; Forest Service supervisors and contract representatives would be certified pesticide applicators; treated areas would be posted with signs in accordance with FSH 7109.11; and no herbicides would be applied within 100 feet of public or domestic water sources, or within 30 feet of perennial or intermittent streams. In addition to the above measures, all standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan would be applied, as well as all 99 applicable requirements found in the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Veg. Mgmt-FEIS The direct effect of herbicide use is to injure or kill the target plant species and some adjacent plants. Direct and indirect effects of herbicide use would be confined only to those areas treated,


and would be short-term, lasting only until the herbicides break down through natural processes. Because of the low toxicity of the two herbicides being proposed, as well as the method and requirements of application, there will be no measurable direct or indirect effects to human health and safety, wildlife, PETS species, water and aquatic life, or soils. Cumulative Effects Herbicides have not been used in the demo sites in the past. The cumulative effects of herbicide use would be limited to the direct and indirect effects described in the preceding paragraph. 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.3.1 BOUNDS OF ANALYSIS 3.3.1.1 Botanical Resources Bounds of Analysis Only botanical resources occurring in the activity areas, or with habitat in the activity areas, were analyzed in detail. Plants are rooted species that must be present in the activity areas to suffer effects. These analyses are considered in relation to the forest trend, as described in the MIS report for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (USFS 2001). Past effects are constrained by the availability of forest service records for the analysis area. Complete records for USFS projects extend for approximately 20 years before present. As a result, analyses will be confined to the past 20 yrs, the longest time period for which complete USFS records exist. Effects can be expected to persist for at least 40 yrs following regeneration harvests, the approximate time necessary to re-establish a closed canopy at roughly the same height as mature forest, and that also produces the snags, dens and hard mast characteristic of mature forests. Plant communities are used to both summarize past effects to botanical resources in the analysis area as well as identify potential habitats for endangered, threatened and sensitive species. Xeric, convex slopes, especially in the upper portions of the activity areas, support the Oak-Hickory Forest community type, a forest often dominated by Quercus alba, Quercus prinus and Carya glabra, but also containing species such as Liriodendron tulipifera and Acer rubrum. On more mesic sites, these oak-hickory forests may grade into Rich Cove and Northern Hardwoods Forest community types, depending on elevation and exposure. These communities are dominated by mesic hardwoods such as Liriodendron tulipifera, Aesculus octandra, Tilia americana, Acer rubrum, Fraxinus americana, Prunus serotina, Fagus grandifolia and Acer saccharum. Other forest communities in the activity areas include pine stands, dominated variously by Pinus strobus, Pinus echinata, Pinus taeda and Pinus rigida. Most of these stands, however, are less than six years old. Small rock outcrops are present across the project area, usually embedded in the Oak-Hickory Forest community types. These are typically herbaceous communities dominated by species such as Heuchera villosa and Saxifraga michauxi, and non-vascular species such as Polytrichum commune.


3.3.1.2 Aquatic Resources Bounds of Analysis This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts on aquatic habitat and populations, and do not necessary overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to project area waters, the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities. The aquatic analysis areas for this project consist of the following watersheds: Poison Cove Branch, Bert Creek, Tessentee Creek, Jones Creek, Skitty Creek, Bates Creek, Huskins Branch, Roaring Fork, Upper Creek, Armstrong Creek, Long Branch (Davidson River watershed), and Rocky Fork (French Broad River watershed). Data for aquatic resources exist in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of forest resources and data provided by cooperating resource agencies from resources on or flowing through the forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 are used primarily as historical data. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, and US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. Previous activities in the project area include timber harvest, pine beetle salvage, and road construction. There are no ongoing management activities on USFS lands in the project area that would produce cumulative effects to the aquatic resources. Private lands in the project area are primarily characterized by developed farmland. Subdivisions are being developed throughout the watersheds. These activities include the construction of graveled roads and driveways. These developments are subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide protection to the aquatic resources. With implementation of the required erosion control, any effects to aquatic resources would not be measurable and would not lead to cumulative effects. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands known to be affecting the aquatic resources in the project area. There are no other actions proposed for the project area on federal lands in the future; therefore, there would be no effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned for private lands that would affect the aquatic resources of the project area. 3.3.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Bounds of Analysis All terrestrial wildlife communities and habitat components potentially occurring in the activity areas were considered and evaluated. All management indicator species whose habitat is potentially affected by project activities were evaluated. 3.3.2 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS)


3.3.2.1 Botanical Management Indicator Species No biological communities addressing botanical MIS were located in the proposed activity areas. As a result, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to any of these botanical resources. In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects to any of these botanical resources. 3.3.2.2 Aquatic Management Indicator Species Aquatic MIS listed in the LRMP represent all biological communities and special habitats on the Nantahala/Pisgah National Forests. Only those MIS that could be affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated; the following paragraphs explain why certain LRMP MIS were eliminated from further consideration. The proposed treatment areas and the affected areas lie on dry sites where no aquatic habitats are located. The proposed project would have no effects to any aquatic MIS because none occur within the analysis areas. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) occur in reservoirs. This habitat does not occur within the analysis area; therefore, largemouth bass and its habitat will not be analyzed further. Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) inhabit coolwater and warmwater steams. No coolwater or warmwater habitats exist in the aquatic analysis areas; therefore, this species will not be analyzed. Wild brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), wild rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), wild brown trout (Salmo trutta), and blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) are coldwater fish species, these species were eliminated from the analysis because there are no records for these species occurring within the analysis area waters. No warm water streams occur within the analysis area. Warmwater streams will not be analyzed for this project because none occur within the aquatic analysis area. There would be no effects to any warmwater streams. The effects of this project would dissipate prior to reaching any streams or lakes. The effects of the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project would not reach the locations where any aquatic MIS are found. 3.3.2.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species The proposed project would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any wildlife MIS. 3.3.3 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND SPECIAL HABITAT 3.3.3.1 Botanical Communities/Special Habitat No biological communities addressing botanical resources, or habitat components were located in the proposed activity areas. As a result, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to any of these botanical resources. In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects to any of these botanical resources.


Invasive Plant Species Because non-native, invasive plants generally remain in disturbed areas, analysis areas for direct, indirect, past and cumulative effects to non-native invasive plant species were confined to areas undergoing USFS management activities. Effects to invasive species cannot be correlated with specific projects, so past effects must be summarized by the current condition in the analysis area, as determined by field surveys. Because invasive plants can maintain themselves indefinitely in the environment, there is no future boundary for these species. In the activity areas, the most invasive species are Microstegium vimineum and Lonicera japonica. In general, these species grow on roadsides leading to the proposed activity areas, a total of less than five acres in the botanical analysis area. Direct and Indirect Effects - Ground disturbance and the increased light conditions resulting from road construction may increase the amount of acreage suitable for invasive exotic species (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). None of the alternatives, however, propose road construction or reconstruction. As a result, the alternatives would produce negligible, if any, additional habitat for non-native, invasive plant species. Cumulative Effects - In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects for non-native, invasive plant species. Past effects include some form of timber management on all twenty of the proposed activity areas during the past 7-8 years. Ground disturbance associated with timber practices may have increased the amount of suitable habitat for non-native, invasive plant species in the proposed activity areas. None of the proposed activity areas, however, contained extensive populations of exotic species. 3.3.3.2 Aquatic Communities/Special Habitat There will be no effects to any coldwater streams, coolwater streams, warmwater streams, or reservoirs because none of these biological communities occur within the aquatic analysis area. The proposed action would have no effects on any streams or reservoirs because no herbicides would be applied within 30 feet of any water and riparian buffers would be maintained. Cumulative Effects - In the absence of direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and no effects from any past, ongoing, or future actions there would be no cumulative effects to the coldwater streams, coolwater streams or reservoir communities. 3.3.3.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Communities/Special Habitat There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any terrestrial wildlife communities or special habitats.


Table 3.1: Effects of alternatives on biological communities and special habitats.

Biological Community Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Fraser fir forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Northern hardwood forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Carolina hemlock bluff forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Rich cove forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Yellow pine forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Reservoirs None affected. None affected. None affected. Riparian forests None affected. None affected. None affected. Cold water streams None affected. None affected. None affected. Coolwater streams None affected. None affected. None affected. Warm water streams None affected. None affected. None affected. Special Habitat Components Old forest communities (100+ years old) None affected. None affected. None affected. Early successional communities (0-10 yr) No impact. No impact. No impact. Early successional communities (11-20 yr) None affected. None affected. None affected. Soft mast-producing species (<40 yr) No impact. None affected. None affected. Hard mast-producing species (>40 yr) None affected. None affected. None affected. Contiguous areas/low disturbance (< 1 mi. open road / 4 sq. miles) No change. No change. No change. Large contiguous forest None affected. None affected. None affected. Permanent grass/forb openings None affected. None affected. None affected. Snags and dens (>22” dbh) None affected. None affected. None affected. Down woody material No impact. None affected. None affected. 3.3.4 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES 3.3.4.1 Botanical Forest Concern Species Because plants are rooted species that must be present in the activity areas to suffer effects, analysis areas for direct, indirect, past and cumulative effects to forest concern species were confined to areas undergoing USFS management activities. In addition, forest concern species are analyzed for viability at the forest level. Past effects for forest concern species are constrained by the availability of NEPA analyses in the activity areas for these species, a period of approximately 8 years before present. The Biological Conservation Database (BCD) was queried for forest concern plant species growing in the activity areas. It contained no records for any forest concern plant species in the activity areas. Field surveys for forest concern plant species were conducted by Wilson Rankin and Dave Danley, USFS botanists, between 2003 and 2005. Field surveys consisted of a timed meander with increased intensity in the most diverse areas. Surveys were continued until no new species


or microhabitats were detected (Goff, et al. 1982). The surveys found no forest concern plant species in the activity areas. Because no forest concern plant species are known from, or have been located in, the activity areas, no plant species underwent further evaluation for potential effects from the project. There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any forest concern plant species. 3.3.4.2 Aquatic Forest Concern Species This project would have no impact on any forest concern aquatic species and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of any aquatic forest concern species because no suitable habitats are available within the aquatic analysis areas. Seventy-five aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in Cherokee, Graham, Macon, Transylvania, and Henderson Counties. Forty-two forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These forty-two species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. Based upon the results of this filtering process no forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis. The aquatic analysis areas for this project consists of the following watersheds: Bear Creek, Talula Creek, Santeetlah Creek, Snowbird Creek, the West Buffalo arm of Santeetlah Lake, Massey Branch, Wolf Creek and the Wolf Creek arm of Fontana Lake, Fontana Lake around the Tsali peninsula, and the Cable Cove area of Fontana Lake. There would be no cumulative effects to any aquatic forest concern species because none occur within the aquatic analysis areas. The proposed treatment areas are located on dry sites and they are not near any water resources. 3.3.4.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Forest Concern Species All forest concern terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. None are known to occur in the project activity areas. No special habitats for these species occur in these young stands. If any mobile species were present when hand application of herbicides was occurring, direct effects are very unlikely. Therefore, no forest concern species were evaluated for this project. 3.3.5 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES 3.3.5.1 Botanical Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Because no endangered or threatened plant species were located in the activity areas, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened plant species. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary for botanical species. Because no sensitive plant species were located in the activity areas, there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any sensitive plant species. 3.3.5.2 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species


The project would have no effect on any federally listed or proposed species or habitats because none occur within the aquatic analysis areas. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. This project would have no impact on any sensitive aquatic species and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because project design features (e.g. stream buffers) would prevent the herbicides from entering project area streams in measurable quantities and no sensitive aquatic species occur within the aquatic analysis areas. 3.3.5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species considered in this analysis are currently listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public//pub/state Listing.jsp?status=listed&state=NC. All terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records of PET animals as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and field data on the project area. All but one of these (the Indiana Bat) was dropped from further consideration due to a lack of suitable habitat.

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) - The Indiana bat is a medium-sized monotypic species of the genus Myotis. It is migratory and occurs over much of the eastern half of the United States. Typically, Indiana bats hibernate from October through April and are restricted to a few suitable hibernacula. Early researchers considered flood-plain and riparian forests to be the primary roosting and foraging habitats used in the summer, but more recently, upland forests have been shown to be used by Indiana bats for roosting and upland forests, old fields, and pastures with scattered trees have been shown to provide foraging habitat. In North Carolina, multiple roosting sites are currently known from western Graham and Cherokee counties.

Determination of Effect - Since no trees over 3” will be cut, there will be no direct or indirect impacts to Indiana bats or Indiana bat habitat. There are no cumulative effects. This project will have no effect on the Indiana bat. This project will have no effect on any other federally proposed or listed terrestrial animal species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). The objective is to manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species (FSM 2670.12). Adverse effects must not create a trend towards federal listing. All sensitive terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records of sensitive animals as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and field data on the project area. All but six of these were excluded from further analysis due to lack of suitable habitat in the activity areas, or being outside the known range of the species.


The northern bush katydid, rock-loving grasshopper, frosted elfin, Diana fritillary butterfly, southern Appalachian salamander and southern water shrew may occur in the project area. Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis) - One of the long-horned meadow grasshoppers, their wings are held vertically over the body, resembling the roof of a house, the antennae is very long, often extending well beyond tip of abdomen, all tarsi have 4 segments, the tympana (hearing organs) are on the front tibiae, and the ovipositor is typically flattened and sword-like. This species is known to occur at numerous locations in the northeast and lake states. North Carolina is at the southern edge of its range. It utilizes treetops at the edges of broadleaved forest. On the basis of hearing the calls of males, it is thought to be common, but since it keeps mostly to the tree tops, it is exceedingly difficult to collect. There is only one extant record for this species on the Nantahala National Forest. Recent survey work could not confirm the historical locations, so the status of this species on the forest is unknown. Direct and Indirect Effects –Since the forest edge will not be affected by the proposed action to release young trees in regeneration areas, all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the northern bush katydid. Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis) - One of the spur-throated grasshoppers, the pronotal ridge is usually faint or entirely absent on the posterior half of the pronotum and the front wings have dark markings. This species occurs only on rock surfaces, either bare or lichen-encrusted. This grasshopper, mottled with several colors but especially yellow, black and greenish, is conspicuous when flying but indistinguishable when resting on a patch of lichens. Its range extends from the western Carolinas and Georgia to northeastern New Mexico, eastern Colorado, and southeastern Wyoming. There is one extant record for this species in western North Carolina, not on the National Forest, so although it is assumed to be present, the status of this species on the forest is unknown. Direct and Indirect Effects –Since rock outcrops will not be affected by the proposed action, all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the rock-loving grasshopper. Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus) - The frosted elfin is in the family Lycaenidae (gossamer-wing butterflies). It has a wingspan of 25 to 32 mm (1 to1¼ inches). The upperside of the wings are dark brown; males have a long, oval dark spot on the leading edge of the forewing. The frosted elfin is widespread across the eastern half of the United States, but is rare or at best locally frequent in all areas. Its habitat is open woods and borders in dry situations, places where wild lupine (Lupinus) and wild indigo (Baptisia), its larval hostplants, grow. There are no specific records for this species in western North Carolina, so it is assumed to occur wherever wild indigo occurs.


Direct and Indirect Effects –Since the activity areas are not suitable habitat, and releasing young trees will have no effect on the presence of larval hostplants, all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the frosted elfin. Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) - These butterflies are large (3.5" wingspan) and showy. Males are blackish-brown with orange markings; the larger females are black with iridescent blue. The species is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. It is thought to be fairly common across Graham, Swain, Cherokee, Clay and Macon counties, because it is frequently noted in various types of habitat. The adults nectar on joe-pye-weed, ironweed, and butterflyweed, while the larva feed on violets. This species occurs in different forest types, but seems to prefer roadsides through cove forests. Direct and Indirect Effects - Since releasing young trees will have no effect on the suitability of the habitat or the presence of larval host plants, all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the Diana fritillary butterfly. Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) - The southern appalachian salamander is a large (12.1–20.7 cm) black salamander with small white spots on back and larger white spots on belly. This salamander has small red spots on the legs which distinguish it from slimy salamanders. Most of its range is western NC, although it is also found in adjacent Tennessee, Georgia and South Carolina. This species has been found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. Although the data is historical, it is thought to be fairly common across Graham, Swain, Cherokee, Clay and Macon counties. Dr. Richard Highton's collection at the Smithsonian lists 1007 records for this species from 10 counties in North Carolina, at elevations from 1160 feet to 6000 feet. This includes 267 records on the Nantahala National Forest. Direct and Indirect Effects - Releasing young trees will have a very limited and temporary effect on moisture conditions on the ground, therefore all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the southern Appalachian salamander. Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus) - This semi-aquatic shrew is nearly six inches long, including a 2 ¾-inch tail. It has a dark blackish upper body and tail, and light grayish under-parts. The large hind feet are fringed with stiff hairs. The range of the water


shrew extends across Canada from Labrador and Nova Scotia to southeastern Alaska. The range extends south in the Appalachian Mountains to Tennessee and North Carolina, in the Rocky Mountains to Utah and New Mexico, and in the Sierra Nevada to California. Mostly aquatic, the water shrew lives beneath the overhanging banks and in rock crevices along the edges of swiftly flowing mountain streams. Rhododendron and yellow birch are usually the dominant vegetation in these areas. This species is known to occur on small first order streams up to 12-15' wide, with rhododendron cover across Macon, Swain and Clay counties. It has been recorded from nine sites on the Nantahala National Forest, most of these are recent records from Macon County from Dr. Joshua Laerm and his students surveying small mammal populations. The species is thought to be widespread, but occurs in low densities and is difficult to capture. Direct and Indirect Effects – Since streams and streambanks will not be affected by the proposed action, all action alternatives would have no effect. Cumulative Effects – Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. Determination of Effect – This project will have no effect on the southern water shrew. Determination of Effect (Sensitive Species) - The project will not impact any sensitive species. No cumulative effects on species viability across the Forest will result from this project.

3.4 WATER QUALITY Direct and Indirect Effects. This project proposes the use of herbicides, glyphosate or triclopyr, for timber stand release. In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM-FEIS), herbicide spraying would not occur within 30 horizontal feet of water unless the herbicide has been approved for aquatic applications. The herbicide triclopyr (ester formulation) has the potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the concentration causing mortality – generally concentrations < 0.5 ppm in the adjacent streams. Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS). The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Stream temperatures would not be affected because the riparian vegetation would not be removed, retaining the existing stream shade. There would be no direct or indirect effects of the proposed herbicide application because the project area waters would be protected by stream buffers. Cumulative Effects. In the absence of direct and indirect effects of the proposed actions, there would be no cumulative effects of this project on the aquatic resources.


3.5 SOIL RESOURCE Glyphosate and triclopyr use proposed in Alternative B would have no known effect on soil physical and chemical properties. The herbicides would not affect soil productivity at the application rates being used. Proposed treatments with handtools in Alternative C would have no effect on soil physical or chemical properties, or soil productivity. 3.6 HUMAN HEALTH Glyphosate For both workers and members of the general public, there is very little indication of any potential risk at the typical application rate of 2 pounds active ingredient per acre (USDA Forest Service Human Health Risk Assessment for Glyphosate, 2003). Confidence in these assessments is reasonable high because of the availability of dermal absorption data in human as well as worker exposure studies. From a practical perspective, the most likely exposure for workers that might require medical attention involves accidental contamination of the eyes. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations are eye irritants. Reasonable care should be taken to avoid contact of skin and eyes. See Section 2.5 of the Environmental Assessment for management requirements & mitigation measures. For members of the general public, none of the longer-term exposure scenarios exceed or even approach a level of concern. There is no route of exposure or exposure scenario suggesting that the general public will be at risk to longer –term exposure to glyphosate. An exposure scenario that involves an accidental spill into a small pond does exceed the level of concern. This exposure scenario is extreme to the point of limited plausibility. Triclopyr There is no indication that workers will be subject to hazardous levels of triclopyr at the typical application rate of 1 pound per acre and under typical exposure conditions (USDA Forest Service Human Health Risk Assessment for Triclopyr, 2003). For members of the general public, there is no route of exposure or exposure scenario suggesting that the general public will be at risk form longer-term exposure to triclopyr. Cide-kick Cide-kick is a low viscosity oil byproduct of the citrus industry. It is added to an herbicide mixture to break down the waxy cuticle on a leaf surface, and to help the herbicide penetrate the bark area of woody vegetation. Cide-kick is an irritant when exposed to the skin or eyes. Inhalation may cause irritation of the respiratory tract. Care should be taken to avoid contact to skin and eyes. Section 2.5 of this environmental assessment describes actions to be taken for protection of workers.


Mineral and/or Vegetable Oil Mineral and/or natural vegetable oil is added to herbicides when a basal spray application is used to treat the bark of undesirable species. Care should be taken to avoid contact to skin and eyes. 3.7 HERITAGE RESOURCES Because no ground disturbance is involved in the project, proposed activities in Alternatives B and C have no potential for effect, adverse or beneficial, to a heritage resource. 4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED USDA Forest Service Preparers and Persons Consulted Rick Semingson - Resource Planner/Project Coordinator – Nantahala National Forest Jason Farmer – Fisheries Biologist – Nantahala National Forest Wilson T. Rankin – Botanist – Nantahala National Forest Dave Danley – Botanist – Pisgah National Forest Doreen Miller – Wildlife Biologist – Nantahala National Forest Dave Casey – Silviculturist – Cheoah/Tusquitee Ranger Districts John Blanton – Silviculturist – National Forests in North Carolina Rodney Snedeker – Archeologist – National Forests in North Carolina Scott Ashcraft – Archeologist – National Forests in North Carolina Other Persons or Agencies, or Governments Consulted None 5.0 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES Biological Conservation Database. U. S. Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina,

Asheville, NC. 2002. Biotics Database. United States Forest Service. 2001. Internal Database, National Forests in

North Carolina, Asheville, NC. (Accessed March, 2006) Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Forest-Concern Species of the National Forests in North Carolina. 2002. USDA Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

2000. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Asheville, NC. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report, Prepared for USDA

Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, March 2003


Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. United States Forest Service. 2004. Draft Internal Document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends report for the Pisgah and

Nantahala National Forests. U.S. Forest Service. 2001. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan Final

Environmental Impact Statement, 1987 (supplemented, 1992) and Forest Plan Amendment 5, March 1994. National Forests in North Carolina.

Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal species of North Carolina. LeGrand, H.E.Jr.,

S.P. Hall and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 90pp.

Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. Amoroso, J. L.

1999. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 85 pp. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic Resources of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests,

FY98 (unpublished). Bryan, S. A., J. D. Riley, D. M Hill. 1999. Triclopyr – Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report, Prepared for

USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, March 2003 Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains Final Environmental Impact Statement,

July 1989. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region.


6.0 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Aquatic Endangered, threatened and sensitive and Forest Concern species, Nantahala National Forest.

USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Endangered/ Threatened Bivalve

Alasmidonta raveneliana

Little Tennessee River drainage and Tuckaseegee River; Nolichucky River

Endangered/ Threatened Bivalve Pegias fabula

Lower Little Tennessee River; historic record from Valley River, Cherokee Co.

Endangered/ Threatened Fish Cyprinella monacha Little TN River; French Broad River system

Sensitive Bivalve Alasmidonta varicose Little Tennessee River, Macon and Swain Co. Sensitive Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Lower Little TN River and Hiwassee River Sensitive Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Valley River, Historic Record, Cherokee Co. Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Streams in Little TN River, Macon Co. Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Streams in Hiwassee River drainage

Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Tributary to Horsepasture River, Transylvannia Co.; upper French Broad River

Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis Streams in Savannah River drainage, Jackson, Macon, and Transylvannia Co.; SC and GA

Sensitive Dragonfly Macromia margarita Rivers, Macon, Swain, Transylvannia Co.; Caldwell Co.

Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus edmundo

Blue Ridge escarpment streams; Clear moderately flowing mountain streams Brook Ck, Macon Co.

Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei Rivers

Sensitive Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Large streams and rivers, Little TN River system, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.

Sensitive Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Cherokee, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.

Forest Concern Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis

Rivers and large streams, TN and Savannah River systems

F. Concern Amphibian Necturus maculosus Streams in French Broad River drainage F. Concern Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis Little Tennessee River, Swain Co.

F. Concern Bivalve Elliptio dilatata Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Cherokee Co.; New River

F. Concern Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola Little TN, French Broad and Pigeon Rivers, historic records

F. Concern Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme Little TN and Hiwassee drainages, Cherokee Co.

F. Concern Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis Hiwassee River system, Cherokee Co.; French Broad River system

F. Concern Bivalve Villosa iris Little TN and Hiwassee Rivers, Martin and Brasstown Crks; French Broad R.

F. Concern Bivalve Villosa trabilis Hiwassee River F. Concern Caddisfly Agapetus jocassee Lake Jocassee catchment, Transylvannia Co. F. Concern Caddisfly Ceraclea sp. 1 Specifics unknown

F. Concern Caddisfly Helicopsyche paralimnella

Fires Creek, Clay Co., and Bearwallow Crk, Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Caddisfly Hydroptila englishi Lake Jocassee catchment, Transylvannia Co. F. Concern Caddisfly Ceraclea mentiea Specifics unknown


USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution F. Concern Caddisfly Ceraclea slossonae Mountain rivers F. Concern Caddisfly Matrioptila jeanae Clay, Macon, Jackson, and Transylvannia Co. F. Concern Caddisfly Micrasema burksi Clay, Macon, Jackson, and Swain Co. F. Concern Caddisfly Micrasema sprulesi Macon F. Concern Caddisfly Palaeagapetus celsus Small mountain streams

F. Concern Caddisfly Rhyacophila amicus Cullasaja R., Macon Co.; Whiterock, Spainhour, Deep Crk; North Toe and Oconoluftee Rivers

F. Concern Caddisfly Rhyacophila melita Tusquitee Crk, Clay Co.; Oconoluftee and South Toe Rivers; Palmer Crk

F. Concern Caddisfly Rhyacophila vibox Whiteoak Cr, Macon Co F. Concern Crustacean Cambarus hiwasseensis Streams in Hiwassee River drainage

F. Concern Crustacean Cymocythere clavata

Symbiotic on crayfish in mountain streams and rivers in Savannah River system, Transylvannia Co.; French Broad River system

F. Concern Crustacean Dactylocythere prinsi Symbiotic on crayfish, Savannah River drainage, Jackson Co.

F. Concern Crustacean Skistodiaptomus carolinensis Lake Ravenel, Macon Co.

F. Concern Crustacean Waltoncythere acuta Symbiotic on crayfish in high gradient rivers and streams, Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Damselfly Lestes congener Specifics unknown F. Concern Dragonfly Aeshna tuberculifera Boggy or marshy ponds F. Concern Dragonfly Aeshna verticalis Marshy mountain ponds F. Concern Dragonfly Cordulia shurtleffi Mountain ponds, lakes, and bogs F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus adelphus Small rivers with rapids F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus consanguis Small spring-fed streams F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus viridifrons Rivers F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus descriptus Large streams and rivers F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus lineatifrons Rivers; also found in Piedmont Province F. Concern Dragonfly Gomphus ventricosus Rivers

F. Concern Dragonfly Ophiogomphus aspersus Rapids of rivers and streams

F. Concern Dragonfly Ophiogomphus mainensis Rapids of rivers and streams

F. Concern Dragonfly Ophiogomphus rupinsulensis Specifics unknown

F. Concern Dragonfly Somatochlora elongate Specifics unknown F. Concern Dragonfly Stylurus amnicola Rivers; also in Piedmont and Coastal Provinces F. Concern Dragonfly Stylurus scudderi Streams and rivers F. Concern Dragonfly Sympetrum obtrusum Boggy or marshy ponds and lakes

F. Concern Fish Acipenser fulvescens Large rivers in the TN River drainage; Historic record from French Broad River, Madison Co.

F. Concern Fish Aplodinotus grunniens Large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs; Historic records from Little TN River, TN

F. Concern Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 Little TN River drainage, Jackson and Macon Co.

F. Concern Fish Cottus carolinae Hiwassee and French Broad River systems F. Concern Fish Erimystax insignis Hiwassee River, Cherokee Co. F. Concern Fish Etheostoma inscriptum Large streams in Savannah River system F. Concern Fish Hiodon tergisus F. Concern Fish Hybopsis rubrifrons Savannah River system, Transylvannia Co. F. Concern Fish Lampetra appendix Hiwassee and French Broad River systems


USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution

F. Concern Fish Luxilis chrysocephalus Reported in Little TN River system, Macon Co.; Cane River system

F. Concern Fish Micropterus coosae Savannah River system, Transylvannia and Jackson Co.

F. Concern Fish Moxostoma sp. 1 Little TN and Hiwassee River drainages

F. Concern Fish Notropis lutipinnis Savannah and Little TN River systems, Jackson and Transylvannia Co.; Broad River system

F. Concern Fish Noturus flavus

Warmwater streams and rivers, Little TN River drainage, Swain Co.; Nolichucky and French Broad River systems

F. Concern Fish Percina caprodes Streams, rivers reservoirs in TN River system; New River drainage

F. Concern Fish Percina nigrofasciata Toxaway and Horsepastue Rivers

F. Concern Fish Stizostedion canadense Large streams, rivers, reservoirs in Hiwassee River system, Cherokee Co.; French Broad River system

F. Concern Gastropod Goniobasis interrupta Hiwassee River and tributaries, Cherokee Co. F. Concern Gastropod Leptoxis virgata Hiwassee River; report possibly in error

F. Concern Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi Caney Fork, Jackson Co.; Jacob Fork, Burke Co.; French Broad River, Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Mayfly Baetis punctiventris Specifics unknown F. Concern Mayfly Baetopus sp. 1 Specifics unknown

F. Concern Mayfly Drunella longicornis Mountain streams and rivers; Williamson Creek, Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Mayfly Habrophlediodes spp Specifics unknown

F. Concern Mayfly Leptohyphes robacki Specifics unknown

F. Concern Mayfly Macdunnoa brunnea Decomposing leaves among rocks in swift, deep areas of streams

F. Concern Mayfly Seratella spiculosa Mountain streams F. Concern Stonefly Bolotoperla rossi Mountain streams and rivers; Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Stonefly Isoperla frisoni Mountain streams and rivers; Whiteoak Creek, Macon Co.; Transylvannia Co.

F. Concern Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae UT Cullasaga River, Macon Co.; Mull Crk, Jackson Co.; Cove Crk, Haywood Co.

F. Concern Stonefly Zapada chila Small streams, Beech Flat Prong, Swain Co.; Ashe Co.


Appendix 2: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species evaluated for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring aquatic species from the Graham, Cherokee, Macon, Transylvania, Henderson, McDowell, and Burke Counties, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat. USFS Status

Type Species Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area

Endangered Bivalve Pegias fabula Not Likely to Occur1 Endangered Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Not Likely to Occur1 Threatened Fish Erimonax monachus Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Alasmidonta varicose Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina squamata Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Etheostoma acuticeps Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina burtoni Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina macrocephala Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Caecidota carolinensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Camburus chaugaensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Camburus reburrus Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Stygobromus carolinensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Macromia margarita Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus edmundo Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei Not Likely to Occur1 1 = Species not considered further in analysis because there is no suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area The project will not affect the species. 2 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area. 3 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records. Appendix 3: Aquatic Forest Concern species evaluated for the Oak Release on Demonstration Plots Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring aquatic species from the Graham, Cherokee, Macon, Transylvania, Henderson, McDowell, and Burke Counties, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat.

Type Name USFS Status

Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area

Amphibian Cryptobranchus alleganiensis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Amphibian Necturus maculosus FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Elliptio dilatata FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Alasmidonta viridis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Lampsilis fasciola FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Villosa iris FC Not Likely to Occur1


Type Name USFS Status

Likelihood of Occurrence in Analysis Area

Bivalve Pleurobema oviforme FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Villosa trabilis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Bivalve Villosa vanuxemensis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Gastropod Elimia interrupta FC Not Likely to Occur1 Gastropod Leptoxis virgata FC Not Likely to Occur1 Caddisfly Matrioptila jeanae FC Not Likely to Occur1 Caddisfly Micrasema sprulesi FC Not Likely to Occur1 Caddisfly Rhyacophila vibox FC Not Likely to Occur1 Caddisfly Micrasema burksi FC Not Likely to Occur1 Caddisfly Rhyacophila amicus FC Not Likely to Occur1 Crustacean Cymocythere clavata FC Not Likely to Occur1 Crustacean Skistodiaptomus carolinensis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Crustacean Waltoncythere acuta FC Not Likely to Occur1 Dragonfly Stylurus scudderi FC Not Likely to Occur1 Dragonfly Aeshna tuberculifera FC Not Likely to Occur1 Dragonfly Somotochlora elongata FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Moxostoma sp. 1 FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Clinostomus funduloides sp. 1 FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Erimystax insignis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Etheostoma inscriptum FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Hiodon tergisus FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Hybopsis rubrifrons FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Luxilus chrysocephalus FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Micropterus coosae FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Notropis lutipinnis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Percina nigrofasciata FC Not Likely to Occur1 Fish Sander canadensis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Baetopus trishae FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Habrophlediodes spp FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Barbaetis benfieldi FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Drunella longicornis FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Macdunnoa brunnea FC Not Likely to Occur1 Mayfly Serratella spiculosa FC Not Likely to Occur1 Stonefly Megaleuctra williamsae FC Not Likely to Occur1 Stonefly Bolotoperla rossi FC Not Likely to Occur1 Stonefly Isoperla frisoni FC Not Likely to Occur1 1 = No suitable habitat or vicinity records in the analysis area, but the species may be present in the county.


Appendix 4: Botanical forest concern species on the Nantahala National Forest. Type Species Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence Lichen Anaptychia setifera High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Lichen Canoparmelia amabilis Pine-Oak Heath, Chestnut Oak Forest Absent from activity area2 Lichen Cetraria arenaria High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Lichen Cetrelia cetrarioides High Elevation Forest No suitable habitat1 Lichen Ephebe lanata Stream No suitable habitat1 Lichen Ephebe solida Stream No suitable habitat1 Lichen Heterodermia appalachensis Mountains Absent from activity area2 Lichen Hypotrachyna sinuosa High Elevation Forest No suitable habitat1

Lichen Lobaria scrobiculata High Elevaiton Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest No suitable habitat1

Lichen Melanelia stygia High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Lichen Pannaria conoplea High Elevation Forest No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Anastrophyllum saxicola High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Anomylia cuneifolia Spruce-Fir Forest No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Barbilophozia barbata High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Barbilophozia hatcheri High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Cephalozia pleniceps var. carolinana Stream Edge No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Cephalozia pleniceps var. pleniceps Spring Edge No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Cephaloziella obtusilobula High Elevation Rock Outcrops No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Cephaloziella spinicaulis High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Cheilolejeunea myriantha Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Chiloscyphus muricatus Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Diplophyllum taxifolium var. mucronatum High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Lophozia excisa High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Lophozia heterocolpa High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Marsupella funckii High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Mylia taylorii Spray Cliff No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Nardia scalaris ssp. scalaris High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Liverwort Plagiochila corniculata Fraser-Fir Forest No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Plagiochila ludoviciana Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Ptilidium ciliare Spruce-Fir No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Scapania mucronata ssp. mucronata High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Liverwort Tritomaria exsectiformis ssp. exsectiformis High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Moss Brachymenium andersonii Acidic Cove Forest No suitable habitat1 Moss Brachymenium systylium Acidic Cove Forest No suitable habitat1 Moss Brachythecium populeum Acidic Cove Forest, Mountain Forest Absent from activity area2 Moss Brachythecium rotaeanum Acidic Cove Forest No suitable habitat1

Moss Bryoerythrophyllum ferruginascens High Elevation Forest No suitable habitat1

Moss Bryoerythrophyllum inaequalifolium Roadside Bank with Shale Absent from activity area2

Moss Bryoxiphium norvegicum Spray Cliff, Gorge No suitable habitat1 Moss Bryum riparium Spray Cliff No suitable habitat1 Moss Buxbaumia aphylla Roadside Bank, Mountain Forest Absent from activity area2


Type Species Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence

Moss Campylopus atrovirens var. cucullatifolius High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Moss Cirriphyllum piliferum Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Moss Dichodontium pellucidum Spray Cliff No suitable habitat1 Moss Dicranum undulatum Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1 Moss Encalypta procera Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1 Moss Entodon compressus Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Moss Entodon sullivantii Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Moss Eucladium verticillatum Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Moss Homalia trichomanoides Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Moss Leptodontium flexifolium High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Moss Macrocoma sullivantii Montane Cedar Hardwood Forest, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest Absent from activity area2

Moss Palamocladium leskeoides Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff, Gorge No suitable habitat1

Moss Platydictya confervoides Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Moss Rhabdoweisia creulata Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge No suitable habitat1

Moss Rhytidium rugosum High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Moss Scopelophila ligulata Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum angustifolium Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum capillifolium Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum fallax Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum flexuosum Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum fuscum Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum henryense Spray Cliff, Pool No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum pylaesii Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum squarrosum Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest Seep No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum subsecundum Southern Appalachian Bog, Fen No suitable habitat1 Moss Sphagnum tenellum High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1 Moss Tortula fragilis Moist Montane Mafic Cliff No suitable habitat1 Moss Tortula papillosa Hardwood Trees Absent from activity area2 Moss Warnstorfia fluitans Spray Cliff No suitable habitat1

Clubmoss Huperzia appalachiana

High Elevation Seep, High Elevation Rocky Summit, High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Clubmoss Huperzia porophila Spray Cliff No suitable habitat1 Clubmoss Lycopodiella inundata Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1

Fern Asplenium bradleyi Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Fern Asplenium monanthes Spray Cliff, Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1 Fern Asplenium pinnatifidum Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1 Fern Asplenium ruta-muraria Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Fern Botrychium lanceolatum var. angustisegmentum Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Fern Botrychium matricariifolium Rich Cove Forest, Meadow Absent from activity area2 Fern Botrychium multifidum Grassy Bald No suitable habitat1

Fern Botrychium oneidense Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog Absent from activity area2



Fern Botrychium simplex var. simplex Meadow, Roadside Absent from activity area2

Fern Cheilanthes alabamensis Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1 Fern Cystopteris fragilis High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Fern Cystopteris tennesseensis Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1 Fern Cystopteris tenuis High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Fern Gymnocarpium appalachianum High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Fern Phegopteris connectilis Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest, High Elevation Seep No suitable habitat1

Fern Trichomanes boschianum Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge No suitable habitat1 Fern Trichomanes petersii Montane Acidic Cliff, Grotto, Gorge No suitable habitat1

Fern Woodsia appalachiana High Elevation Rocky Summit, Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Fern Woodsia ilvensis Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Adlumia fungosa Rich Cove Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff Absent from activity area2

Forb Arabis glabra Roadside, Meadow, Acidic Cove Forest No suitable habitat1

Forb Arabis hirsuta var adpressipilis

Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Arethusa bulbosa Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Arisaema triphyllum ssp. stewardsonii Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Asclepias purpurascens Southern Appalachian Bog, Forested Seeps, Roadsides No suitable habitat1

Forb Astilbe crenatiloba Northern Hardwood Forest Absent from activity area2 Forb Buchnera americana Glade, Montane Alluvial Woodland No suitable habitat1 Forb Caltha palustris Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Calystegia catesbiana ssp. sericata

Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside Absent from activity area2

Forb Campanula aparinoides Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Forb Campanula rotundifolia High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Forb Cardamine rotundifolia High Elevation Seep, Streamside No suitable habitat1

Forb Caulophyllum giganteum Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Celastrus scandens Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Chamerion platyphyllum High Elevation Forest and Woodlands Absent from activity area2 Forb Chenopodium simplex Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Cirsium carolinianum Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Clematis glaucophylla Roadside, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2 Forb Clematis occidentalis Montane Oak Woodland Absent from activity area2

Forb Coeloglossum viride var. virescens Seep, Rich Cove Forest No suitable habitat1

Forb Conioselinum chinense High Elevation Seep, Boulderfield Forest No suitable habitat1

Forb Corydalis micrantha ssp. micrantha Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Croton monanthogynus Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1



Forb Dalibarda repens

Southern Appalachian Bog, Acidic Cove Forest, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex No suitable habitat1

Forb Dicentra eximia Montane Acidic Cliff, Montane Mafic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Dodecatheon meadia ssp. meadia

Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Cedar-Hardwood Forest No suitable habitat1

Forb Draba ramosissima Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Echinacea purpurea Glade, Roadside, Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1 Forb Epilobium ciliatum Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1

Forb Eupatorium godfreyanum Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1

Forb Euphorbia commutata Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Filipendula rubra Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Forb Fleischmannia incarnata Rich Cove Forest, Calcareous Woodlands, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Frasera caroliniensis Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Gentianopsis crinita Serpentine Woodland, Glade No suitable habitat1 Forb Geum aleppicum Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Geum laciniatum var. trichocarpum Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Helenium brevifolium Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Meadow, Seeps, Riverbanks No suitable habitat1

Forb Helianthemum bicknellii

Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Forb Helianthemum propinquum Glade, Southern Appalachian Fen, Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Helianthus occidentalis Montane Alluvial Forest, sandy bottom No suitable habitat1

Forb Hexalectris spicata Rich Cove Forest, Glade, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Houstonia longifolia var. glabra High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Forb Hydrastis canadensis Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Hydrophyllum macrophyllum Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Hymenocallis occidentalis Rocky River Banks and Shoals No suitable habitat1 Forb Jeffersonia diphylla Rich Cove Forest, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Liatris aspera Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, Southern Appalachian Fen Absent from activity area2

Forb Liatris microcephala Montane Mafic Cliff, Glade, Montane Oak Woodland Absent from activity area2

Forb Liatris squarrulosa Roadside, Pine-Oak Woodland Absent from activity area2

Forb Lilium canadense ssp. canadense

Wet Meadow, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Lilium canadense ssp. editorum

Wet Meadow, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1



Forb Lilium philadelphicum var. philadelphicum Grassy Bald, Meadow, Glade No suitable habitat1

Forb Liparis loeselii Seep, Roadside Absent from activity area2 Forb Lysimachia hybrida Wet Meadows No suitable habitat1

Forb Meehania cordata Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Minuartia glabra High Elevation Rocky Summit, Low Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Forb Oenothera perennis Southern Appalachian Bog, Roadside No suitable habitat1

Forb Oligoneuron rigidum var. rigidum Glades and Barrens On Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1

Forb Packera paupercula Southern Appalachian Bog, Southern Appalachian Fen No suitable habitat1

Forb Packera plattensis

Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Packera schweinitziana Grassy Bald No suitable habitat1

Forb Parnassia grandifolia Seep, Fen, Serpentine Woodland, Roadside, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Parthenium auriculatum Glades, Woodland, Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1

Forb Pedicularis lanceolata

Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Swamp, Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Forb Phlox subulata High Elevation Rocky Summit, Montane Mafic Cliff, Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1

Forb Platanthera flava var. herbiola

High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Roadside, Northern Hardwood Forest, Southern Appalachian Bog Absent from activity area2

Forb Platanthera grandiflora High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Platanthera peramoena Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep, Marsh No suitable habitat1

Forb Prenanthes alba Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Pycnanthemum virginianum Meadows or Marshes Over Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1 Forb Ranunculus fascicularis Roadside, Serpentine Woodland Absent from activity area2

Forb Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Ruellia purshiana Glade, Montane Oak Woodland, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Saxifraga pensylvanica Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1 Forb Scutellaria galericulata Marshes or Open Wetlands No suitable habitat1 Forb Sedum glaucophyllum Montane Cedar-Hardwood Woodland No suitable habitat1 Forb Sedum rosea High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Forb Smilax hugeri Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Smilax lasioneura Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Solidago uliginosa High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Spigelia marilandica Montane Oak Woodland, Mesic Oak-Hickory, White Pine Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Spiranthes lacera var. lacera High Elevation Openings No suitable habitat1


Type Species Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence Forb Spiranthes lucida Seep, Mafic Rock No suitable habitat1

Forb Spiranthes ochroleuca Northern Hardwood Forest, Grassy Bald, Meadow Absent from activity area2

Forb Sporobolus heterolepis Serpentine Woodland No suitable habitat1 Forb Stachys eplingii Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Forb Stachys nuttallii Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Forb Stellaria alsine Seep No suitable habitat1

Forb Streptopus amplexifolius High Elevation Seep, Northern Hardwood Forest, Spruce-Fir Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Symphyotrichum oblongifolium

Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest No suitable habitat1

Forb Symphyotrichum shortii Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Symphyotrichum sp 1 Roadside, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Synandra hispidula Rich Cove Forest, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Thelypteris simulata Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Roadside, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Forb Thermopsis mollis Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath Absent from activity area2

Forb Tofieldia glutinosa Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1

Forb Trichostema brachiatum Glade, Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Trientalis borealis Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Trillium discolor Rich Cove Forest, Gorge Absent from activity area2 Forb Trillium flexipes Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2 Forb Trillium recurvatum Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2 Forb Utricularia cornuta Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Veronica americana High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Forb Viola walteri Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Forb Zigadenus elegans ssp. glaucus Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Forb Zigadenus leimanthoides High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Grass Agrostis mertensii Grassy Bald, High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Grass Brachyelytrum septentrionale

Serpentine Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Grass Bromus ciliatus High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald, Meadow No suitable habitat1

Grass Calamagrostis canadensis High Elevation Seep, Grassy Bald No suitable habitat1

Grass Calamagrostis porteri Serpentine Woodland, Montane Oak-Hickory Forest Absent from activity area2

Grass Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. glauca

Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest No suitable habitat1

Grass Diarrhena americana Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Grass Elymus trachycaulus ssp. trachycaulus Serpentine Woodland No suitable habitat1

Grass Glyceria laxa Seep No suitable habitat1 Grass Hierochloe odorata Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Grass Melica nitens Rich Cove Forest, Glade Absent from activity area2



Grass Milium effusum Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Grassy Bald Absent from activity area2

Grass Muhlenbergia glomerata Serpentine Woodland, Southern Appalachian Fen, Montane Mafic Cliff No suitable habitat1

Grass Muhlenbergia sobolifera Montane Acidic Cliff No suitable habitat1 Grass Panicum lithophilum Low Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1 Grass Poa palustris Grassy Bald, Spruce-Fir Forest No suitable habitat1

Grass Poa saltuensis Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest No suitable habitat1

Grass Torreyochloa pallida Streamside No suitable habitat1

Grass Trichophorum caespitosum Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Grass Trisetum spicatum Grassy Bald, High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Rush Juncus trifidus High Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1 Sedge Carex aenea Grassy Bald No suitable habitat1 Sedge Carex argyrantha Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex barrattii Southern Appalachian Bog, Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex bushii Wet Meadow, Seep No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex buxbaumii Southern Appalachian Bog, Southern Appalachian Fen No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex careyana Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex cherokeensis Montane Alluvial Forest, Roadside, Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex cristatella Grassy Bald, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex deflexa High Elevation Seep No suitable habitat1 Sedge Carex eburnea Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex hitchcockiana Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex leptonervia

Boulderfield Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep, Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex oligocarpa Rich Cove Forest, Mafic Rock Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex oligosperma High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex pedunculata Rich Cove Forest Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex projecta High Elevation Seep, Southern Appalachian Bog, Marsh, Wet Meadow No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex purpurifera Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest Absent from activity area2

Sedge Carex tetanica Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex trichocarpa Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex trisperma Southern Appalachian Bog, High Elevation Seep No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex verrucosa Swamp Forest Bog Complex No suitable habitat1

Sedge Carex woodii

Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Absent from activity area2

Sedge Cladium mariscoides Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1 Sedge Rhynchospora alba Southern Appalachian Bog No suitable habitat1



Shrub Gaylussacia brachycera Dry Acidic Forest and Woodlands, Rock Outcrops Absent from activity area2

Shrub Juniperus communis var. depressa

High Elevation Granitic Dome, Low Elevation Rocky Summit No suitable habitat1

Shrub Lonicera canadensis Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep Absent from activity area2

Shrub Lonicera flava Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff No suitable habitat1

Shrub Quercus prinoides Xeric Oak-Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Glade Absent from activity area2

Shrub Rhododendron cumberlandense Grassy Bald, Heath Bald Absent from activity area2

Shrub Rhododendron prinophyllum Xeric Oak/Heath Forest Absent from activity area2

Shrub Robinia hispida var fertilis

Northern Hardwood Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Shrub Robinia hispida var kelseyi High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff Absent from activity area2

Shrub Stewartia ovata River Bluffs, Forested Stream Banks No suitable habitat1

Shrub Taxus canadensis Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex No suitable habitat1

Shrub Vaccinium macrocarpon Southern Appalachian Bog, Seep No suitable habitat1 Tree Alnus viridis ssp crispa Grassy Bald No suitable habitat1

Tree Amelanchier sanguinea Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome No suitable habitat1

Tree Betula cordifolia Spruce-Fir Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest No suitable habitat1

Notes: Species not present in the activity areas, or with no suitable habitat in the activity areas, were excluded from further analysis. 1 = The species is unlikely to be present in the activity area because community-level field surveys did not located the habitat for the species in the areas. 2 = The species is not present in the activity areas, based on species-specific field surveys in the areas.


Appendix 4: Management Indicator Species, estimated population trend, and biological community or special habitat component indicated by the species.

MIS Estimate Associated Biological Community or Special Habitat Component

Black Bear Increase Old Forest Communities, Hard mast-producing species, Contiguous areas with low disturbance

White Tailed Deer Stable Early-successional (0-10), Hard mast- producing species

Pileated Woodpecker Increase Old Forest Communities, Snags and dens (>22 dbh), Downed woody debris – all sizes

Ovenbird Decrease Large Contiguous Forest Areas Rufous-Sided (Eastern) Towhee Decrease Early-successional (0-10), Early successional (11-20) Pine Warbler Stable Yellow pine mid-successional forests

Ruffed Grouse Stable Early successional (0-10), Early successional (11-20), Downed woody debris

Acadian flycatcher Increase Riparian Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout Stable Coldwater streams Largemouth Bass Stable Reservoirs Blacknose Dace Stable Coldwater streams Smallmouth Bass Stable Warmwater streams Fraser Fir Stable Fraser Fir Forests Carolina Hemlock Decrease Carolina hemlock bluff forests Ginseng Decrease Rich cove forests Ramps Stable Northern hardwoods


Appendix 5: Biological communities and associated Management Indicator Species (Forest Plan EIS, Table III-8).

Biological Community Associated MIS

Analyzed Further/ Evaluation Criteria*

Fir dominated high elevation forests Fraser fir No/1

Northern hardwood forests Ramps No/1

Carolina hemlock bluff forests Carolina hemlock No/1

Rich cove forests Ginseng No/1

Xeric yellow pine forests Pine warbler No/1

Reservoirs Largemouth bass No/1

Riparian forests Acadian flycatcher No/2

Coldwater streams Brook, brown, and rainbow trout; blacknose dace No/1

Coolwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1

Warmwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1 *1 Biological community does not occur in the activity areas and will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community. *2 Biological Community and its represented species will be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines (riparian areas will be mapped); therefore, this community will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, this project will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.


Appendix 6: Special habitat components and associated Management Indicator Species (Forest Plan EIS, Table III-9).

Special Habitat Components Associated MIS

Analyzed Further/ Evaluation Criteria*

Old forest communities (100+ years old) Black bear No/1

Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided (eastern) towhee No/2

Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse No/1

Soft mast-producing species (<40 yrs) Ruffed grouse No/1

Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear No/1 Large contiguous areas with low levels of human disturbance Black bear No/1 Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest Ovenbird No/1

Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer No/1

Downed woody debris Ruffed Grouse No/2

Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2 *1 Special Habitat Components do not occur in the activity areas and will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the habitat, this project will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this habitat. *2 Special Habitat Components and their associated MIS will be protected in accordance with LRMP standards and guidelines (open road density will not change, snags and den trees will be retained); therefore, the special habitat component will not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the habitat, this project will not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this habitat.

Seedling Release in Oak Demo Plots 39 10/27/2008 Appendix 7: Biological Evaluation

Appendix 7: Biological Evaluation

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

OAK RELEASE IN DEMONSTRATION PLOTS PROJECT

NANTAHALA AND PISGAH NATIONAL FORESTS

GRANDFATHER, PISGAH, CHEAOH, NANTAHALA AND TUSQUITEE

RANGER DISTRICTS

NORTH CAROLINA

Wilson T. Rankin, Ph. D. Botanist, Nantahala National Forest

Nantahala Ranger District 90 Sloan Road

Franklin, NC 28734


1.0 Project Description

• Alternative 1 proposes no actions.

• Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service would use herbicides to release oak trees planted in twelve demonstration plots. The plots total 35 acres, and were established between 1995 and 2004 to evaluate the survival of planted oak seedlings, especially in locations where natural oak regeneration has been poor. Northern red oak, white oak and black oak seedlings were grown in tree nurseries and outplanted into the demonstration plots. The plots had been previously cleared of vegetation for unrelated projects.

2.0 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2.1 Boundaries of Analysis Areas The analysis area consists of all waters subject to potential site-specific impacts on aquatic habitats and populations, and does not necessary overlap effects to botanical and wildlife resources. In addition to waters in the proposed treatment areas, the analysis area encompasses waters downstream that could be impacted by proposed treatments. The aquatic analysis areas include the following watersheds: Poison Cove Branch, Bert Creek, Tessentee Creek, Jones Creek, Skitty Creek, Bates Creek, Huskins Branch, Roaring Fork, Upper Creek, Armstrong Creek, Long Branch (Davidson River watershed), and Rocky Fork (French Broad River watershed). 2.2 Species Evaluated and Rationale 2.2.1 Existing Condition Previous activities in the proposed treatment areas include timber harvest, pine beetle salvage, and road construction. The proposed treatment areas contain no ongoing management activities on Forest Service lands. Private lands near the areas are primarily characterized by developed farmland. Subdivisions are being developed throughout the watersheds. This development includes the construction of graveled roads and driveways. Developments are subject to the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973, which should provide protection to the aquatic resources. With implementation of the required erosion control, any effects to aquatic resources would not be measurable and would not lead to cumulative effects. There are no other ongoing activities on private lands known to be affecting the aquatic resources in the proposed treatment areas. There are no other actions proposed for the proposed treatment areas on federal lands in the future; therefore, there would be no effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned for private lands that would affect the aquatic resources of the proposed treatment areas.


2.2.2 Previous Survey Information Data for aquatic resources exist in two forms: general inventory and monitoring of forest resources, as well as data provided by cooperating resource agencies from resources on or flowing through the forest. Both of these sources are accurate to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 are used primarily as historical data. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic PETS species was obtained from NCWRC biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records, and US Fish and Wildlife Service biologists. 2.2.3 New Surveys or Inventories Conducted Twenty aquatic PETS species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Attachment A1). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of PETS species in Graham, Cherokee, Macon, McDowell, Burke, Transylvania, and Henderson Counties. Fifteen PETS species remained after this initial filter. These fifteen species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area (Attachment A2). Based upon the results of this filtering process no proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive aquatic species had suitable habitat in the aquatic analysis area. Species without suitable habitat in the aquatic analysis area were eliminated from further analysis (Table 2.2.3; see also Attachment A1 for a complete list of species considered for this analysis, and Attachment A2 for the results of the filtering procedure). Table 2.2.3: Summary of endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species undergoing effects analysis for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Endangered

None Not applicable Not applicable

Threatened


Sensitive


2.3 Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species There are no known proposed, threatened, or endangered species in the analysis area because the proposed treatment areas are outside the range of these species. In addition, the proposed treatment areas contain no habitat for any proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive aquatic species, because all of the proposed treatment areas lie on dry sites where no aquatic resources are located. As such, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any federally listed species or habitats.


3.0 Botanical Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 3.1 Boundaries of Botanical Analysis Areas Because plants are rooted species that must be present in the proposed treatment areas to undergo effects, the analysis area for endangered, threatened and sensitive species was confined to the expected impact zone surrounding the proposed treatment areas of the project. Because each plant species has a unique life history, the temporal response to management activities must be evaluated on a species-by-species basis. 3.2 Species Evaluated and Rationale All endangered and threatened plant species listed by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Nantahala National Forest were considered for this analysis (Attachment B1). No candidate plant species occur on the Nantahala National Forest, and therefore were not considered further. All sensitive species listed by the Regional Forester (USFS, 2001) were also considered for this analysis. 3.2.1 Previous Survey Information The Biotics Database was queried for endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species growing in, or immediately adjacent to, the proposed treatment areas. It contained no records for any endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species in the proposed treatment areas. The proposed treatment areas were previously surveyed for endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species by Wilson Rankin, Botanist for the Nantahala National Forest, and Dave Danley, Botanist for the Pisgah National Forest, between 2003 and 2007, when unrelated projects removed the vegetation from the demonstration sites. No endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species were located during the surveys. 3.2.2 New Surveys or Inventories Conducted The need for additional surveys was considered using the 1989 Vegetation Management Standard for PETS Species Inventory, as interpreted by the Interim Guidance for National Forests in Texas (November 1, 2005). No additional surveys were deemed necessary for this project because previous surveys failed to yield any populations of endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species. In addition, the condition of the proposed treatment areas has remained largely unchanged since the previous treatments, except for the planting of the demonstration oaks. As a result, the proposed treatment areas were considered low potential for occupancy by endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species (Interim Guidance, Step 3), and none of these species underwent further analysis for potential effects (Table 3.2.2; see also Attachment B1 for a complete list of species considered for this analysis).


Table 3.2.2: Summary of endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species undergoing effects analysis for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Endangered


Threatened


Sensitive


3.3 Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species The primary effects of regeneration management – the opening of the canopy from mostly shaded to mostly sunlight – occurred naturally through previous management activities, and subsequent site preparation by the Forest Service. The proposed actions represent little effective change in the current conditions of the treatment areas. In addition, the effects of herbicide on plant species is highly localized, and directly controlled by the applicator. As a result, unintended effects on endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species, should they occur in a proposed treatment area, are highly unlikely. Endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species should therefore undergo no direct, indirect or cumulative effects as a result of this project. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for plant species. 4.0 Terrestrial Wildlife Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 4.1 Endangered, Threatened and Proposed Species 4.1.1 Species Evaluated and Rationale Proposed, endangered, and threatened species considered in this analysis are currently listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and field data on the project area. All but one of these species, the Indiana Bat, were dropped from further consideration due to a lack of suitable habitat (Table 4.1.1; see also Attachment W1 for a complete listing of species considered for this analysis). Table 4.1.1. Summary of endangered, threatened and proposed wildlife species undergoing effects analysis for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Endangered Indiana bat Roosts in caves and May occur in treatment areas


(Myotis sodalis) hollow trees

4.1.2 Effects of Alternatives by Species • Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Most of the cave sites and cave-like habitats available in western North Carolina do not provide suitable conditions for significant wintering habitat for Indiana bats. Thus, North Carolina was not considered likely to provide either significant wintering habitat or maternal roosting habitat. On July 25, 1999, two Indiana bats were captured in a mist-net located in the upper Santeetlah Creek drainage in Graham County, North Carolina. Monitoring of the roost tree documented use by 28 bats. Given the communal roosting habits of the species, it is probable that all 28 bats were Indiana bats. The capture of a reproductively active female Indiana bat in Graham County provided new information on the status and distribution of this species in North Carolina. It is possible that other Indiana bat maternity colonies occur on the forest, as well as individual roosting males. Potentially suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat exists within the project area. Direct and Indirect effects - This project may impact a maximum of 1730 acres of suitable habitat by herbicide treatment. This would not make the stands unsuitable as summer habitat for Indiana bats because no summer roosting or foraging sites would be affected. To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to Indiana bats and indirect effects to Indiana bat habitat, this project would comply with the Terms and Conditions in the Biological Opinion of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the protection of the Indiana bat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects - Past regeneration activities created these treatment areas. There are no known ongoing or future projects that will affect these stands. Cumulative Effects – The cumulative effects are the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - Based on the small number of potential roost trees that would be affected, effects on the bat population would be unlikely, and would not reach the scale where an adverse affect or actual take occurs. As a result, the project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat because all standards and guidelines for the protection of the species, as listed in Amendment 10 of the Land and Resources Management Plan, will be followed. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concurred with this determination in their Biological Opinion for Amendment 10. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed.

4.2 Sensitive Species 4.2.1 Species Evaluated and Rationale


Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). The objective is to manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species (FSM 2670.12). Adverse effects must not create trends towards federal listing. All sensitive terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered (Attachment 3). Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence records of sensitive animals as maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and field data on the project area. All but six sensitive species were excluded from further analysis due to a lack of suitable habitat in the treatment areas, or being outside the known range of the species (Table 4.2.1; see also Attachment W1 for a complete listing of species considered for this analysis). Table 4.2.1. Summary of sensitive wildlife species undergoing effects analysis for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Sensitive

Northern Bush Katydid

In treetops at the edges of broadleaved forests

Potentially suitable habitat may occur in treatment areas

Sensitive Rock-loving Grasshopper

Lichen-covered rock outcrops


Sensitive Frosted Elfin Open woods/borders, usually in dry situations


Sensitive Diana Fritillary Butterfly

Deciduous and pine woods near streams


Sensitive Southern Appalachian Salamander

Moist forests at all elevations


Sensitive Southern Water Shrew Small streams up to 12-15' wide above 3000'


4.2.2 Effects of Alternatives by Species • Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes treetops at the edges of broadleaved forest. The action alternative would have no direct or indirect effects because the treatments occur in previously-cleared openings, not the edges of the forest. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Past actions have improved the habitat for the species by creating edges in broadleaved forests. There are no known ongoing or future projects what would create this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species.


Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest edge to offset the concurrent maturation of other forest stands. Because it produces no direct, indirect or cumulative effects, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species across the forest. • Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops. The project would produce no direct or indirect affects on the species because these habitats do not occur in the treatment areas. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species. Determination of Effect - Forest-wide, this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction and road construction/reconstruction. Because it produces no direct, indirect or cumulative effects, however, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species across the forest. • Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species is a butterfly, which occurs in open woods and borders in dry situations. Because the project would not treat these areas, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to the species. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species. Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction and road construction/reconstruction. Because it produces no direct, indirect or cumulative effects, however, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species across the forest. • Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species occurs in different forest types, but seems to prefer roadsides through cove forests. Because the project would not treat these areas, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to the species.


Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – A small amount of habitat has been created in the past due to road construction activities. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species. Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest roadside habitat. Because it produces no direct, indirect or cumulative effects, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for the species across the forest. • Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. Because the project would not treat these forest areas, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to the species. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities and past regeneration activities. Stands older than 20 years have probably achieved canopy cover and reformation of the litter layer sufficient to support salamander populations. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species. Determination of Effect – This species is thought to be fairly common across Graham, Swain, Cherokee, Clay and Macon counties. Dr. Richard Highton's collection at the Smithsonian lists 1007 records for this species from 10 counties in North Carolina, at elevations from 1160 feet to 6000 feet. This includes 267 records on the Nantahala National Forest. Since the species is widely distributed, potentially occupying nearly a half million acres of national forest, current management is unlikely to affect the availability of suitable habitat. Forest-wide, this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction, road construction and regeneration activities. The concurrent maturation of younger stands into suitable habitat has offset this loss because forest plan standards limiting the amount of regeneration harvests by compartment, management area and analysis area prevent cumulative effects to this species in any given area. Because the species is widely distributed, potentially occupying nearly a half million acres of national forest, current management practices are unlikely to affect the availability of suitable habitat. This project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. • Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris punctulatus)


Direct and Indirect Effects – This species occur son small first order streams up to 12-15' wide, with rhododendron cover across Macon, Swain and Clay counties. Because the project would not treat these streams, the project will produce no direct or indirect effects to the species. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Past culvert installations across streams in the area would have directly destroyed about 30 feet of habitat, and indirectly destroyed or severely impacted an additional 75 feet of habitat downstream of the culvert due to sedimentation. The sedimentation effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the area. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – In the absence of direct and indirect effects, the project will produce no cumulative effects on the species. Determination of Effect - This species has been recorded from nine sites on the Nantahala National forest, most of these recent records from Macon County from Dr. Joshua Laerm and his students surveying small mammal populations. The species is thought to be widespread, but occurs in low densities and is difficult to capture. This project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. 5.0 Determination of Effects 5.1 Aquatic Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species This project will have no effect on any federally listed or proposed aquatic species because none occur in the aquatic analysis area. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for this project. This project will have no impact on any sensitive aquatic species, and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability, because no sensitive aquatic species occur within the aquatic analysis areas. In addition, project design features, such as stream buffers, would prevent the herbicides from entering the aquatic analysis area streams in measurable quantities. 5.2 Botanical Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species Because no endangered or threatened plant species are likely to occur in the proposed treatment areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened plant species. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary for plant species. Because no sensitive plant species are likely to occur in the proposed treatment areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any sensitive plant species. 5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species

The project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. The project will have no effect on any federally-proposed


or listed terrestrial animal species. The project will have no impact or cumulative effect to any sensitive wildlife species. 5.4 Summary of Effects Determination The project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. The project will have no effect on any other endangered, threatened or proposed species. The project will have no impact or cumulative effect to any sensitive species. /s/ Wilson T. Rankin, Ph. D. Botanist, Nantahala National Forest October 27, 2008 Contributing Biologists: Jason Farmer Aquatic Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Dave Danley Botanist, Pisgah National Forest Doreen Miller Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest


6.0 References and Data Sources Aquatic Resources Berner, L., R. K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Serratella (Ephemerella: Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44: 149-158. Bonner, W. R. 1983. Survey and classification of state-managed trout streams: district 9.

Mountain Fish. Invest. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F24-S. 313 pp. Brigham, A. R., W. U. Brigham, A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and olioghaetes of North and South Carolina. Midw. Aquatic Enterprises, Mahomet, IL. 837 pp. Bryan, S. A., J. D. Riley, D. M Hill. 1999. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic Resources of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, FY98 (unpublished). Cantrell, Mark. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801. Dillon, R. T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interupta (Hald.) North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission #92-Snai-01. 20 pp. Etnier, D. A., W. C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pages. Georgian, T. J., J. B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild or periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecol. 64: 1236-1248. Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of forest practices on riparian zones. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-220. Portland, OR. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 pp. Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of Herpetology 5(3-4):121-126. Hobbs, H. H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes (Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Number 480. 236 pp. Huryn, A. D. and J. B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251. Jenkins, R. E., N. M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pp.


Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 594 pp. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr.

Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. NC Biological Survey, Pub. #1980-12. 867 pp. McAfee, W.R. 1966. Eastern brook trout. Pages 242-260 in Calhoun, A. (editor), Inland fisheries management. California Fish and Game Publication. 546 pages. MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages. Meehan, W. R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Special Publication #19, Bethesda, Maryland. 751 pages. Menhinick, E. F. 1991. Freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Publication, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pages. Merritt, R.W, K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America,

third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA. 962 pp. The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages.

Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 42 pages. Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Soloman, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.60. 53 pages. Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Zuckerman, and P.C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: brown trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.124. 42 pages. Ridout, S. 2002. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth

University. Richmond, Virginia.


Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices. Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices. Terwilliger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia’s endangered species: proceedings of a symposium.

McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA. 672 pp. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages. Botanical Resources

Abrams, M. D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forest. Bioscience 42: 454-353. Amoroso, J. L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North

Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 85 pp. Barden, L. S., F. W. Woods. 1974. Characteristics of lightning fires in southern Appalachian

forests. Proc. Ann. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. 13: 345-361. Delcourt, P. A., H. R. Delcourt. 1998. The influence of prehistoric human-set fires of oak-

chestnut forests in the southern Appalachians. Castanea 63: 337-345. Dodson, Stanley I., Timothy F. H. Allen, Stephen R. Carpenter, Anthony R. Ives, Robert L.

Jeanne, James F. Kitchell, Nancy E. Langston, and Monica G. Turner. 1998. Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York. 434 pp.

Elliot, K. J., L. R. Boring, W. T. Swank, B. R. Haines. 1997. Successional changes in plant

species diversity and composition after clearcutting a Southern Appalachian watershed. Forest Ecol. Manage. 92:67-85.

Elliot, K. J., W. T. Swank. 1994. Changes in tree species diversity after successive clearcuts in

the Southern Appalachians. Vegetatio 115: 11-18. Godfrey, R. K., J. W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States:

Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 712 pp. Goff, F. G., G. A. Dawson, J. J. Rochow. 1982. Site examination for threatened and endangered

plant species. Environ. Manage. 6: 307-316.


Harmon, M. E. 1982. Fire history of the westernmost portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 109: 74-79.

Harmon, M. E. 1984. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface fires in Great Smoky

Mountains National Park. Ecology 65: 796-802. Harrelson, S. M., G. R. Matlack. 2006. Influence of stand age and physical environment on the

herb composition of second-growth forest, Strouds Run, Ohio, USA. Journal of Biogeography. In press.

Harrod, J., P. S. White, M. E. Harmon. 1998. Changes in xeric forests in western Great Smoky

Mountains National Park, 1936-1995. Castanea 63: 454-360. Hicks, M. L. 1992. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press,

Durham, NC. 239 pp. Lorimer, C. G. 1985. The role of fire in the perpetuation of oak forests. Challenges in Oak

Management and Utilization (ed. J.E. Johnson), pp 8-25. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Martin, W. H. 1991. The role and history of fire in the Daniel Boone National Forest.

Unpublished report to Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester, Ky. 131 p. Meier, A. J., S. P. Bratton. 1996. Disturbance Dynamics in the Chattooga Watershed.

Unpublished report submitted to the United States Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga. Miller, J. H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification

and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-62. Asheville, NC: USDA, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 pp.

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life. 2006. Version 1.2. Arlington, Virginia, USA:

Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology (Third Edition). Saunders, New York, NY. Peet, R. K., N. L. Christensen. 1987. Competition and tree death. BioScience 37: 586-594. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.

University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Rankin, W. T., Elliot J. Tramer. 2002. Understory succession and the gap regeneration cycle in

a Tsuga canadensis forest. Canadian Journ. Forest Research. 32: 16-23. Schafale, M. P, A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North

Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.


Trombulak, S. C, C. A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14: 18-30.

United States Forest Service. 2001. Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population

Trends, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft Internal Document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

United States Forest Service. 2001. Biotics Database. Internal Database, National Forests in

North Carolina, Asheville, NC. (Accessed March, 2006) United States Forest Service. 2002. Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Sensitive and Forest

Concern Species. Internal Document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. United States Forest Service. 2004. Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population

Trends, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Draft Internal Document, National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Vose, J. M., W. T. Swank, B. D. Clinton, J. D. Knoepp. 1997. Restoring southern Appalachian

pine/hardwood ecosystems with fire: a comparison of two techniques. North American Forest Ecology Workshop, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Waldrop, T A., N. T. Welch, P. H. Brose, K. J. Elliott, H. H. Mohr, E. A Gray, F. H. Tainter, L.

E. Ellis. 2000. Current Research on Restoring Ridgetop Pine Communities with Stand Replacement Fire. In Proceedings of Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods Landscape. Richmond, KY.

Weakley, A. S. 2000. Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Unpublished draft. The Nature

Conservancy, Southern Conservation Science Department, Southern Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC.

Williams, C. E. 1998. History and Status of Table Mountain Pine-Pitch Pine Forests of the

Southern Appalachian Mountains (USA). Natural Areas Journal 18: 81-90. Williamson, M. 1996. Biological Invasions. Chapman & Hall, London. Terrestrial Wildlife Resources Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Guide to Birds of North America. (Thayer Birding Software) 2001. Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. Simon and Schuster,

New York, NY 785pp. Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Managers Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,

Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437pp.


Jones, E.J., M.A. Megalos and M.S. Mitchell. 1995. Songbirds. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service- Working with Wildlife web site: www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/forest/steward/www4.html.

LeGrand, H.E.Jr., S.P. Hall and J.T. Finnegan. 2004. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare

animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 90pp.

Pearson, S. 2005. Appalachian yellow bellied sapsucker website. http://biology.mhc.edu/ybsa/ Petranka, J.W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington D.C. 587pp. Robbins, C.S. D.K. Dawson, B.A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding forest

birds of the middle Atlantic states. Wildlife Monographs 103: 1-34. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species of North

Carolina. Asheville, NC. U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Pisgah and Nantahala

National Forests. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC. U.S. Forest Service. 2001. Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends report

for the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, NC.

Wilson, L.A. 1995. Land Manager’s Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the South. The

Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 360pp.


7.0 Attachments Attachment A1: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species, Nantahala National Forest. USFS Status Type Species Habitat/Distribution Endangered/ Threatened

Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Little Tennessee River drainage and Tuckaseegee River; Nolichucky River

Bivalve Pegias fabula

Lower Little Tennessee River; historic record from Valley River, Clay Co.

Fish Cyprinella monacha Little TN River; French Broad River system

Sensitive Bivalve Alasmidonta varicose Little Tennessee River, Macon and Swain Co.

Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Lower Little TN River and Savannah River

Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Valley River, Historic Record, Clay Co.

Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Streams in Little TN River, Macon Co.

Crustacean Cambarus parrishi Streams in Savannah River drainage

Crustacean Cambarus reburrus Tributary to Horsepasture River, Transylvannia Co.; upper French Broad River

Crustacean Cambarus chaugaensis

Streams in Savannah River drainage, Jackson, Macon, and Transylvannia Co.; SC and GA

Dragonfly Macromia margarita Rivers, Macon, Swain, Transylvannia Co.; Caldwell Co.

Dragonfly Ophiogomphus edmundo Blue Ridge escarpment streams; Clear moderately flowing mountain streams Brook Ck, Macon Co.

Dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei Rivers

Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Large streams and rivers, Little TN River system, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.

Fish Percina squamata Higher gradient upland rivers, Tennessee River system, Clay, Jackson, Macon, Swain Co.

Attachment A2: Endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species evaluated for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. The analysis includes known and potentially occurring aquatic species from the Graham, Cherokee, Macon, Transylvania, Henderson, McDowell, and Burke Counties, NC. Potential occurrence is based on known distributions of the species and the presence of suitable habitat. USFS Type Species Likelihood of Occurrence in


Status Analysis Area Endangered Bivalve Pegias fabula Not Likely to Occur1 Endangered Bivalve Alasmidonta raveneliana Not Likely to Occur1 Threatened Fish Erimonax monachus Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Fusconaia barnesiana Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Alasmidonta varicose Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Bivalve Lasmigona holstonia Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Etheostoma vulneratum Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina squamata Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Etheostoma acuticeps Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina burtoni Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Fish Percina macrocephala Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Caecidota carolinensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Camburus chaugaensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Camburus reburrus Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Cambarus georgiae Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Crustacean Stygobromus carolinensis Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Macromia margarita Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus edmundo Not Likely to Occur1 Sensitive Dragonfly Ophiogomphus howei Not Likely to Occur1 Notes: 1 = Species not considered further in analysis because there is no suitable habitat present or vicinity records in the analysis area. The project will not affect the species. 2 = Vicinity records, in or downstream of the analysis area, but not necessarily in project area. 3 = Suitable habitat present, but no vicinity records.


Attachment B1: Endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species, Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests. USFS Status

Species Habitat/Distribution

Endangered Geum radiatum High Elevation Rocky Summit Endangered Gymnoderma lineare High Elevation Rocky Summit, Moist Rock Outcrop in

Acidic Cove in Gorge Endangered Houstonia montana Grassy Bald, High Elevation Rocky Summit Endangered Isotria medeoloides White Pine Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Endangered Sagittaria fasciculata Southern Appalachian Bog, Streamside, Swamp Forest-

Bog Complex Endangered Sarracenia jonesii Southern Appalachian Bog Endangered Sarracenia oreophila Southern Appalachian Bog Endangered Sisyrinchium dichotomum Montane Oak Woodland, Mafic Rock, Escarpment Threatened Helonias bullata Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Threatened Hexastylis naniflora Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Threatened Hudsonia montana High Elevation Rocky Summit, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest Threatened Liatris helleri High Elevation Rocky Summit, Montane Acidic Cliff Threatened Solidago spithamaea High Elevation Rocky Summit Threatened Spiraea virginiana Riverside Scour Zone Sensitive Aconitum reclinatum Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, High

Elevation Seep, Rich Cove Forest Sensitive Acrobolbus ciliatus Spruce-Fir Forest, Spray Cliff Sensitive Allium cuthbertii Low Elevation Granitic Dome Sensitive Aneura maxima Spray Cliff Sensitive Anzia americana Gorge, Acidic Cove Sensitive Arabis patens Montane Mafic Cliff, Montane Calcareous Cliff Sensitive Aspiromitus appalachianus Stream Sensitive Asplenium X ebenoides Montane Calcareous Cliff Sensitive Bartramidula wilsonii Spray Cliff, Moist Montane Acidic Cliff, Gorge Sensitive Bazzania nudicaulis Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Berberis canadensis Rich Cove Forest, Glade, Mafic Rock Sensitive Botrychium jenmanii Rich Cove Forest Sensitive Brachydontium trichodes Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Bryocrumia vivicolor Spray Cliff, Moist Montane Acidic Cliff, Gorge Sensitive Buckleya distichophylla Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Sensitive Buxbaumia minakatae Rotting Logs Sensitive Calamagrostis cainii High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Campylopus paradoxus High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Cardamine clematitis Boulderfield Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, Spruce-

Fir Forest, High Elevation Seep Sensitive Carex biltmoreana High Elevation Granitic Dome, Montane Cedar-Hardwood

Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff Sensitive Carex communis var.

amplisquama Rich Cove Forest, Mafic Rock

Sensitive Carex misera High Elevation Rocky Summit, Montane Acidic Cliff, High Elevation Granitic Dome


Sensitive Carex radfordii Rich Cove Forest, Escarpment Gorge Sensitive Carex roanensis Rich Cove Forest, Montane Oak-Hickory Sensitive Carex schweinitzii Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Sensitive Cephalozia macrostachya ssp

australis Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge

Sensitive Cephaloziella massalongi High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Cheilolejeunea evansii Acidic Cove, Oak-White Pine Forest, Escarpement Gorge Sensitive Chelone cuthbertii Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Cleistes bifaria Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Woodland Sensitive Coreopsis latifolia Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest Sensitive Danthonia epilis High Elevation Granitic Dome, Seep Sensitive Delphinium exaltatum Rich Cove Forest, Grassy Bald, Glade, Montane Oak-

Hickory, Mafic Rock Sensitive Desmodium ochroleucum Openings, Xeric Woodlands Sensitive Diervilla rivularis Streamside, Acidic Cove Forest Sensitive Diplophyllum apiculatum var.

taxifolioides Roadbank

Sensitive Diplophyllum obtusatum Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Ditrichum ambiguum Acidic Cove Forest, High Elevation Red Oak Sensitive Drepanolejeunea

appalachiana Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest

Sensitive Entodon concinnus Moist Montane Calcareous Cliff Sensitive Ephebe americana High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Euphorbia purpurea Northern Hardwood Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-

Hickory Forest Sensitive Eurybia avita Rock Outcrops Sensitive Fissidens appalachiensis Streams at High Elevations Sensitive Fothergilla major Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Montane Oak Woodland,

Roadside Sensitive Frullania appalachiana Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Frullania oakesiana Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Gentiana austromontana Grassy Bald, High Elevation Red Oak Forest, Northern

Hardwood Forest Sensitive Geum geniculatum Boulderfield Forest, High Elevation Seep Sensitive Glyceria nubigena Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, High

Elevation Seep, Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Grammitis nimbata Spray Cliff Sensitive Hasteola suaveolens Montane Alluvial Forest Sensitive Helianthus glaucophyllus Rich Cove Forest, Northern Hardwood Forest, High

Elevation Red Oak Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside

Sensitive Heuchera longiflora var. aceroides

Rock Outcrops in Rich Cove Forest, Mafic Rock

Sensitive Hexastylis contracta Acidic Cove Forest Sensitive Hexastylis rhombiformis Acidic Cove Forest, Hemlock Hardwood Forest, Montane

Alluvial Forest Sensitive Homaliadelphus sharpii Dry Montane Calcareous Cliff Sensitive Hydrothyria venosa Stream


Sensitive Hygrohypnum closteri Stream Sensitive Hymenophyllum tayloriae Spray Cliff, Grotto, Gorge Sensitive Hypericum graveolens High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow Sensitive Hypericum mitchellianum High Elevation Seep, Wet Meadow Sensitive Hypotrachyna virginica High Elevation Forest Sensitive Ilex collina Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Southern

Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest Bog Complex Sensitive Juglans cinerea Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Montane Alluvial

Forest Sensitive Juncus caesariensis Low Elevation Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Lejeunea blomquistii Spray Cliff Sensitive Leptodontium excelsum Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Leptohymenium sharpii Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Liatris turgida High Elevation Granitic Dome, Montane Oak Woodland Sensitive Lilium grayi Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep, Grassy

Bald, Wet Meadow Sensitive Lophocolea appalachiana Spray Cliffs, Wet Rocks Near Mountain Streams Sensitive Lysimachia fraseri Mesic Oak-Hickory, Rich Cove and Acidic Cove Forests,

Roadsides Sensitive Malaxis bayardii Southern Appalachina Bog, Wet Meadows Sensitive Mannia californica Dry Montane Acidic Cliff Sensitive Marshallia grandiflora Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Marshallia trinervia Moist, Rocky Stream Banks Sensitive Marsupella emarginata var.

latiloba Spray Cliff

Sensitive Megaceros aenigmaticus Stream Sensitive Metzgeria fruticulosa High Elevation Forest Sensitive Metzgeria furcata var.

setigera Spruce-Fir Forest, Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge

Sensitive Metzgeria uncigera Acidic Cove Forest Sensitive Monotropsis odorata Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Xeric Oak-

Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest Sensitive Nardia lescurii Peaty Soil over Moist Rocks Sensitive Packera millefolia Rock Outcrops Sensitive Pellia X appalachiana Rock Outcrops Near Spray Cliffs Sensitive Penstemon smallii Rock Outcrops, Woodlands Sensitive Physcia pseudospeciosa High Elevation Granitic Dome Sensitive Plagiochasma intermedium Streamside Limestone Rock Sensitive Plagiochasma wrightii Streamside Limestone Rock Sensitive Plagiochila austinii Moist Montane Acidic Cliff Sensitive Plagiochila caduciloba Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove

Forest in Gorge Sensitive Plagiochila echinata Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove

Forest in Gorge Sensitive Plagiochila sharpii High Elevation Rocky Summit, Rock Outcrop in Acidic

Cove Forest in Gorge Sensitive Plagiochila sullivantii var

spinigera Spray Cliff


Sensitive Plagiochila sullivantii var sullivantii

Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest

Sensitive Plagiochila virginica var caroliniana

Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forestin Gorge

Sensitive Plagiochila virginica var virginica

Limestone Outcrops

Sensitive Plagiomnium carolinianum Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge, Streambank

Sensitive Plantahera integrilabia Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Sensitive Platyhypnidium pringlei Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Sensitive Poa paludigena Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Polytrichum appalachianum Rocky Summits, Mid to High Elevation Sensitive Porella japonica ssp

appalachiana Spray Cliff

Sensitive Porella wataugensis Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Sensitive Porpidia diversa High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Porpidia herteliana High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Prenanthes roanensis Northern Hardwood Forest, Grassy Bald, Meadow,

Roadside, High Elevation Red Oak Forest Sensitive Pycnanthemum beadlei Rock Outcrops, Woodlands Sensitive Pycnanthemum torrei Xeric Oak-Hickory, Glade Sensitive Radula sullivantii Spray Cliff, Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Sensitive Radula voluta Spray Cliff Sensitive Rhachithecium perpusillum Hardwood Trees Sensitive Rhododendron vaseyi Northern Hardwood Forest, High Elevation Seep,

Southern Appalachian Bog, Meadow, Roadside Sensitive Riccardia jugata Rotten Logs in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge Sensitive Robinia viscosa High Elevation Granitic Dome Sensitive Robinia viscosa var.

hartwegii High Elevation Granitic Dome, Woodlands

Sensitive Rudbeckia triloba var pinnatiloba

Rich Cove Forest, Montane Mafic Cliff, Mafic Rock

Sensitive Rugelia nudicaulis Spruce-Fir Forest Sensitive Sabatia capitata Glade, Pine-Oak Woodlands Sensitive Saxifraga caroliniana Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, High

Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Schlotheimia lancifolia Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Hemlock

Hardwood Forest, Highlands Plateau, Gorge Sensitive Scopelophila cataractae Copper-rich Soils, Roadsides Sensitive Scutellaria altamaha Rock Outcrops, Woodlands Sensitive Scutellaria arguta Boulderfield Forest Sensitive Scutellaria pseudoserrata Rock Outcrops, Woodlands Sensitive Scutellaria saxatilis Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Rich

Cove Forest Sensitive Shortia galacifolia var.

brevistyla Acidic Cove Forest, Streambank, Gorge

Sensitive Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia

Acidic Cove Forest, Streambank, Gorge

Sensitive Silene ovata Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Roadside,


Sensitive Solidago simulans High Elevation Granitic Dome Sensitive Sphagnum flavicomans Seeps on Rock or Spray Cliffs Sensitive Sphenolobopsis pearsonii Fraser-Fir Forest Sensitive Splachnum pennsylvanicum Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Stachys clingmanii Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest Sensitive Sticta limbata High Elevation Forest Sensitive Taxiphyllum alternans Spray Cliff, Mafic Rock Sensitive Thalictrum macrostylum Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest Sensitive Thaspium pinnatifidum Southern Appalachian Bog Sensitive Thermopsis fraxinifolia Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-

Oak/Heath Sensitive Tortula ammonsiana Moist Montane Mafic Cliff Sensitive Trillium pusillum var.

pusillum Rich Cove Forest

Sensitive Trillium rugelii Rich Cove Forest at Low Elevation Sensitive Trillium simile Rich Cove Forest Sensitive Tsuga caroliniana Carolina Hemlock Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff, Pine-

Oak/Heath, High Elevation Rocky Summit Sensitive Viola appalachiensis Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Rich Cove

Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Sensitive Waldsteinia lobata Acidic Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Gorge Sensitive Xanthoparmelia monticola High Elevation Rocky Summit


Attachment W1: Endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive terrestrial animal species on the evaluated for the Oak Release in Demonstration Plots Project. �Species Status Brief Habitat Description Evaluated/

Rationale* Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel

Endangered High elevation forests, mainly spruce/fir

No/2

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

Endangered Roosts in hollow trees or under loose bark (summer); in caves (winter)

Yes/1

Clemmys muhlenbergi Bog Turtle

Threatened Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets

No/2

Mesodon clarki Nantahala Noonday Globe

Threatened Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site) No/2

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat

Sensitive Roosts in old buildings, hollow trees, caves, mines usually near water

No/2

Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis Southern rock vole

Sensitive Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields

No/2

Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat

Sensitive Roosts in hollow trees, rock outcrops, bridges (summer); caves and mines (winter)

No/2

Sorex palustris puntculatus Southern water shrew

Sensitive Stream banks in montane forests

Yes/1

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon

Sensitive Cliffs (for nesting) No/2

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle

Sensitive Nests in large, open grown trees near lakes and rivers

No/2

Lanius ludovicia migrans Migrant loggerhead shrike

Sensitive Fields and pastures (breeding season only) No/2

Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren

Sensitive Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields, at high elevations (breeding season only)

No/2

Desmognathus Santeetlah Santeetlah dusky salamander

Sensitive Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern mountains

No/2

Eurycea junaluska Junaluska salamander

Sensitive Forests near seeps and streams in the southwestern mountains

No/2

Plethodon aureolus Tellico salamander

Sensitive Forests in the Unicoi Mountains No/2

Plethodon teyahalee Southern Appalachian salamander

Sensitive High elevation, wooded slopes and forests; prefers hardwood forests and logs over pines and hemlocks

Yes/1

Callophrys irus Frosted elfin

Sensitive Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; host plant-lupines, (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia)

Yes/1


Cicindela ancocisconensis A tiger beetle

Sensitive High elevation forests > 4000 ft No/2

Melanoplus divergens Divergent Melanoplus

Sensitive Glades and balds, 1800-4717 feet No/2

Melanoplus serrulatus Serrulate Melanoplus

Sensitive Valleys and lower slopes, Nantahala Mountains

No/2

Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave spider

Sensitive Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently endemic to Swain County, NC)

No/2

Nesticus sheari A cave spider

Sensitive On the ground in moist or rich forests (apparently endemic to Graham County, NC)

No/2

Nesticus silvanus A cave spider

Sensitive Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern mountains of NC)

No/2

Scudderia septentrionalis Northern Bush Katydid

Sensitive Forests Yes/1

Semiothisa fraserata Fraser Fir Angle

Sensitive Spruce/fir forests with fraser fir No/2

Speyeria diana Diana fritillary

Sensitive Rich woods and adjacent edges and openings; host plants (Viola)

Yes/1

Trechus luculentus unicoi A ground beetle

Sensitive Apparently the mountains of Graham County

No/2

Trimerotropis saxatilis Rock-loving grasshopper

Sensitive Lichen-covered rock outcrops Yes/1

Pallifera hemphilli Black mantleslug

Sensitive High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir

No/2

Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil

Sensitive Leaf litter on wooded hillsides No/2

*Occurrence Criteria 1 - Potentially suitable habitat; may occur. 2 - Lack of suitable habitat or outside the known or expected range.

Bert Creek Demo

Vicinity Map Cheoah Ranger District

Poison Cove Demo

Witness Rock Demo

Vicinity Map Grandfather Ranger District

Witness Rock Univ. Study

N. Red Oak Rsch. Plots

Jonas Ridge Demo

Lloyd Cove Demo

Vicinity Map Nantahala Ranger District

Highlands Office Demo

Jones Creek Demo

Vicinity Map Nantahala Ranger District

Long Branch Demo

Vicinity Map Pisgah Ranger District

North Mills Univ. Study

Vicinity Map Tusquitee Ranger District

Bates Creek Demo

united states forest national forests in north carolina...

Documents