United States Department of Agriculture...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service July, 2010

Environmental Assessment

Thunderstruck Project Tusquitee Ranger District Nantahala National Forest Clay County, North Carolina

Responsible Official Lauren Stull Acting District Ranger Tusquitee Ranger District

For Information Contact: Tusquitee Ranger District 123 Woodland Drive Murphy, NC 28906 (828) 837-5152

Environmental Assessment 1 July, 2010 Thunderstruck Project Chapter 1

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.


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION........................................................... 3

1.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................ 4 1.1.2 VICINITY MAP........................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL (ALTERNATIVE B) ................................ 6

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 9 1.3 SCOPING .......................................................................................................................... 13 1.4 KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED ......................................................................................... 13 1.5 NON-KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED ............................................................................... 13

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ..................14 2.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 14 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ................................................................................. 14

2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION ......................................................................... 14 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................... 14

2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL .................................................. 14 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 15 2.5 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES (DESIGN CRITERIA) ............................................................................................................................. 15

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................................................................................................16

3.1 ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ................................ 16 3.2 COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITATS AND MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.2.1 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS ............................. 19 3.2.2 BOTANICAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS ....................... 26 3.2.3 WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS ........................... 34

3.3 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES ...................................................................................... 42 3.3.1 AQUATIC FOREST CONCERN SPECIES ........................................................... 42 3.3.2 BOTANICAL FOREST CONCERN SPECIES ..................................................... 44 3.3.3 WILDLIFE FOREST CONCERN SPECIES ......................................................... 46

3.4 UPPER NANTAHALA RIVER NATURAL HERITAGE AREA ............................... 50 3.5 RECREATION RESOURCE .......................................................................................... 51 3.6 SOIL RESOURCE ............................................................................................................ 52 3.7 VISUAL RESOURCE ...................................................................................................... 55 3.8 HERITAGE RESOURCE ................................................................................................ 55 3.9 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................................. 56

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED .....58

5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................58

6.0 APPENDICIES.................................................................................................65 ATTACHMENT 1: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .......................................................... 65


1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Tusquitee Ranger District of the USDA Forest Service is proposing land and resource management activities on lands of the Nantahala National Forest. The project area is located in the northeast corner of Clay County, approximately 10 miles east-northeast of Hayesville, in the Forest Service administrative units known as Compartments 105 and 122 (see the attached map). 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, and alternatives to the proposed action. The document is organized into six sections: 1.0: Purpose and Need for the Action: This chapter includes detailed 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 chapter provides alternatives to the proposal. The chapter also includes design criteria, or measures that are taken to prevent potential adverse effects of an action. 3.0: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: In this chapter the potential environmental impacts of each of the alternatives are examined. The chapter is organized by the environmental resource being examined. Throughout the Environmental Assessment there are references to project area, activity area and analysis area.

• The project area is 3,586 acres comprising all the Forest Service lands within the two administrative Compartments 105 and 122.

• Activity area is used to describe just those acres where activities will occur. For example, the two-aged harvest activity area is the nine areas totaling 330 acres.

• Analysis area is used to describe the area of influence of an activity for a particular resource. For example, the analysis area for aquatic species effects analysis would include the project area waters and the waters downstream of the project area that could potentially be impacted by project activities.

4.0: Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. 5.0: References: This chapter provides a list of references and data sources used in the analysis. 6.0: Appendices: The appendices include the Biological Evaluation, summary tables and other information used to support the analysis presented in the EA


1.1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA The project area encompasses approximately 3,586 acres located in two administrative Compartments (C.105 and C.122). These are timbered lands comprised primarily of cove and upland hardwood trees, with a predominance of a variety of oak species and yellow poplar. Most of the stands of trees are between 60 and 100 years old. Approximately 17% of the project area stands are between 11 and 20 years old as the result of timber harvesting in the late 1980’s-early 1990’s. The oldest stands of trees (approximately 5% of the project area) are 150 years old. Elevations range from 3,200 feet on the Nantahala River bordering the east side of the project area, to 4,200 on the long lead bordering the west side of the project area. This section of the Upper Nantahala River has been designated by the North Carolina Natural Program as a State Natural Heritage area. The western lead is traversed by a portion of the Chunky Gal hiking trail. Access to the area is by Perry Gap Road (#350) off from U.S. Highway 64. The project area is open to public access by foot travel, bicycles and horse travel only. Historically, the area has been actively managed for timber production and development of wildlife habitat, and traditional public uses have been for hunting, fishing, horseback riding and gathering of special forest products such as medicinal plants. 1.1.2 VICINITY MAP


Figure 1: Acres in the Thunderstruck Project Area by Forest Type

Figure 2: Acres in the Thunderstruck Project Area by 10 Year Age Classes

36

59

411

29

476

1334

806

99

226

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

White Pine

Hemlock- Hardwood

Cove Hdwd- W. Pine- Hemlock

Upland Hdwd- W. Pine

Yellow Poplar

White Oak- Red Oak- Hickory

Poplar- White Oak- Red Oak

Scarlet Oak

Sugar Maple- Beech- Birch

Acres

0

600

72

0

112

370

577549

638

558

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 101+Age Class

Acres


Management Areas Management activities in the project area are guided by management direction taken from the “Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan”, referred to simply as the “Forest Plan”. This Forest Plan describes the levels of management practices, production, and protection that may take place on specific “Management Areas” designated across the Forest. The National Forest lands in the Thunderstruck Project (3,586 acres) have been designated as Management Areas 3B and 18. Management Area (MA) 3B emphasizes the production of a continuous, sustainable supply of sawtimber and other wood products, but with few open roads and limited disturbance associated with motorized vehicles. MA3B also provides for the habitat needs of wildlife such as wild turkey, deer, a variety of small mammals, and other species that will benefit from a managed forest with limited motorized use. Embedded within MA3B is Management Area 18 which consists of the aquatic ecosystem, riparian ecosystems and closely associated plant and animal communities. MA18 is managed to protect and enhance the distinctive resource values and characteristics of the aquatic/riparian systems. 1.1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL (ALTERNATIVE B) It is projected that the management activities will start in 2010 and will take approximately five years to complete. Activities being proposed include: Two-aged Regeneration Harvest: Harvest 330 acres in 9 separate stands using a two-aged regeneration method of harvest. In the two-age method the mature stand is partially cut. Twenty to 30 square feet basal area of residual trees per acre would be left to meet visual quality and wildlife objectives. Den trees and hard mast producing trees would be the favored leave trees. Enough of the mature stand is removed in order to ensure adequate light reaches the forest floor to provide for growth and development of the new age stand. A total of approximately 6,300 ccf (hundred cubic feet) of hardwood sawlogs and pulpwood would be harvested on the nine units. Logging would be accomplished on seven of the units by using a conventional ground-based system that skids the logs on the ground to a designated landing. On two of the units (C.105-28 and C.122-27) logging would be accomplished using an overhead cable system to cable logs up terrain that is too steep for operating ground-based skidders. A 5-acre portion of compartment 105 stand 40 will be excluded from the harvest because it is a rich cove site with an extraordinary concentration of conservative understory species unique to this portion of the Nantahala National Forest. An old skid road will be used within this exclusion for hauling logs to a log deck.

Site Preparation: Following harvest activities on all the units, 330 acres would be prepared for natural regeneration of trees by cutting non-desirable competing vegetation with chainsaws or handtools. These sites would be regenerated to hardwood trees by natural seeding or sprouting from roots and stumps. Seedling Release: Upon establishment of a new stand of trees in the nine regenerated sites (approx. 3 to 5 years), the desirable trees would be released from competing vegetation using a combination of two herbicides that have been approved for forestry use: Glyphosate (commonly referred to as Forester, Accord or Rodeo), or Triclopyr (commonly referred to as Tahoe 3A and


Tahoe 4E). These herbicides, which are designed to interfere with the normal growth process of plants, are applied as a liquid spray to the target vegetation. Only vegetation that is in immediate competition with the desirable trees would be treated. Desirable trees are those tree species desired for there traits as a timber tree or a wildlife tree, including single stem pine, oaks, hickory, poplar, cherry, and ash. Herbicide Use: Herbicide solutions are normally carried by workers in a backpack sprayer and sprayed onto leaves and stems, or in a hatchet-like applicator that injects the mixture under the bark of the target vegetation. Three methods of application would be considered depending upon the conditions occurring within the units 3 to 5 years after regeneration has become established: 1) direct application to the foliage of unwanted vegetation using a backpack carried spray applicator. This treatment method is commonly used to eliminate up to shoulder high brush. Citrus oil called Cide-kick is added to the herbicide formulation to help break down the foliage surface, allowing better penetration and uptake of the herbicide; 2) Streamline application, in which the herbicide, 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 4 inches in diameter); 3) a method known as “hack and squirt” which the bark of a small tree is cut into with a hatchet and herbicide sprayed into the cut using a spray bottle (small undesirable trees, generally greater than two inches and less than nine inches in diameter). Road Activities: Approximately two miles of road would be constructed to access stands 23 and 28 in Compartment 122. While this is considered road construction, an old roadbed is already in place and these activities may be more appropriately called reconstruction. The roadbeds are associated with the Tate Cove timber sale in 1987/1988. Road construction would involve removing trees to daylight the road, blading and shaping to outslope and create dips, and surfacing with stone. This road would be placed on the Forest Service classified road system and be maintained as needed to provide access for future management activities. This road would be closed to public travel with a gate at Perry Gap. When not used as a travel-way the road would be seeded with a wildlife food mixture and be maintained as a linear wildlife food plot. Two miles of Thunderstruck Road (FS # 350-1) will require reconditioning by removing trees to daylight the road, blading and shaping to outslope and create dips, and surfacing with stone. Approximately 1/2 mile of temporary haul road would be constructed to access stands 38 and 39 in Compartment 105 from Thunderstruck Road. Construction would involve removing trees, blading and shaping to outslope and create dips, and surfacing with stone. The road would be closed following harvest operations by blocking with an earthen berm and seeding with a grass seed mix. Wildlife Habitat Improvements: To further improve wildlife habitat, construct five new wildlife openings, each approximately 1/2 acre in size, with equipment capable of removing stumps and conditioning the soil. Routine maintenance of the openings would consist of mowing, overseeding with a wildlife seed mix, liming and fertilizing as needed. Invasive plants periodically become established and grow in wildlife openings. To accomplish removal of these


invasive plants three herbicides would be used either singly or in combination: Glyphosate, Imazapic (commonly referred to as Plateau), and Triclopyr. Each of the herbicides is unique in the species of plants it affectively treats. The herbicides are applied as a liquid spray using equipment mounted on a tractor. Maintain Tate Cove Road (FS # 6212) as a linear wildlife food strip from the closure device at Perry Gap to the end of the system road by planting by seeding with a wildlife seed mix, liming and fertilizing as needed (approximately 4.5 miles). Enhance habitat for breeding amphibians in a small wet area located in a wildlife opening near Buck Creek by using a trackhoe to reshape the terrain so that water spreads out over the ground rather than pool in the constructed drainage ditch. Construct ponds that capture and hold rainwater during the spring for breeding amphibians, but that dry out at other dryer times of the year by digging a shallow depression with a trackhoe or other equipment, then compacting the soil and lining the depression with bentonite (powdered clay). Fish Habitat Improvements: Install instream fish structures using native materials on Buck Creek in the southeast corner of the project area. Native materials such as rocks and logs would be used. Campsite Rehabilitation: Rehabilitate dispersed undeveloped campsites located on Buck Creek in the southeast corner of the project area by “hardening off” sites where erosion is occurring. Hardening off activities would include revegetating impacted areas, installing devices to control erosion, and to control vehicle and foot traffic on the site. Control Nonnative Invasive Plant Species: Control nonnative invasive plant species using herbicides as the plants are encountered along road right-of-ways in the project area. Control activities will consist of applying glyphosate or triclopyr to plant leaves and stems using a sprayer. Old Growth Designations: The Forest Plan requires that each Compartment with more than 250 acres of National Forest land has at least 50 acres or 5% of the Compartment, whichever is greater, designated for old growth management. An IDTeam identified and designated small patches in Compartments 105 and 122 which exceed the minimum acreage requirement for small patch old growth. The IDTeam designated 106 acres in Compartment 122 stand 1. This stand is located on the west bank of the Nantahala River and is typed as a yellow poplar/white oak/red oak stand approximately 95 years old. The IDTeam designated 99 acres in Compartment 105, parts of stands 3, 12 and 37. These are south facing red oak/white oak/ hickory stands near Fishprong branch, and are approximately 100 years old. Patches were selected based on forest type, age, and uniqueness. Patches were given higher priority if they were not easily accessible by existing roads. With a large amount of sites to choose from, sites were not chosen if they were easily accessible by road and available for future multiple-use management without additional road construction.


Table 1.1: Activities Proposed in the Thunderstruck Project Compt.-Stand Acres Compt.-Stand Acres Compt.-Stand Acres

105 - 18 35 ac. 105 – 28 40 ac. 105 – 38 40 ac. 105 - 39 40 ac. 105 – 40 31 ac. 105 – 41 36 ac. 122 - 23 40 ac. 122 – 27 28 ac. 122 – 28 40 ac.

Two-aged harvest followed by chainsaw site prep (natural regeneration) followed by herbicide release in the stands listed above. Road activities (see project map) • Recondition 2.0 miles of FS Road # 350-1 • Construct 2 miles of classified system road by reconstructing an old woods road • Construct ½ mile of temporary haul road.

Construct and maintain five wildlife openings (see project map) Construct six wildlife Ponds (see project map) Maintain approximately 6.5 miles of road as linear wildlife openings (see project map) Herbicide control of invasive nonnative plant species as they occur (5 acres or less) Install instream fish structures on Buck Creek. Rehab dispersed undeveloped campsites

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is to improve the existing condition of the timber resource, wildlife habitat, and watershed conditions within the Thunderstruck Project area, all in accordance with the Forest Plan goals, objectives and direction for Management Areas 3B and 18. Management Area 3B emphasizes a sustainable supply of timber, achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time. The proposed activities are needed to move this vicinity of the Forest toward the desired conditions established in the Forest Plan. Direction in the Forest Plan reads, in part, “Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations” (Forest Plan, p. III-29). The project area contains minimal amounts of early successional habitat, with no stands of trees less than 10 years old. Early successional habitat provides conditions for a host of wildlife species, including game animals and neotropical migratory birds, that regularly use young forest conditions for cover, browse, or to feed on the insects, fruits and berries that are more abundant in very young forest conditions. The proposed harvest activities would accomplish the need to increase early successional habitat by increasing the percentage of young forest by about 9%. Harvest activities will contribute to mixed ages of stands throughout the project area. The proposal includes silvicultural treatments to prepare and regenerate harvested areas for the development of future timbered forestlands, and treatments to improve tree growth and promote development of young trees. Post harvest regeneration and release activities will improve stand stocking and species composition. Road reconstruction and new system road construction is needed to provide access for current and future resource management.


Wildlife openings are needed to provide grass/forb habitats for wildlife species requiring those habitat needs. Forest Plan direction is to provide at least 0.5% of Management Area 3B in grass/forb openings, or about 18 acres in the project area. Currently grass/forb habitat is provided only where Tate Cove Road is seeded with a wildlife seed mix. Five new wildlife openings and seeding of closed roads beyond Perry Gap will provide approximately 12 acres of grass/forb habitat. This proposal is needed to “use vegetative management practices, including commercial and noncommercial timber harvest, to accomplish fish and wildlife habitat objectives” (Forest Plan, p. III-24). The project area has aquatic habitats that consist primarily of small headwater streams that support aquatic insects and some habitat for fish. Fish habitat conditions would be improved on Buck Creek by installing instream fish structures. This proposal is needed to “protect and improve fisheries habitat for self-sustaining fish populations” (Forest Plan, p. III-25). Although the project area has numerous small streams, there are very few bodies of standing water. Ponds and wet areas are needed to provide habitat for breeding amphibians. Watershed conditions in the project area are generally good. Watershed conditions can be improved by “hardening off” dispersed undeveloped campsites located on Buck Creek. “Hardening off” measures are needed to prevent the off-site movement of soil, and sediment from reaching the stream channel. Invasions of nonnative plants into the southern forests degrade forest diversity and wildlife habitat; hinder forest use and management activities; and impact forest productivity. Herbicide control measures are needed to check the spread of these invasive species.


Table 1.2: Resource elements, existing condition, desired future condition, and proposed action. Resource Element Existing Condition Desired Condition Proposed Action

Vegetation/ Timber Mgt.

• The forested vegetation consists of common community types dominated by cove and upland oak species, and yellow poplar.

• The last timber sale to occur in the project area was in 1987-92 when 600 acres were harvested by clearcutting (17% of the project area).

• No acres in the 0-10 year old age class. • Invasive nonnative plants, primarily

Microstegium vimineum and Lonicera japonica grow on roadsides leading to the proposed activity areas (about 2 acres)

• A regular and sustained flow of habitats through space and time (Forest Plan, p.III-29).

• Disperse early successional habitat across the landscape, at least 5% of the analysis area, not to exceed 15% (Forest Plan, p.III-31).

• Disperse planned regeneration openings to provide for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity (Forest Plan, p.III-34).

• Provide for stocking control and species variety through timber stand improvement practices (Forest Plan, p.III-36).

• Control of known invasive plant species.

• Two-aged harvest on 330 acres. Site prepare for establishment of new regeneration.

• Release seedlings from competition.

• Control invasive nonnative plant species with herbicides.

Fish and Wildlife

• Early successional habitat is critical for several wildlife species, including game species and neotropical migratory bird species. The project area contains minimal amounts of early successional habitat.

• There are currently no timber stands aged 0 to 10 years old.

• 600 acres or 17% of the project area is between 11 and 20 years old.

• The project area is lacking abundant grass/forb habitat in wildlife openings.

• A regular and sustained flow of habitats through space and time (Forest Plan, p.III-29).

• Protect and improve fisheries habitat. Provide structural habitat improvements (Forest Plan, pp.III-24 - 25)

• Provide conditions for the large group of game and non-game animals that benefit from young to middle-aged forests (Forest Plan, p.III-74).

• Provide at least 0.5% of the area in grass/forb openings at any one time including mowed landings and roads (Forest Plan, p.III-23)

• Construct five 1/2 acre wildlife openings.

• Maintain 6.5 miles of road as linear wildlife openings.

• Construct 6 small wildlife ponds. • Retain hard mast producing trees

and den trees in two-aged harvest stands.

Water and Soils

• Water quality in the project area is good. • Slopes in proposed activity areas are

generally less than 35%.

• Manage dispersed recreation sites for low to moderate site impacts from human use (Forest Plan, p.III-184).

• Use specialized logging systems on sustained steep slopes (Forest Plan, p.III-34).

• Rehab dispersed undeveloped campsites on Buck Creek.

• Accomplish logging using an overhead cable system to cable logs up terrain that is too steep for operating ground-based skidders.


Resource Element Existing Condition Desired Condition Proposed Action

Transportation

• The existing transportation system does not provide access to all lands in the project area that are suitable for timber production.

• Plan and construct the transportation system to provide access for timber (Forest Plan, P.III-76).

• Construct 2.0 mile of new road to provide access into areas classified as suitable for timber production (use of existing roadbed).

• Recondition 2.0 miles of existing system roads.

• Construct 0.5 miles of temporary haul road

Proposed, Endangered,

Threatened and Sensitive Species

• Project analysis area contains suitable habitat and is within the known range of one threatened wildlife species and eight sensitive wildlife species.

• Protect and enhance critical habitat for threatened and endangered species.

• Protect and enhance sensitive plants, animals and landscape elements through appropriate management.

• Protect when encountered.


1.2.1 DECISION TO BE MADE The decision to be made is to: approve the management activities as proposed; defer all activities until another time; require additional information from the Interdisciplinary Team if the information presented is not adequate to make a decision; or require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement or other NEPA Document. 1.3 SCOPING 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. The Project was listed in the October 2005 Schedule of Proposed Actions for the National Forests in North Carolina and was mailed to a Forest-wide list of more than 100 addresses. The project was listed in every quarterly Schedule of Proposed Action since then. In February 2007 a “scoping” letter specific to this project was sent to groups and individuals known to be interested in the Management of National Forest lands on the Tusquitee Ranger District, as well as individuals with property within the vicinity of project activities. This letter included a description of the proposed action, a map identifying the project area, and a request for comments. Comments were received from ten individuals, government agencies or conservation groups. 1.4 KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED The key issues associated with this project were identified through a public “scoping” process, which included input from Forest Service specialists, other government agencies, private groups and individuals. A Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDTeam) reviewed the comments received during the scoping period and determined that there were no issues that could not be addressed through project design or mitigation measures, and therefore no alternatives to the proposed action were developed to respond to key issues. 1.5 NON-KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED Based on the IDTeam’s evaluation, the following issues were eliminated from further study in this Environmental Assessment (as directed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Code of Federal Regulations 1500-1508) because the project would cause only inconsequential effects to each issue or resource: Travel on Buck Creek road; Wildlife and wildlife habitat; Endangered, threatened, sensitive, concern, and rare species; Old Growth; Unique communities and seeps; Road management and construction; Illegal OHV Use; Water quality; soils; sedimentation; Chunky Gal Trail; Herbicides; Economics; Invasive Plants; Global warming and atmospheric carbon; Successful regeneration. Additional information on the ID Team’s evaluation of these non-significant issues is documented in the project record.


Other non-key issues brought forward by the public, and reasons for eliminating as key-issues are:

• Shooting Creek Bald Mountain Treasures – The Wilderness Society’s proposal to manage the area as a North Carolina Mountain Treasure is not in compliance with the Forest Plan for the Nantahala National Forests.

• Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area - the activities being proposed have been designed to meet State Best Management Practices and to prevent visible sediment from entering project area streams.

• Restoration alternative – a restoration alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a detailed description of the alternatives. These alternatives were developed by the Interdisciplinary Team of specialists in response to issues and opportunities identified in the project area. Table 2.1 summarizes the activities in each alternative. 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION This alternative proposes no activity that would move the area toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan. No timber would be harvested and no other connected resource activities would be carried out. Custodial management outside the scope of the proposed action would continue at the present level, including fire protection, law enforcement, road and wildlife opening maintenance. Habitat for disturbance related species would decline while habitat for species that prefer closed canopy conditions would increase slightly. Previous efforts in timber stand development and wildlife habitat improvements would not be maintained. 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – PROPOSED ACTION Refer to section 1.1.3 in Chapter 1 for a full discussion of Alternative B. Also see Table 1.1 for a summary of Alternative B. 2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL An alternative to address concerns regarding the Upper Nantahala Natural Heritage Area was considered. This alternative was dropped from detailed analysis because sediments can be prevented from entering the Nantahala River through project design and by application of State Best Management Practices. An alternative was considered which would exclude the use of herbicides. It was dropped from detailed analysis because objectives for controlling invasive plants and for maintaining wildlife


openings could not be met using handtools only. Objectives for releasing tree seedlings using handtools could be met but would be costly. 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Table 2.1: Summary of Management Activities in the Thunderstruck Project by Alternative

Alt. A

(No Action) Alt. B

(Proposed Action) Harvest timber using a two-aged regeneration method followed by site preparation for natural regeneration using handtools (chainsaws), and release desirable tree seedlings from competing vegetation (3 to 5 years after harvest) using herbicides. None 330 acres on five individual sites. Construct 2 miles of classified system road by reconditioning old woods road. None 2 mile. Recondition Thunderstruck Road #350-1. None 2 miles Construct temporary haul roads. None ½ mile Construct and maintain wildlife openings. Routine maintenance by mowing, overseeding, and application of lime and fertilizer as needed. Maintain wildlife openings by broadcast spraying an approved herbicide. None

Five openings (1/2 acre each), six ponds (½ acre total)

Maintain system roads as linear wildlife openings. None 6.5 miles Construct wildlife ponds and enhance wet area near Buck Creek. None 75 acres on three individual sites. Install instream fish structures on Buck Creek. None 6 to 12 Rehabilitate dispersed undeveloped campsites on Buck Creek. None Approx. 1 acre Control nonnative invasive vegetation, primarily along roadways, using an approved herbicide. None Approx. 5 acres.

2.5 MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS & MITIGATION MEASURES (DESIGN CRITERIA) Refer to the section on herbicides in the appendix for management requirements specific to herbicide use. Retain more than 30 basal area of canopy cover in Compartment 105 stand 38 where snail collections were taken.


3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 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. 3.1 ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES See the Biological Evaluation in the Appendix of this Environmental Assessment. 3.1.1 AQUATIC ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES The Thunderstruck Project would have no effect on any federally listed or proposed aquatic species or its habitat or any aquatic sensitive species because none are known from, or with potential habitat in, the aquatic analysis area. 3.1.2 BOTANICAL ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES Because no endangered or threatened plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened plant species. Because no sensitive plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any sensitive plant species. 3.1.3 WILDLIFE ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES Proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species considered in this analysis are those currently listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 activity areas. Species with only incidental, migrant or historic occurrences in Clay County were not considered further. The following species were considered under this analysis (Attachment 1): Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis); bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii); northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis); rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis); frosted elfin (Callophrys irus); Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana); southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee); eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii); and the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus).


Table 3.1. Known and potential proposed, endangered, and threatened species evaluated. Species USFS Status Type Habitat description Likelihood of occurrence

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) Endangered Mammal Roosts in caves and

hollow trees May occur

Bog turtle (Clemmys

muhlenbergii) Threatened Reptile Wet, marshy

meadows Occurs

Northern bush katydid

(Scudderia septentrionalis)

Sensitive Insect Treetops at edges of broadleaved forest May occur

Rock-loving grasshopper

(Trimerotropis saxatilis)

Sensitive Insect Lichen covered rock outcrops May occur

Frosted elfin (Callophrys

irus) Sensitive Insect

Open woods and borders, in dry

situations May occur

Diana fritillary butterfly

(Speyeria diana) Sensitive Insect Deciduous and pine

woodlands May occur

Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)

Sensitive Amphibian Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines May occur

Eastern small-footed bat

(Myotis leibii) Sensitive Mammal Moist forests at all

elevations May occur

Southern water shrew (Sorex

palustris puntulatus)

Sensitive Mammal Roosts in hollow trees in summer May occur

The need for surveys for individual PET species was considered in light of direction found at FSM 2672.43, Supplement No. R8-2600-2002-2. This species could occur in the project activity areas.

Effects of Alternatives by Species

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) 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 species communal roosting habits, it is probable that all 28 bats were Indiana bats. 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. 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. At present, this is the southernmost known Indiana bat maternity colony. 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 does exist within the area. Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects of disturbance and/or mortality from tree felling may occur between April 15 and October 15 if a tree that a bat is roosting in is cut. This is limited to this 6-month period because the bats are hibernating in caves the remainder of the year. Indirect effects may also occur to potential Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat. 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. This includes retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark, shagbark and bitternut hickories, snags, hollow, den, and cavity trees, trees in buffer zones along intermittent and perennial streams, and shade trees adjacent to some of the large snags. These measures would be implemented when the stands are marked for sale. This project may impact a maximum of 330 acres of suitable habitat by 2-age regeneration. Based on the small number of currently suitable or 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. The sequence of events that would result in a tree being cut down in which a bat is roosting is unlikely; therefore, direct effects to Indiana bats should not occur. Removing a small number of trees would not make the area unsuitable as summer habitat for Indiana bats. Indiana bats are known to use highly altered and fragmented landscapes. They may respond positively to habitat disturbance, particularly where forests are even-aged and closed-canopied. A diverse landscape may benefit Indiana bats, as long as sufficient mature forest and numbers of quality roost trees are provided. Given the amount of tree cutting, the area would still provide vast numbers of roost trees and potentially suitable habitat for Indiana bats. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects The Indiana bat model includes all identified past activities and ongoing activities within two miles of the proposed harvest units, as well as the proposed actions. There are no known proposed future activities. Cumulative Effects

Each time the model calculates the habitat suitability index; the combined effect on Indiana bat habitat in the analysis area is determined. The Indiana bat habitat suitability index was calculated using the maximum tree-cutting alternative (Alternative B). This resulted in a 1.66% change from the baseline. The Forest Plan limits cumulative effects to less than a 5%


change from the baseline (Amendment 10 of LRMP). Because there is only a very minor loss of potential Indiana bat habitat in the area impacted, the proposed action would not affect the availability of Indiana bat habitat in the area.

Determination of Effect

This project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. The project will have no effect on any other federally proposed or listed terrestrial animal species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. This project will have no affect on the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The project may impact individuals of the northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis), rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis), frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee), eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), and the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus), but will not impact their viability across the Forest. This project will not impact any other sensitive species. No cumulative effects on species viability across the Forest will result from this project. Table 3.2. Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated proposed, endangered, and threatened species.

Species Alternative A Alternative B Indiana bat No effect Not likely to adversely affect Bog turtle No effect Not likely to adversely affect Northern bush katydid No effect Not likely to adversely affect Rock-loving grasshopper No effect Not likely to adversely affect Frosted elfin No effect Not likely to adversely affect Diana fritillary butterfly No effect Not likely to adversely affect Southern Appalachian salamander No effect Not likely to adversely affect Eastern small-footed bat No effect Not likely to adversely affect Southern water shrew No effect Not likely to adversely affect 3.2 COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITATS AND MANAGEMENT

INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) 3.2.1 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS Introduction - This analysis addresses project area waters and analysis area waters associated with the Thunderstruck Timber Project. Project area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts (Direct and Indirect Effects) 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 when considered within the watershed context (Cumulative Effects). The aquatic analysis areas for the Thunderstruck Project consist of the following watersheds: Barnards Creek downstream to its confluence with Buck Creek; Joel Cove downstream to its


confluence with Buck Creek; Thunderstruck Branch downstream to its confluence with Buck Creek; Tate Branch to its confluence with the Nantahala River; Tipton Branch to its confluence with Nantahala Lake; Buck Creek to its confluence with the Nantahala River; the Nantahala River arm of Nantahala Lake. Buck Creek is classified by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) as Class C Trout (Tr) Waters. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Tr waters are suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. Barnards Creek, Chestnut Branch, Fishprong Branch, and Thunderstruck Branch are classified as Class C Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW). ORW indicates waters that are considered outstanding resource waters. Tate Branch and Tipton Branch are classified as Class C waters. The Nantahala River is classified as Class B Tr waters. Class B waters are waters primarily used for recreation and any other use designated under Class C waters. The analysis area is characterized as containing habitat for coldwater fish species. Analysis area waters also provide extensive habitat for macroinvertebrates. Streams within the Thunderstruck Project aquatic analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of cobble and gravels. Analysis area streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR 2005). The aquatic analysis area contains two aquatic communities, coldwater streams and one reservoir. Special habitat components are not associated with any aquatic resources, and therefore will not be analyzed further. Only aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS) potentially affected by the proposed project are fully evaluated. The Nantahala River, Buck Creek, Barnards Creek, and Tate Branch provide habitat for rainbow trout. Brown trout also occur within the Nantahala River and Buck Creek, and blacknose dace may also occur within the aquatic analysis area waters because they have been located within the Nantahala River. As a result, wild rainbow trout, wild brown trout, and blacknose dace were selected for further analysis. Brook trout were not selected as MIS because there are no recent records of this species occurring in the project area. Nantahala Lake provides habitat for the reservoir species largemouth bass; therefore, this species was selected as a project MIS. The effects of this project would dissipate prior to reaching the point where any streams become suitable for coolwater or warmwater species. No coolwater species or warmwater species will be analyzed further because there are no suitable habitats for these species within the aquatic analysis area. Management activities most likely to affect rainbow trout, brown trout, blacknose dace, or largemouth bass habitat would be changes in water quality. Therefore, the number of stream miles or acreage of lakes receiving sediment inputs typically serves as indicators for analysis of the effects of each alternative. (1) Coldwater Streams - MIS associated with the coldwater streams community includes the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and blacknose dace


(Rhinichthys atratulus). Approximately 25 miles of coldwater streams occur within the analysis area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A - Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would involve no ground disturbing activities or herbicide applications. No in stream improvements would be done and no campsites would be improved. The existing condition of the campsites in need of rehabilitation and the lack of pool habitat within Buck Creek would continue. Sedimentation and turbidity from the dispersed campsites and the stream bank erosion would continue to occur during rain events and at high stream flows. This alternative would not improve habitat for the coldwater streams community or the MIS because it would not create pool habitats. As such, this alternative would not meet the Forest Plan direction for Management Area 18. Alternative B - Most of the proposed activities will have no effects on any aquatic resources because these activities would be located outside of the riparian areas or effects would be avoided by implementation of the project design features and Best management Practices (BMP’s). The 3.29 miles of road restoration (FS # 350-1) would have no effects to any aquatic resources because the road does not cross any perennial streams. Some drainage culverts may be installed but these installations are not likely to increase stream sediment loads because the culverts would be designed and located to divert storm runoff from the roadway before it has sufficient energy to cause erosion and sedimentation. The 1.85 miles of road reconstruction would also occur in locations where there are no stream crossings. The 0.47 miles of temporary road construction would not cross any streams. The road reconstruction and construction would have no effects to any aquatic resources because the activities would direct drainage away from streams, would not cross any live streams, the construction would be completed during dry periods of the year, and sediment control measures would be installed prior to construction. This alternative would also have beneficial effects to the aquatic resources due to the campsite improvements and in stream structure work. A small quantity of sediments may enter Thunderstruck Branch following culvert installation; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the crossing. The effects of the culvert installations would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter Thunderstruck Branch. This culvert would be located in the headwaters of Thunderstruck Branch where it remains dry most of the year. Effects from the culvert installation would be immeasurable at the confluence with Buck Creek because the culvert installation would occur approximately 0.73 mile from Buck Creek (any sediments from the culvert installation would be immeasurable approximately 75 feet downstream of the culvert). Additional culverts may be installed within analysis area waters as needed to improve drainage and dissipate runoff before it creates erosion. The effects of these culverts would be similar to those described for the culvert installation within Thunderstruck Branch. Sedimentation from the culvert installations may reduce the quality of the coldwater streams habitats within Thunderstruck Branch by partially filling pools. These effects may persist until the next bankfull flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 2.5 years). These


effects would affect approximately 0.01 mile of the 25 miles (0.04%) of coldwater streams within the aquatic analysis area. In-stream sedimentation beyond background levels can reduce habitat quality and quantity for coldwater streams. In-stream structures would reduce sedimentation and have a positive effect on the coldwater streams. These structures would have positive impacts on riparian areas and floodplains within the project area. Riparian areas and floodplains are critical for nutrient input (leaf material) and shade for aquatic organisms. This alternative would address those needs by stabilizing the stream banks and placing in-stream structures that aquatic species could use as habitat. Rock and log vanes would reestablish pools, which are currently lacking within this stretch of Buck Creek. In the short term, there would be displacement of sediment causing a temporary fluctuation of turbidity during installation of in-stream structures. This displacement is expected to last less than a week while work is being accomplished and may affect approximately 2.5 miles of Buck Creek. Long-term benefits of stabilizing stream banks and reducing chronic sediment pulses are expected to more than offset these short-term impacts over the same 2.5 mile reach of Buck Creek. 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, and only for control of nonnative plant infestations. Nonnative invasive plant species within 30 feet of streams would be treated by applying an aquatic-labeled formulation of Glyphosate or Triclopyr to the leaf surface of the invasive plants only. The herbicide triclopyr (ester formulation) has the potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Sublethal effects, such as lethargy or hypersensitivity, have been observed in fish at concentrations of 0.1 mg/L – 0.43 mg/L. No adverse effects have been observed in fish or aquatic invertebrates from exposure to imazapic concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, 2003a; Durkin, 2003b; and Durkin and Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS). The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of glyphosate or triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sublethal effects described above. There would be no effects to the coldwater streams community because project area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the project area streams in measurable quantities.


Herbicide treatments for invasive species that occur within the riparian zones would use herbicides approved for aquatic applications. The typical concentration of an aquatic approved form of the herbicide Glyphosate (e.g. Rodeo) in adjacent waters when applied according to the label directions is 0.002 ppm while the LC50 concentration for aquatic organisms is approximately 680 ppm (Durkin, 2003a). Application of an aquatic approved herbicide within riparian areas would have no effects to any aquatic management indicator species or the coldwater stream communities within the Thunderstruck Project area because the expected concentrations of the herbicide within the project area streams would be well below the lethal concentrations for any aquatic organism. The typical concentration of an aquatic approved form of the herbicide Triclopyr (Garlon 3A) in adjacent waters when applied according to the label directions is 0.03 mg/L while the LC50 concentration for aquatic organisms is 132.9 mg/L for aquatic insects and 199 mg/L for fish (Durkin, 2003b). Application of an aquatic approved herbicide within riparian areas would have no effects to any aquatic management indicator species or the coldwater stream communities within the Thunderstruck Project area because the expected concentrations of the herbicide within the project area streams would be well below the lethal concentrations for any aquatic organism. Riparian vegetation: Stream temperatures in analysis area waters would not be affected by timber harvest because harvest would not occur within 100 feet of any streams. These no-harvest areas would protect stream temperatures and prevent sedimentation. Streamside vegetation would not be cut; therefore, there would be no reduction in potential large woody debris recruitment. Cumulative Effects - Previous activities within the Thunderstruck Project area include timber harvest and road construction. There may have been an increase in stream turbidity during culvert installations for previous timber projects. However, these effects were minimized by application of erosion and sedimentation control measures (e.g. silt fence, sediment traps, seeding, and mulch). Specifically, the effects of these actions would have included sedimentation from the ground disturbing activities (road construction, reconstruction, and culvert installations). All of these effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts on aquatic resources, and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the Thunderstruck analysis area. As a result, there are no present effects to aquatic resources in the Thunderstruck analysis area as a result of past actions. As a result of the length of time since completion of these actions, any effects to the aquatic resources are reflected in the current affected environment. There are no other ongoing activities occurring on federal lands within the Thunderstruck Project aquatic analysis area. Private lands in the aquatic analysis area are primarily characterized by developed residential. A portion of private lands along the Nantahala River are accessed by fords across the river and are being developed. There may be sedimentation from private lands within the watershed but these effects would not be cumulative with the effects of the Thunderstruck Project because there would be no effects of the proposed timber management.


There are no other ongoing activities on private lands affecting the Thunderstruck Project area waters. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed for the Thunderstruck Project area on federal lands; therefore, there would be no known effects from future actions. There are no known future actions planned on private lands that would affect the Thunderstruck Project area waters. The cumulative effects of the Thunderstruck Project would include the effects of culvert installations and in-stream structure construction for this project and the effects of the private developments along the Nantahala River. Alternative B may impact approximately 0.04% of the coldwater streams communities until the next bankfull flow event but this impact would not affect the forest-wide trends for the coldwater communities because the effects of culvert installations and the in-stream structure construction would have short term effects and would be limited to short sections of the project area streams (see discussion in the Direct and Indirect Effects Section above). Implementation of either of the alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the coldwater streams community. (2) Reservoirs - MIS associated with the reservoir community includes the largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Nantahala Lake is the only reservoir within the aquatic analysis area. Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A - Alternative A would produce no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Nantahala Lake because there would be no ground disturbing activities proposed for this alternative. Alternative B - The nearest proposed timber harvest area is located approximately 0.4 miles from the Nantahala Lake. There would be no direct or indirect effects to Nantahala Lake because no riparian vegetation would be disturbed and the timber harvest areas and proposed culverts have been designed to prevent visible sediment from entering the reservoir. Cumulative Effects – The effects of past, ongoing, and future projects have been disclosed in the Coldwater Stream Communities discussion above and would be the same for the reservoir community. The cumulative effects of the Thunderstruck Project would include the effects of culvert installations and in-stream structure construction for this project and the effects of the private developments along the Nantahala River. Alternative B may impact approximately 0.04% of the streams in the aquatic analysis area, which feed into Nantahala Lake, until the next bankfull flow event but this impact would not affect the forest-wide trends for the reservoir communities because the effects of culvert installations would have short term effects and would be limited to short sections of the project area streams (see discussion in the Direct and Indirect Effects Section above). Furthermore, the effects of the activities proposed for Alternative B would dissipate prior to reaching Nantahala Lake. Implementation of either of the alternatives would not affect the forest-wide trends of the coldwater streams community.


(3) Rainbow trout, brown trout, and blacknose dace Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A - Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would involve no ground disturbing activities or herbicide applications. No in stream improvements would be done and no campsites would be improved. The existing condition of the campsites in need of rehabilitation and the lack of pool habitat within Buck Creek would continue. Sedimentation and turbidity from the dispersed campsites and the stream bank erosion would continue to occur during rain events and at high stream flows. This alternative would not improve habitat for the MIS because it would not create pool habitats or reduce the incidence of chronic erosion. As such, this alternative would not meet the Forest Plan direction for Management Area 18. Although the effects of chronic sedimentation and turbidity may negatively affect the aquatic MIS within Buck Creek, these effects would not change the forest-wide trends for the species because the effects are localized to one stream. Alternative B - The effects of this alternative on the project MIS would generally be the same as those described for the Biological Communities discussion for coldwater streams. There would be no direct or indirect effects to the aquatic MIS from the Thunderstruck Project because the proposed road construction and reconstruction and the timber harvest activities (including skid trail construction and herbicide treatments) would not be located near any streams containing fish. Furthermore, the culvert installations proposed for this project would be located within tributaries that do not provide habitat for any fish species and the effects of the culvert installations would dissipate prior to reaching any stream providing fish habitat. All three MIS are known from Buck Creek and could be affected by in-stream construction. Management most likely to impact suitable habitat for these species would be ground disturbing activities such as the re-contouring of the river banks and construction of the rock vanes. This disturbance within the stream or on the stream bank could result in direct short term (< 1 year) impacts by smothering fish eggs and/or juveniles. Adults of all three species should be unaffected by the project since they have the ability to swim away from the disturbance area. Long term benefits of stabilizing the existing erosion problems within the activity areas should indirectly enhance suitable habitat for all three species within this reach of Buck Creek. This is true for all fish species but particularly trout. Adult trout need clean, sediment free, gravel sized substrate for spawning; eggs need this clean substrate for hatching. Without successful spawning, trout populations become unstable and suppressed in as little as two years. For further trout protection, in-stream structures would be built outside the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission’s designated trout spawning moratorium of October 15 through April 15. The in-stream structures and dispersed campsite improvements would not require a Trout Buffer Variance from the Division of Land Quality because the amount of riparian area disturbed would be less than 100 feet in length. Army Corps of Engineers 404 and 401 permits would be obtained prior to construction. Implementation of this project would not change the current forest wide trend for rainbow trout, brown trout, or blacknose dace. The current forest wide trends for rainbow trout, brown trout,


and blacknose dace are stable and implementation of this alternative would not affect these population trends because the project design features would prevent visible sediment from entering any stream with fish populations. Cumulative Effects - The effects of past, ongoing, and future actions on the aquatic resources have been disclosed in the Biological Communities discussion above and would be the same for the aquatic MIS. The cumulative effects of this project include the temporary effects of increased turbidity during installation of the in-stream structure and the effects of the development on private lands along the Nantahala River. The turbidity effects would persist for approximately 1 week during construction. The cumulative effects would also include the long-term reduction of stream bank erosion and sedimentation after the in-stream structures have stabilized. Implementation of either of the alternatives would not change the forest-wide trends for any of the aquatic MIS because the adult fish would be able to relocate during in-stream construction and recolonize these areas after construction ceases. (4) Largemouth bass Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects - The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Thunderstruck Project on largemouth bass would be the same as described above for the rainbow trout, brown trout, and blacknose dace. The effects of the in-stream structure construction would dissipate prior to reaching Nantahala Lake; therefore, this activity would have no effects to the largemouth bass population. There would be no effects to the largemouth bass population within Nantahala Lake resulting from this project because the activities have been designed to prevent visible sediment from entering streams and no riparian vegetation would be disturbed. Implementation of either of the alternatives would not change the forest-wide trends for the aquatic MIS. Table 3.3: Results of trend analysis of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species

Species Effect

Alternative A Alternative B Rainbow trout No change No change

Brown trout No change No change

Blacknose dace No change No change Largemouth bass No change No change 3.2.2 BOTANICAL COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS Introduction - Only botanical resources within, or adjacent to, the activity areas were analyzed in detail. Botanical resources in the activity areas include rich cove and northern hardwood forests (biological communities), forests ≥ 100 years old (special habitat component), and ginseng and ramps (management indicator species). For cumulative effects, effects to botanical


resources were compared to the total amount of resources in Compartments 105 and 122, the two compartments undergoing management activities. Rich Cove and Northern Hardwood Forests - Community analysis has traditionally focused on attributes of forests above the species level, such as tropic structure, food webs and energy flow (e. g., Odum, 1971, Dodson, et al. 1998; effects to species in forest communities will be addressed during the analysis for management indicator species). Because impacts to community attributes are unlikely to extend beyond the harvest activities, analyses for direct and indirect effects will be confined to the activity areas. Effects to community attributes can be expected to persist for approximately 40 years following regeneration harvest, the amount of time necessary to restore an open, relatively mature forest. Forest communities ≥ 100 years - In general, the age class of a forest community is affected only by regeneration harvest. As a result, analyses for direct and indirect effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old will be confined to the activity areas. Effects to forest communities ≥ 100 years old, by definition, persist for 100 years after treatment. Ginseng and Ramps - Ginseng and ramps both grow in mesic, forest communities characterized by closed canopies and open understories. Regeneration harvest alters this habitat directly by increasing light and decreasing humidity at the forest floor (USFS, 2001). For ginseng, these changes tend to eliminate the smaller, but not the larger, ginseng plants in the activity area (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). For ramps, demographic changes following regeneration harvest are poorly understood, but may be similar to the effects for ginseng – although not particularly sensitive to increased sunlight, ramps are sensitive to soil moisture, and the drying effects of regeneration harvest may decrease the number of ramps in activity units (Nault and Gagnon 1993). For both ginseng and ramps, these direct effects should be confined to the immediate vicinity of the activity areas, and, due to the rapid growth of stump sprouts, are unlikely to persist more than two growing seasons following the harvest. Regenerating forest may also indirectly impact ginseng and ramps by creating a dense thicket of sprouts that may competitively exclude these species later in the successional development of the forest. This effect would be partially offset by the herbicide treatment of undesirable sprouts. The effect would be confined to the activity areas, and would persist for at least 20 years. After 20 years, the regenerating forest should be sufficiently open to alleviate impacts to the surviving understory plants (Rankin and Tramer, 2002, Harrelson and Matlack, 2006). Reducing the number of flowering ginseng and ramp plants in the activity areas may also indirectly affect the pollination dynamics of the species, a distance generally estimated at one mile for understory forest herbs (NatureServe 2006). These indirect effects would also be expected to persist for approximately 20 years following harvest, the same time period as the successional effects.


Table 3.4: Summary of boundaries for botanical analysis areas for effects, trends and viability assessments, in time and space, for botanical resources in the Thunderstruck Project.

Resource Category

Resource Undergoing

Further Analysis

Boundaries for Analysis Areas

Direct, Indirect, Past and Cumulative Effects Trend

Analysis Spatial Temporal

Communities

Rich Cove and Northern Hardwood Forests

Activity areas under-going regeneration harvest

40 yr after regeneration harvest to restore relatively mature forest conditions

Forest Level

Habitat Component

Forest communities ≥ 100 yr

Activity areas under-going regeneration harvest

100 yr after regeneration harvest to restore age class

Forest Level

Management Indicator Species

Ginseng and Ramps

Activity areas under-going regeneration harvest for direct and indirect successional effects; one mile pollination radius for indirect effects

2 yr for the direct environmental effects of the harvest activities; 20 yr after harvest to escape the indirect successional effects of the regenerating forest

Forest Level

Effects of Alternatives on Communities (1) Rich Cove Forests Direct and Indirect Effects - Regeneration harvests reduce the amount of canopy cover and basal area in cove forests by removing canopy trees. Regeneration harvests would also diminish the community attributes associated with late-successional rich cove forest in the activity areas for approximately 40 years, the time period necessary to re-establish the canopy and understory characteristics associated with later-successional, relatively mature cove forests. Regeneration harvests would also reduce the population sizes of understory species, such as ginseng, by initially increasing transpiration stress, and secondarily increasing canopy shade. Regeneration units would become equal areas of early successional habitat for wildlife species for 20 years. Rich cove communities are the dominant forest type in four regeneration units: Stands 11, 22 and 28 in Compartment 105, and Stand 15 in Compartment 122. Under Alternative B, regeneration harvests would affect 156 acres of rich cove forests. Under Alternative A, no rich cove communities would undergo regeneration, producing no direct or indirect effects. Cumulative Effects - Past effects to rich cove forests can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the analysis area. Because the effects of past management tend to dissipate after 40 years, past effects would be most evident in forests < 40 years old. The two compartments in the analysis area contain approximately 1367 acres of rich cove forests, of


which 167 acres are < 40 years old. As a result, past effects to canopy cover, basal area and the distribution of understory plants impact approximately 12% of the rich cove forests in the analysis area. In addition, ongoing private development on the eastern edge of Compartment 122 would potentially affect 25 acres of rich cove forest. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private actions that would potentially affect rich cove forests. Because it would produce no direct or indirect effects, Alternative A would produce no cumulative effects to cove forest communities. For Alternative B, the cumulative effect of regeneration - a decrease in canopy cover and basal area of overstory trees, and loss of biomass and diversity in understory plants - would total 348 acres of rich cove forest, or approximately 26% of the rich cove forests in the analysis area. The trend for rich cove forest on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is stable over approximately 110,000 acres (USFS, 2001, pg. 50). The cumulative effects in the activity areas represent a reduction of < 0.5% of these cove forests across the national forests, persisting for a 40 year period. As a result, the Thunderstruck Project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for cove forests. (2) Northern Hardwood Forests Direct and Indirect Effects - Regeneration harvests reduce the amount of canopy cover and basal area in northern hardwood forests by removing canopy trees. Regeneration harvests would also diminish the community attributes associated with late-successional forests in the activity areas for approximately 40 years, the time period necessary to re-establish the canopy and understory characteristics associated with later-successional, relatively mature forests. Regeneration harvests would also reduce the population sizes of understory species, such as ramps, by initially decreasing soil moisture, and secondarily increasing canopy shade. Northern hardwood communities are the dominant forest type in one regeneration unit, Stand 9 in Compartment 122. Under Alternative B, regeneration harvests would affect 28 acres of northern hardwood forests. Under Alternative A, no northern hardwood communities would undergo regeneration, producing no direct or indirect effects. Cumulative Effects - Past effects to northern hardwoods forests can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the analysis area. Because the effects of past management tend to dissipate after 40 years, past effects would be most evident in forests < 40 years old. The two compartments in the analysis area contain approximately 231 acres of northern hardwood forests, of which none are < 40 years old. As a result, past effects to canopy cover, basal area and the distribution of understory plants impact none of the northern hardwood forests in the analysis area. The analysis area contains no ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private projects that would potentially impact northern hardwood forests. Because it would produce no direct or indirect effects, Alternative A would produce no cumulative effects to northern hardwood forest communities. For Alternative B, the cumulative effect of regeneration - a decrease in canopy cover and basal area of overstory trees, and loss of


biomass and diversity in understory plants - would total 28 acres of northern hardwood forest, or approximately 12% of the northern hardwoods forest in the analysis area. The trend for northern hardwood forest on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is stable over approximately 49,000 acres (USFS, 2001, pg. 23). The cumulative effects in the activity areas represent a reduction of < 0.1% of the northern hardwood forests across the national forests, persisting for a 40 year period. As a result, the Thunderstruck project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for northern hardwood forests. Table 3.5: Summary of project effects on each alternative on the evaluated communities.

Community Summary of Project Effects

Alternative A Alternative B

Rich Cove Forests None affected Reductions in overstory cover, basal

area and understory cover and diversity on 156 acres of regeneration harvests.

Northern Hardwoods Forests

None affected Reductions in overstory cover, basal area and understory cover and diversity on 28 acres of regeneration harvests.

Special Habitat Components (1) Forest communities ≥ 100 years old Direct and Indirect Effects - Regeneration harvest reduces the amount of canopy cover and basal area in forest communities ≥ 100 years old by removing most of the canopy trees, eliminating many of the old growth characteristics of the communities. This affect would be limited to the activity areas, and would persist, by definition, for 100 years following harvest. The units would become equal areas of early successional habitat for wildlife species for 20 years. Under Alternative B, two forest communities ≥ 100 yr would undergo harvest: Stands 3 and 18 in Compartment 105, a total of 75 acres. Under Alternative A, no forest communities ≥ 100 yr would undergo harvest, producing no direct or indirect effects. Cumulative Effects - Past effects to forest communities ≥ 100 yr can be summarized by the existing condition of the forests in the analysis area. Because all forest communities have the capacity to become 100 year old forest, any forest communities in the activity areas < 100 years old exhibit the effects of past activities. For Compartments 105 and 122, these effects total 3014 of the 3586 total acres. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private projects that would potentially impact forests ≥ 100 yr. Because it would produce no direct or indirect affects, Alternative A would produce no cumulative effects to forest communities ≥ 100 yr. Regeneration harvests would produce a cumulative effect of 3089 acres under Alternative B.


The trend for forest communities >100 yr on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests is increasing, from 47,591 acres in 1980 to 166,078 acres in 2000 (USFS, 2001, pg. 23). The cumulative effect for Alternative B represents a negative impact of < 2% of the forest communities ≥ 100 yr across the national forests. As a result, the Thunderstruck Project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for forest communities ≥ 100 yr across the forests. Table 3.6: Summary of project effects of each alternative on the evaluated special habitat components.

Special Habitat Components

Summary of Project Effects

Alternative A Alternative B

Forest communities ≥ 100 yr None affected Decreased by 75 acres for 100 yr following activity

Management Indicator Species (1) Ginseng Direct and Indirect Effects - Due to the dense shading produced by regenerating forests, the 156 acres of regeneration harvests proposed under Alternative B for cove forests will directly affect ginseng plants growing in the activity areas by reducing the number of plants for at least 20 years, especially in the smaller size classes an effect estimated at 30% of the population. Larger plants are more likely to survive the harvests, although they may enter a dormant period for a few years following treatment. In addition, indirect effects to neighboring ginseng plants, estimated using a one mile radius around the activity areas, may affect ginseng plants over an estimated 2768 additional acres of cove forests over a 20 yr period. These indirect effects may include both reductions in the gene pool as well as reductions in the gene flow among neighboring plants, potentially resulting in more inbreeding, decreased seed set, and less vigorous seedlings. Cumulative Effects - Past management actions on USFS and private lands in the two compartments may have diminished the number of plants on 167 acres of rich cove forest < 20 yr old. In addition, ginseng collection under USFS permits may have reduced the number of plants in the proposed activity areas by an undocumented amount. Although the number of previously harvested plants cannot be calculated with precision, ginseng populations from legal harvest areas on the Nantahala National Forest declined approximately 70% over a 21 year period (USFS, 2001, pg. 812). As a result, a 50% harvest rate over a 20 year period seems a reasonable estimate for past harvest of ginseng. Past actions may have also diminished gene flow, and increased genetic isolation, on approximately 2768 acres of rich cove forests containing ginseng plants. In addition, ongoing private development on the eastern edge of Compartment 122 would potentially affect 25 acres of rich cove forest potentially containing ginseng plants. Ginseng in the activity areas would also continue to be collected in the future. Due to the tree density of the regenerating stand, however, ginseng harvest is unlikely to be as severe in harvest units as it is in more open forest. As a result, the harvest rate for regeneration units is estimated to be one half the documented rate, or approximately 35% over a 20 year period. The analysis


area contains no other ongoing of foreseeable USFS or private projects that would impact ginseng. The cumulative effect of regeneration management - a decrease in the number of plants in the activity areas, estimated at 30%, and a decrease in genetic flow among neighboring plants - may affect approximately 3116 acres of ginseng plants under Alternative B for a period of 20 years. In addition, direct losses due to harvest may reduce the number of plants in the analysis area by an additional 35% of the remaining plants over the next 20 years, for an estimated total cumulative effect of 65% of the current population. Combined with pretreatment collections estimated at 50% of the initial population, the total cumulative effect on ginseng populations is estimated at 80 – 85% of the population present in the activity units at the beginning of the analysis period 20 years ago. Determination of Effect - The trend for ginseng is decreasing, primarily due to harvest for commercial sale (USFS, 2001, pg. 818). Ginseng is most commonly associated with cove forests, totaling 280,000 acres across the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (USFS, 2001; pg. 23). The cumulative effects in the analysis area, approximately 3116 acres of direct and indirect effects over a 20 year period, and a cumulative loss of 80 - 85% of the populations in the regeneration units over the analysis period, represents a total impact of <2% of these cove forests. As a result, the Thunderstruck Project is likely to continue the current trend for ginseng across the forest. (2) Ramps Direct and Indirect Effects - Due to the drier conditions and dense shading produced by regenerating forests, the 28 acres of regeneration harvests proposed under Alternative B for northern hardwood forests will directly affect ramps plants growing in the activity areas by reducing the number of plants for at least 20 years, especially in the smaller size classes. In addition, indirect effects to neighboring plants, estimated using a one mile radius around the activity areas, may affect ramps over an estimated 90 additional acres of northern hardwood forests over a 20 yr period. These indirect effects may include both reductions in the gene pool as well as reductions in the gene flow among neighboring plants, potentially resulting in more inbreeding, decreased seed set, and less vigorous seedlings. Cumulative Effects - Past actions on USFS and private lands in the two compartments may have diminished the number of plants on no acres of northern hardwood forest < 20 yr old. The analysis area contains no ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private projects that would impact ramps. The cumulative effect of regeneration and group-selection management primarily decreases in the number of plants in the activity areas, and decreases in genetic flow among neighboring plants, may affect approximately 118 acres of ramps under Alternative B, for a period of 20 years. Determination of Effect - The trend for ramps is considered stable, despite some harvest for commercial sale (Gary Kauffman, personal communication). Ramps are associated with


northern hardwood forests, totaling 49,000 acres across the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (USFS, 2001; pg. 23). The cumulative effects in the analysis area, approximately 118 acres of direct and indirect effects over a 20 year period, represent a total impact of < 0.5% of these northern hardwood forests. As a result, the Thunderstruck Project is unlikely to substantially alter the current trend for ramps across the forest. Table 3.7: Summary of project effects of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species. Management Indicator Species

Summary of Project Effects Alternative A Alternative B

Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) None affected

Decreased populations on 156 acres of regeneration harvest for 20 yr; decreased gene flow on an additional 2768 acres

Ramps (Allium tricoccum) None affected

Decreased populations on 28 acres of regeneration harvest for 20 yr; decreased gene flow on an additional 90 acres

Invasive Plant Species Boundaries of Analysis - 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. In addition, effects to invasive species cannot be correlated with specific projects, so past effects must be summarized by the current condition in the analysis areas, as determined by field surveys. Because invasive plants can maintain themselves indefinitely in the landscape, there is no future boundary for effects to these species. Existing Condition - In the activity areas, the most invasive species are Microstegium vimineum and Lonicera japonica. In general, these species grew on roadsides leading to the proposed activity areas, a total of approximately two 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). Microstegium apparently expands its range by heavy equipment carrying seeds into disturbed soil, and would be expected to colonize the edges of the roads, especially in moist areas with partial shade. Lonicera japonica expands its range by bird-dispersal into recently disturbed, sunny habitats, often disturbed roadsides. Although not common in the project area, Lonicera is certainly capable of dispersing into the activity areas from adjacent areas. Historically, each mile of USFS road reconstruction can be correlated with 0.1 acres of invasive plants. Alternative A would reconstruct no miles of road. Non-native, invasive plants already growing in the analysis area, however, would continue to expand their range in the area, at a rate estimated at 2% per year, producing a direct effect of 0.02 acres/year. Alternative B would reconstruct 1.85 miles of road for a potential increase of 0.2 acres of invasive plants. In addition, the growth of existing invasive plants would produce a direct effect estimated at 0.02 acres/year,


for a total direct effect of 0.22 acres of invasive plants. This estimate, however, is based on former management practices that did not include site-specific control of non-native, invasive species. The application of herbicides along roadsides and inside harvest units should curtail the spread of invasive species. Cumulative Effects - Because non-native invasive species cannot be directly associated with former projects, past effects must be estimated using the current condition. The activity areas, including roadsides, contain approximately two acres of non-native, invasive plant species. In addition, private development along the eastern edge of Compartment 122 would potentially increase the amount of non-native invasive plants in the analysis area. Because private development often encourages the establishment of non-native invasive plants, this effect is estimated at two additional acres for a total existing condition of four acres. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private projects that would potentially create habitat for invasive plant species. Alternative A would create no new suitable habitat, but would allow the expansion of existing invasive plants in the analysis area, producing a cumulative effect of 4.02 acres, a 0.5% increase over the existing condition. Alternative B would produce an expected direct effect of 0.22 acres, producing a cumulative effect of 4.22 acres, a 5.5% increase over the existing condition. The effect of Alternative B, however, should be diminished by the use of herbicides to treat invasive plant species throughout the activity areas. 3.2.3 WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES, SPECIAL HABITAT and MIS Species Evaluated and Rationale - All management indicator species whose habitat is potentially affected by project activities were evaluated. This includes the black bear, white-tailed deer, rufous-sided (eastern) towhee, and ruffed grouse. Information about forest-wide MIS habitats and population trends is contained in the Forest MIS report, “Management Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends”, which is available for review by contacting the District Office. Table 3.8: Known and potential management indicator species evaluated for this project.

Management Indicator Species Type Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence

Black bear (Ursus americanus) Mammal Hard mast, soft mast, dens May occur White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Mammal Hard mast, browse, grass/clover May occur Rufous-sided (Eastern) towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Bird Early-successional (0-10) Likely to occur

Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellatus) Bird Early-successional (11-20), soft mast, downed woody debris Likely to occur

Most of the project activities are in management area 3B (MA 3B), where forest-wide direction is to provide habitat conditions for species such as white-tailed deer, eastern wild turkey, and ruffed grouse. Standards for MA 3B are to provide at least 5%, but no more than 15% in early successional habitat, and a minimum of 3% in permanent grass-forb openings.


Regeneration activities would result in some new habitat for early-successional associates and less habitat for mature forest associates. The creation of new regeneration areas would provide some suitable habitat for neotropical migratory birds of management concern, such as the chestnut-sided warbler and the golden-winged warbler. These areas would also provide soft mast for use by bear, deer, turkey, and other species. (1) Early successional communities (0-10 yr). Overall, the analysis areas have very limited amounts of early successional habitat and younger age classes. Openings are needed to provide age-class diversity in these areas and improve habitat quality for wildlife. Species that would benefit from the creation of openings include black bear, eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, and ruffed grouse, which find tender browse, fruit and hiding cover in dense young stands. Neotropical migratory birds such as chestnut-sided and golden-winged warblers also breed in these regeneration openings. There are few young stands of upland hardwoods and almost no young stands of cove hardwoods. Regenerating cove stands would benefit the area and have less effect on hard mast production. Regenerating upland hardwood stands would provide for future hard mast production. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A would result in the continued lack of early successional habitat in the two compartments. Alternative B would result in the creation of new early successional habitat. Table 3.7 displays the acres of this habitat created by alternative. The early successional habitat created would be beneficial to many species of wildlife. Herbicide treatments would change the species composition of hardwood stems, but would not affect the cover or food provided by early successional habitat. Road construction and construction of wildlife ponds would not measurably affect this habitat. Table 3.9: Early successional habitat (0-10 years old) created by 2-age regeneration units.

Comp. Total Acres

Early Successional (0-10 year) Habitat Created Alternative A Alternative B

Acre % Acre % 105 1,715 0 0% 227 13% 122 1,872 0 0% 108 6%

Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale in these compartments created 126 acres of early successional habitat in compartment 122. These areas are no longer in the 0-10 year age class. The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. In Alternative B, the proposed action plus the existing powerline corridor would result in cumulative effects of 227 acres and 120 acres (6%) in early successional habitat in Compartments 105 and 122, respectively. Forest-wide Trends - The forest-wide trend is decreasing, due to the reduction in levels of timber harvesting. The proposed project will reduce this trend by creating new habitat.


(2) Mid successional communities (11-20 yr). Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A would result in a loss of the existing 126 acres of 11-20 year old mid successional habitat. Alternative B would result in an increase in this special habitat. Mid successional habitat would not be created immediately, but would age into this special habitat in 10 years, resulting in 330 acres in Alternative B. Road construction, herbicide treatments, and construction of wildlife ponds would not measurably affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – The last timber sale in these compartments created 126 acres of early successional habitat in compartment 122 (now 11-20 years old). There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. By the time the early successional habitat created by this project becomes mid successional habitat in 2018, the existing habitat (now 11-20 years old) would no longer be in this age class. Since the only acres that will be in the 11-20 year age class at that time will be the acres created by this project, there would be no cumulative effect from past activities. Cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Forest-wide Trends - The forest-wide trend is decreasing, due to the reduction in levels of timber harvesting. The proposed project will reduce this trend by creating new habitat. (3) Soft mast-producing species. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A would result in a loss of soft mast-producing species in the near future. Soft mast-producing species are primarily associated with forest communities less than 20 years old. The project will create approximately 330 acres in Alternative B of brushy areas as a result of two-age harvests. This will result in less than 15% of each compartment in soft-mast producing species under all action alternatives. Preharvest grapevine control and vine control in groups would reduce soft mast production on 215 acres. Other herbicide treatments would change the species composition of hardwood stems, but would not affect the soft mast-producing species. Road construction and construction of wildlife ponds would not measurably affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – The last timber sale in these compartments resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (now 11-20 years old and still considered soft mast-producing species) in compartment 122. The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no known other ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. In Alternative B, the acres of soft mast producing species created by the proposed action, plus the past timber sale, plus the existing powerline corridor would result in cumulative effects of 227 and 246 (13%) in soft-mast producing species in Compartments 105 and 122, respectively. Forest-wide Trends - The recent forest-wide trend is increasing, due to past timber harvesting. The proposed project will help offset the future downward trend caused by the recent reduction in harvesting.


(4) Hard mast-producing species. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A would result in no change in hard mast-producing species in the near future. Hard mast-producing species are associated with mature forest communities greater than 40 years old. All of the proposed two-age units are in hard mast-producing forest types and are greater than 40 years old. As a result, the project will cut approximately 330 acres of these species under Alternative B. This is less than 15% of each compartment under the action alternative. This harvest will be offset to some degree by the maturation of other forest communities into the 40+-year age class. Oak preharvest midstory treatment and crop tree release are designed to increase future hard mast production and do not reduce current hard mast producing species. Other herbicide treatments and construction of wildlife ponds would not measurably affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects - Past timber sales in these compartments resulted in the regeneration of 653 acres of hard mast-producing species as shown in Alternative A of Table 3.8. This action temporarily eliminated hard mast production on these acres. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. The acres removed from hard mast production due to the proposed project plus the acres removed due to past regeneration harvesting will result in a cumulative loss of 988 acres under Alternative B of hard mast-producing species. Table 3.8 displays the cumulative acres of this habitat lost in each compartment by alternative. Table 3.10: Cumulative effects of each alternative on acres of hard mast producing species (40+ years old) regenerated.

Comp. Total Acres

Cumulative acres (%) 40+ years old Alternative A Alternative B

Acre % Acre % 105 1,715 289 17% 516 30% 122 1,872 364 19% 472 25%

Forest-wide Trends - The forest-wide trend is increasing, due to the aging of young stands. The proposed project will not affect this trend. (5) Permanent grass/forb openings. Direct and Indirect Effects - In Alternative A, grass/forb habitat would remain at current levels. In Alternative B, five new wildlife openings, ½ acre is size would be created. Herbicide sapling control on cutting unit skid trails would not create permanent grass/forb habitat. Construction of wildlife ponds would affect less than an acre of grass-forb habitat in these openings. The amphibian habitat enhancement in the field at Buck Creek would increase the diversity of herbaceous vegetation in the field. Some other species of wildlife will benefit from the wetland plants. Deer are thought to be attracted to the higher salt content. Other herbicide treatments and crop tree release would not measurably affect this habitat.


Cumulative Effects - Past activities have created 30 acres of grass/forb habitat in these compartments. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative effects in Alternative A would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Cumulative effects in Alternative B would total 32.5 acres of grass/forb habitat. Forest-wide Trends - The forest-wide trend is slightly increasing, as additional habitat is created. The proposed project will not change this trend. (6) Down woody material. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A would result in no change in down woody material in the near future. Down material will increase in the two-age harvest units, as a result of woody material left from harvesting operations. This includes a total of 330 acres under Alternative B. Crop tree release would affect the same acres as the 2-age units and create additional down wood a few years later. Herbicide treatments and wildlife ponds would not affect the habitat because these actions would not create down wood or leave down wood in the areas treated by these specific actions. Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale in these compartments resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (now 11-20 years old). This material has mostly decomposed by this time, so the effect would have dissipated in the years since management activities occurred. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Forest-wide Trends - The forest-wide trend is decreasing, due to the reduction in levels of timber harvesting. The proposed project will not affect this trend. Table 3.11: Summary of project effects on special habitats, by alternative.

Special Habitats Alternative A Alternative B Early successional communities (0-10 yr) Absent. 330 acres created. Early successional communities (11-20 yr) Absent.

330 acres created after 10 years post-harvest.

Soft mast-producing species (< 20 yr)

Decline due to aging of existing communities

330 acres created by two-age harvest.

Hard mast-producing species (> 40 yr)

Increase due to aging of existing communities 330 acre reduction

Permanent grass/forb openings No change. Increase by 2.5 acres.

Down woody material None affected. Increase on 330 acres


Management Indicator Species (1) Ruffed Grouse is strongly associated with mid-successional (5 to 20 years) forest habitats characterized by thick, shrubby growth. Ruffed grouse often uses downed woody debris of various sizes for drumming. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new early successional habitats to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. The availability of grass/forb habitat on seeded roads improves the quality of the existing habitat. The creation of brushy borders around the existing wildlife openings would particularly benefit grouse. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Direct and Indirect Effects - Effects of the alternatives on ruffed grouse were estimated according to the change in mid-successional (5 to 20 years) forest. Alternative A would result in the continued lack of this habitat in the near future. Alternative B would result in an increase in this special habitat, resulting in 330 acres in Alternative B. No more than 15% of each compartment would be in this habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds would not measurably affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale in these compartments resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (now 11-20 years old) in Compartment 122. The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no known other ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. In Alternative B, the proposed action plus the powerline corridor would result in cumulative effects of 227 acres (13%) and 234 acres (13%) in mid successional habitat in Compartments 105 and 122. Forest-wide Trends - Across the Forest, habitat for this species has increased recently as previously cut stands entered the suitable age classes. With the decreasing level of timber harvest in recent years, habitat for this species will be greatly reduced in the near future. There are few young stands available to replace existing habitat. The proposed project will reduce this trend by creating new habitat. (2) White-tailed Deer is associated with both early successional habitat and hard-mast production. The species uses the stems and leaves of woody and herbaceous green plants, fungi and fruits. Deer require hard mast for reproductive success and subsequent fawn survival. Grass/forb plantings can help to buffer the effects of a poor mast crop. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new early successional habitats to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Direct and Indirect Effects - Effects on white-tailed deer were estimated to be beneficial for Alternative B which will create new early successional habitat, grass/forb habitat and soft mast producing species, and adverse for the Alternative A, which will result in a less diverse


landscape. The amount of early successional habitat created is 15% or less of each compartment under Alternative B. Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale in these compartments resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (now 11-20 years old). The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. The effects on grass/forb habitat would be a slight increase in Alternative B. The two compartments will have no more than 15% in early successional habitat, no more than 15% in soft mast producing species and will still have at least 70% of their acres in hard mast production under Alternative B. Therefore, the effects on white-tailed deer were estimated to be beneficial for the Alternative B. Forest-wide Trends - Across the Forest, white-tailed deer populations are stable to slightly increasing. While hard mast capability has increased in recent years, the amount of early successional habitat has declined. Grass/forb planting has probably not increased significantly. Within the range of deer densities and over story conditions that exist on public lands in the Southern Appalachians, timber harvesting is not likely to significantly improve the nutritional quality of the winter diet of deer. The proposed project will not affect the increasing trend in the species populations because the trend is unrelated to changes in the habitat. (3) Black Bear requires large areas free from disturbances of motorized vehicles, frequent human activity, and intensive timber harvesting. Bears in much of the eastern United States depend on hard mast for the energy needed for reproduction and hibernation. A bears' home range will increase as the amount of area in regeneration increases, resulting in greater rates of mortality. This species utilizes a variety of habitat types and benefits from a diverse forest landscape. The creation of new regeneration areas and brushy openings would provide new early successional habitats to replace the stands that are maturing into young pole timber stands. Although some brushy areas are created from the loss of mature pine trees due to the southern pine beetle, and some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this probably does not compensate for the lack of active management. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Direct and Indirect Effects - Effects on black bear were estimated to be beneficial for Alternative B which will create new early successional habitat and soft mast producing species, and adverse for the no action alternative, which will result in a less diverse landscape. The amount of early successional habitat created is less than 9% of the analysis area (330/3587 acres) under Alternative B. Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (0-10 years old) in the analysis area. The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no known other ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. The cumulative effects on early successional habitat in Alternative B will result in 347 acres in the analysis area. This is less than 10% of the analysis area. The cumulative effects on soft mast producing species will result in 473 acres in the


analysis area, which is less than 13% of the analysis area. The cumulative effect on soft mast producing species would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Cumulatively, the analysis areas would still have 72% (2599 of 3587) of their acres in hard mast production under Alternative B. Therefore, the effects of Alternative B on black bear were estimated to be beneficial and the effects of the no action alternative were estimated to be adverse. Forest-wide Trends - Across the Forest, black bear populations have increased due to factors other than habitat management, probably due to the benefits of the state black bear sanctuary system. As young bears migrate from these protected areas, they increasingly occupy habitats with little or no hunting pressure, allowing the population to increase further. Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities. The proposed project will reduce this trend by creating new habitat. (4) Eastern towhee is associated with early successional habitats (0-10 yr). Habitat for this species has declined in recent years with the decreasing amount of regeneration activities. Although some brushy areas are created from the loss of mature pine trees due to the southern pine beetle, and some habitat may be created from prescribed burns and wildfire, this does not compensate for the lack of active management. This species utilizes a variety of habitats both inside and outside the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is bounded by an area encompassing all the habitats that an individual may utilize throughout the year. Direct and Indirect Effects - Effects on eastern towhee were estimated according to the change in early-successional (0 to 10 years) forest. Alternative A would result in a loss of this habitat in the near future. Alternative B would result in an increase in this special habitat, resulting in 330 acres. No more than 15% of each compartment would be in this habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and wildlife ponds would not affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects - The last timber sale in these compartments resulted in 126 acres of early successional habitat (now 11-20 years old) across four of the five compartments. The powerline corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. In Alternative B, the proposed action plus the existing powerline corridor would result in cumulative effects of 227 acres and 120 acres (6%) in early successional habitat in Compartments 105 and 122, respectively. Forest-wide Trends - Across the Forest, eastern towhee populations are in decline. With the decreasing level of timber harvest, habitat for this species has been greatly reduced. There are few young stands available to replace existing habitat. Habitat will probably be maintained for the near future at this lower level. The proposed project will reduce this trend by creating new habitat. Summary of Cumulative Effects on Management Indicator Species - Species that are closely associated with early successional habitats (ruffed grouse, eastern towhee) will decline under the Alternative A and benefit from Alternative B. Species that need a diversity of habitats (white-tailed deer, black bear) will also benefit from Alternative B since they provide part of their habitat requirements.


Table 3.12: Indirect and cumulative affects of each alternative on the evaluated management indicator species.

Species Alternative A Cumulative Effects Alternative B Cumulative Effects

Ruffed grouse Decrease Decrease +330 a. +347 a.

White-tailed deer Adverse Adverse Beneficial Beneficial

Black bear Adverse Adverse Beneficial Beneficial

Eastern towhee Decrease Decrease +330 a. +347 a. *Cumulative effect is that of the proposed action, plus the previous timber sales. Past projects’ effects are reflected in the current existing conditions (specifically, the amount of early successional habitat). Species that use mature forests are expected to increase under Alternative A, while species that use young forests decrease. Alternative A is expected to generally have adverse effects on species with broader home ranges that utilize a diversity of habitat types, while Alternative B would generally be beneficial. 3.3 FOREST CONCERN SPECIES 3.3.1 AQUATIC FOREST CONCERN SPECIES Introduction - The boundaries of the aquatic analysis areas have been described in the Biological Communities section above (Sec. 3.2.1). 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. Forty-one aquatic forest concern species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of forest concern species in Clay County. Nine forest concern species remained after this initial filter. These nine species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the aquatic analysis area. One additional species was included because of its occurrence downstream in Macon County. Based upon the results of this filtering process six forest concern species were evaluated in this analysis. These species were analyzed for this project because they are either known to occur within the project area or suitable habitat exists for these species. Species that do not have suitable habitat within the project area were eliminated from further analysis.


Table 3.13: Aquatic forest concern species evaluated for the Thunderstruck Project Species Type Habitat Occurrence Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Amphibian

Rivers and large streams in Tennessee and Savannah systems

May occur in analysis area*

Micrasema burksi Caddisfly Clay, Macon, Jackson, and Transylvania Counties

May occur in analysis area*

Rhyacophila amicus Caddisfly Mountain rivers Known to occur in analysis area

Somatochlora elongata Dragonfly Specifics unknown May occur in analysis area*

Baetopus trishae Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur in analysis area*

Habrophlediodes spp. Mayfly Specifics unknown May occur in analysis area*

*Where may occur means the species probably occurs in a specified area in the broadest sense. Only very general habitat preferences and species distribution are used to determine if a species may occur. This does not imply their existence in an area, but that their general habitat description is found in the area, so therefore the species may occur. Direct and Indirect Effects – The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on forest concern aquatic species would be the same as described for the aquatic biological communities and MIS (see Section 3.2.1. Implementation of Alternative A would have no impacts to any aquatic forest concern species because there would be no ground disturbing activity. Alternative B may impact individuals of the aquatic forest concern species within the 75 feet of streams affected by sedimentation during culvert installation or during construction of the stream structures in Buck Creek. These effects would dissipate after the next bankfull flow event following construction. There would be no long term negative effects to any aquatic forest concern species. Cumulative Effects – The cumulative effects on forest concern aquatic species would be the same as described for the aquatic biological communities and management indicator species (see Section 3.2.1). Determination of Effect – Aquatic forest concern species Cryptobranchus alleganiensis, Rhyacophila amicus, Micrasema burksi, Somatochlora elongata, Baetopus trishae, and Habrophlediodes spp. may occur within the project area. This project may impact individuals of the forest concern aquatic species but would not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability of the above species because habitats for these species are common across their range and project design features would minimize impacts to these species.


Table 3.14: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated aquatic forest concern species.

Species Determination of Effect

Alternative A Alternative B Cryptobranchus alleganiensis No impact. May impact*

Micrasema burksi No impact. May impact* Rhyacophila amicus No impact. May impact*

Somatochlora elongata No impact. May impact* Baetopus trishae No impact. May impact*

Habrophlediodes spp. No impact. May impact* *May impact individuals but would not cause a trend toward federal listing. 3.3.2 BOTANICAL FOREST CONCERN SPECIES Spatial Boundaries of Botanical Analysis Areas - 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. Forest concern species are analyzed for viability at the forest level. Temporal Boundaries of Botanical Analysis Areas - Past effects for forest concern species are dependent upon both the activity as well as the life history characteristics of the individual species. For example, species characteristic of disturbed, open habitats, and would be expected to respond positively to activities such as road construction. Species characteristic of mature forest communities, however, would be expected to respond negatively to the same activities. Botanical Species Evaluated and Rationale All forest concern species listed by the National Forests in North Carolina for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were considered for this analysis (USFS, 2002; Attachment E). Only forest concern species located inside the activity areas during the field surveys, or with previous collection data inside the activity areas, were analyzed in detail. Previous Survey Information - The Biotics Database 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. New Surveys or Inventories Conducted - Field surveys for forest concern plant species were conducted in April and May, 2006, by Wilson Rankin, USFS botanist, and in May, June and September, 2005, by Josh Kelly, contract botanist. 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). One forest concern species was located during the field surveys: a small clump of less than six stems of Carex purpurifera was located in an oak-hickory forest in Stand 25 of Compartment 105. No other forest concern species were located during the field surveys, and therefore will not be analyzed further.


Table 3.15: Summary of forest concern species undergoing effects analysis for the Thunderstruck Project. Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Carex purpurifera Rich Cove Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest

Located during field surveys inside an activity area

(1) Purple Sedge (Carex purpurifera) The Biotics Database contains five records for Carex purpurifera, all of which occur on the Nantahala National Forest. The species usually grows in rich cove and oak-hickory forests. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative B proposes a regeneration harvest in the stand containing Carex purpurifera. Direct effects would include damage and mortality from heavy equipment. The recovery rate of Carex purpurifera from harvest activities is not known, but the presence of the species in previously-harvested units suggests it can survive or reseed into regeneration units, presumably over the same time period necessary to re-establish the open conditions associated with pre-harvest conditions, a period estimated at 20 years. As a result, direct effects to Carex purpurifera would be expected to persist for approximately 20 years following harvest. Direct mortality from harvest activities may reduce the number of plants, producing indirect effects to the genetics of the neighboring plants. These indirect effects may include both decreases in the gene pool as well as decreases in the gene flow among neighboring plants. These effects will probably persist until the pre-treatment population is restored, estimated above at 20 years following harvest, and could affect Carex purpurifera plants growing in rich cove forests within a one mile radius of the activity areas, an area of approximately 2768 acres. Due to the small size of the population in the activity area, however, effects to gene flow should be minimal, and unlikely to influence the viability of surrounding populations. Cumulative Effects - Three past actions on the Nantahala National Forest may have impacted populations of Carex purpurifera since 1997. All of these projects fall within the estimated 20 year period for direct and indirect effects. The effects from the King Land Exchange were based on populations assumed to be present on the site. The effects from the Cable Cove Waterline probably encompassed a few plants over < 0.1 acres. The Farmer Branch area contained an extensive population of Carex purpurifera, growing in previously-disturbed forests. Table 3.16: Past projects on the Nantahala National Forest potentially impacting populations of Carex purpurifera. District Project Year Determination of Effect Level of Effect

Tusquitee Farmer Branch Timber Sale 2005

May impact individuals but no trend towards federal listing

Direct and Indirect Effects

Nantahala King Land Exchange 2002



Tusquitee Cable Cove Waterline 2002




The analysis area contains one ongoing action on private land, a housing development impacting approximately 25 acres of rich cove forest that may impact Carex purpurifera plants. One future project, the Fatback Timber Sale on the Nantahala Ranger District, may also impact populations of Carex purpurifera. The analysis area contains no other ongoing or foreseeable USFS or private actions that may impact Carex purpurifera. The cumulative effect of regeneration harvest primarily decreases in the number of plants in the activity areas, and potential decreases in genetic flow among neighboring plants, may effect Carex purpurifera plants over an area of approximately 2768 acres under Alternative B. These effects would persist for approximately 20 years, the time period necessary to restore the open conditions of the preharvest forest community. Due to the small size of the population in the activity areas, however, these effects should be minimal. Determination of Effect - The national forest contains at least three undisturbed populations of Carex purpurifera, not including the new population located during the Thunderstruck Project. At least one population is extensive, and the species appears to be resilient to disturbance. As a result, the Thunderstruck Project may impact individuals, but is unlikely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the species. 3.3.3 WILDLIFE FOREST CONCERN SPECIES Species Evaluated and Rationale - Forest concern species considered in this analysis are those included in the National Forests in North Carolina species list (January, 2002). These are species that occur or are likely to occur on the Forests and are identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as significantly rare. 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 across the planning area (LRMP, Appendix K). All forest concern 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 activity areas. No species were known to occur in the project activity areas prior to the surveys undertaken for this project. The long-tailed salamander is known to occur to the north of the project area. The long-tailed salamander and the mole salamander are known to occur to the east of the project area on the flat ground on the other side of the Nantahala River. New Surveys or Inventories Conducted - The terrestrial snail fauna was sampled in each area proposed for regeneration harvesting in June of 2006 to determine the possible occurrence of rare mollusks. These sites were surveyed because canopy removal could adversely affect the habitat of these species. Dan Dourson, field biologist, Stanton, Kentucky, searched for these rare species and identified the animals collected. Breeding bird surveys were conducted in May of 2007. A special emphasis was placed on determining whether Cerulean warblers occur in any activity areas. No Cerulean warblers were located. No other rare species were detected and no special habitats for any other forest concern species were located.


Species for Which Inventories not Conducted and Justification - Surveys were not conducted for species that are widely distributed across the Forest and not limited by the availability of suitable habitat. Table 3.17: Wildlife forest concern species evaluated in the Thunderstruck Project

Species Type Habitat Likelihood of Occurrence

Dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana) Snail Moist leaf litter in deciduous

woods May occur

Pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) Snail Rich, moist deciduous forest May occur

Lamellate supercoil (Paravitrea lamellidens) Snail Deep, moist, leaf litter on

wooded hillsides May occur

Open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris) Snail Leaf litter on mountainsides May occur

Dwarf proud globe (Patera clarki) Snail Leaf litter on mountainsides May occur Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) Amphibian Woodland ponds May occur Longtail salamander (Eurycea l. longicauda) Amphibian Moist woods and floodplains May occur Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) Bird Mature hardwood forests May occur

(1) Dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana) - This species was collected in one of the proposed regeneration units (Unit 28). A population of this animal is not likely to extend beyond the boundaries of the activity areas, so cumulative effects analysis is limited to the areas in which activities are being proposed. Direct and Indirect effects - In Alternative A, there would be no impacts to this species. In Alternative B, tree-felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The proposed regeneration unit could adversely affect this species by altering habitat conditions. Habitat within the unit may be limited for a period of time. Individuals and habitat outside the unit will not be affected. The other activities proposed in this project will not affect this location. Cumulative Effects - There are no past, ongoing or future projects that affect this location. The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - This snail is known from nineteen sites (including this one) in Cherokee, Clay, Graham and Macon Counties. The variety of elevations and forest types of these records indicate that the species is not stenotopic, or highly specialized. The small number of records for this species may be due to lack of effective sampling effort, rather than indicative of its actual status. Individuals of Glyphyalinia junaluskana occurring within the one regeneration unit may be adversely affected by harvesting activities, but this is unlikely to affect populations in the vicinity or across the Forest. (2) Pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) - This species was collected at four locations in two of the proposed regeneration units, Units 3 and 11.


Direct and Indirect effects - In Alternative A, there would be no impacts to this species. In Alternative B, tree-felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The two proposed regeneration units could adversely affect this species by altering habitat conditions. Providing additional canopy cover in the vicinity of the collection site in Unit 3 will maintain some habitat for this species. Habitat within the rest of the units may be limited for a period of time. Individuals and habitat outside the unit will not be affected. The other activities proposed in this project will not affect this location. Cumulative Effects - There are no past, ongoing or future projects that affect this location. The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - This snail is known from nine sites (including these) in Cherokee, Clay and Graham Counties. The small number of records for this species may be due to lack of effective sampling effort, rather than indicative of its actual status. Provided that additional canopy cover is left in Unit 3, individuals of Glyphyalinia pentadelphia occurring within the two regeneration units may be adversely affected by harvesting activities, but this is unlikely to affect populations in the vicinity or across the Forest. (3) Lamellate supercoil (Paravitrea lamellidens) - This species was collected at three locations in two of the proposed regeneration units, Units 3 and 22. Direct and Indirect effects - In Alternative A, there would be no impacts to this species. In Alternative B, tree-felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The two proposed regeneration units could adversely affect this species by altering habitat conditions. Providing additional canopy cover in the vicinity of the collection site in Unit 3 will maintain some habitat for this species. Habitat within the unit may be limited for a period of time. Individuals and habitat outside the unit will not be affected. The other activities proposed in this project will not affect this location. Cumulative Effects - There are no past, ongoing or future projects that affect this location. The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - This snail is known from five sites (including these) in Clay and Macon Counties. The small number of records for this species may be due to lack of effective sampling effort, rather than indicative of its actual status. Provided that additional canopy cover is left in Unit 3, individuals of Paravitrea lamellidens occurring within the two regeneration units may be adversely affected by harvesting activities, but this is unlikely to affect populations in the vicinity or across the Forest. (4) Open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris) - This species was collected at three locations in one of the proposed regeneration units, Unit 11. Direct and Indirect effects - In Alternative A, there would be no impacts to this species. In Alternative B, tree-felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The two


proposed regeneration units could adversely affect this species by altering habitat conditions. Habitat within the unit may be limited for a period of time. In Macon County, one specimen was previously collected in a 15 year-old clearcut consisting of mostly young poplar. The presence of this species within a previous regeneration unit indicates that removing the canopy does not make the area completely unsuitable for an extended period of time. Populations may have been reduced, but apparently some individuals survived the harvest. It is unlikely that a species with such limited mobility was extirpated from the site and then reoccupied it recently. Individuals and habitat outside the unit will not be affected. The other activities proposed in this project will not affect this location. Cumulative Effects - There are no past, ongoing or future projects that affect this location. The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - This small snail is known from twenty sites (including these three) in Cherokee, Clay, and Macon Counties. The small number of records for this species may be due to lack of effective sampling effort, rather than indicative of its actual status. Individuals of Paravitrea umbilicaris occurring within the three regeneration units may be adversely affected by harvesting activities, but this is unlikely to affect populations in the area or across the Forest. (5) Dwarf proud globe (Pateri clarki) - This species was collected at three locations in three of the proposed regeneration units, Units 3, 11, and 28. Direct and Indirect effects - In Alternative A, there would be no impacts to this species. In Alternative B, tree-felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The two proposed regeneration units could adversely affect this species by altering habitat conditions. Habitat within the unit may be limited for a period of time. Individuals and habitat outside the unit will not be affected. The other activities proposed in this project will not affect this location. Cumulative Effects - There are no past, ongoing or future projects that affect this location. The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects. Determination of Effect - This small snail is known from the majority of snail collection sites in western North Carolina. Individuals of Patera clarki occurring within the three regeneration units may be adversely affected by harvesting activities, but this is unlikely to affect populations in the area or across the Forest. (6) Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) - There is no suitable habitat located in project activity areas, therefore there will be no effect to the mole salamander. (7) Longtail salamander (Eurycea l. longicauda) - There is no suitable habitat located in project activity areas, therefore there will be no effect to the mole salamander.


(8) Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) - This species was not located in the project area, therefore there will be no effect to the Cerulean warbler. Determination of Effect Summarized – Provided that additional canopy cover is retained in the vicinity of the collection site in Unit 3, this project may impact individuals of the dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana), pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia), lamellate supercoil (Paravitrea lamellidens), open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris), and dwarf proud globe (Patera clarki), but will not affect their viability across the Forest. Table 3.18: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated forest concern species.

Species Type Determination of Effect

Alternative A Alternative B Dark glyph (Glyphyalinia junaluskana) Snail No effect May effect* Pink glyph (Glyphyalinia pentadelphia) Snail No effect May effect* Lamellate supercoil (Paravitrea lamellidens) Snail No effect May effect* Open supercoil (Paravitrea umbilicaris) Snail No effect May effect* Dwarf proud globe (Patera clarki) Snail No effect May effect* Mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) Amphi. No effect No effect Longtail salamander (Eurycea l. longicauda) Amphi. No effect No effect Cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) Bird No effect No effect *May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the Forest 3.4 UPPER NANTAHALA RIVER NATURAL HERITAGE AREA

Introduction - The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, has monitored the aquatic habitat and aquatic macroinvertebrates in the Nantahala River downstream of the confluence of Buck Creek since 1984. Much of the watershed is within the Nantahala National Forest. This monitoring site has rated Excellent each time that it has been sampled (NCDENR, 2005). The site contains several intolerant aquatic insect taxa and the habitat quality has remained high. Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative A, the no-action alternative, would involve no ground disturbing activities or herbicide applications. No in stream improvements would be done and no campsites would be improved. The existing condition of the campsites in need of rehabilitation and the lack of pool habitat within Buck Creek would continue. Sedimentation and turbidity from the dispersed campsites and the stream bank erosion would continue to occur during rain events and at high stream flows. This alternative would not improve stream bank stability or reduce chronic erosion from the dispersed campsites. As such, this alternative would not meet the Forest Plan direction for Management Area 18. The cumulative effects to the Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area would include the effects of the existing stream bank erosion and sedimentation from the dispersed campsites. The effects of Alternative B on the Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area would be the same as those described for the Biological Communities discussion for coldwater streams


(Sec.3.2.1). There would be no direct or indirect effects to the Nantahala River from the Thunderstruck Project because the proposed road construction and reconstruction, the timber harvest activities (including skid trail construction and herbicide treatments), wildlife habitat improvements, and stream structures have been designed to prevent visible sediment from entering project area streams. There may be a temporary increase in turbidity during in-stream structure installation but this structure would stabilize the stream banks and eliminate a chronic sediment source within Buck Creek. The increased turbidity would only occur for approximately 1 week in Buck Creek. All streams within the Thunderstruck Project would have a 100 foot no harvest buffer to prevent sedimentation and protect stream temperatures. The project design features incorporated into this project are similar to those used in previous projects within the Buck Creek watershed. The high quality habitat and diversity and abundance of aquatic macroinvertebrates at the NCDENR monitoring location suggest that the best management practices (BMP’s) implemented during previous projects of similar scope have been successful at protecting water quality. Implementation of this alternative would have no adverse effects upon the Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area because the BMP’s would prevent visible sediment from entering project area streams and the Nantahala River. Cumulative Effects - The effects of past, ongoing, and foreseeable future actions have been disclosed in the Coldwater Streams discussion above (Sec.3.2.1) and would be the same for the Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area. Alternative A would not affect the Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area because no road construction, road reconstruction, or culvert installations would occur within the aquatic analysis areas for this project. Alternative B - The cumulative effects of the Thunderstruck Project would include the effects of culvert installations for this project and the effects of the private developments along the Nantahala River. Alternative B may impact approximately 0.04% of the coldwater streams within the aquatic analysis area until the next bankfull flow event but these impacts would dissipate prior to reaching the Nantahala River (approximately 2 miles downstream of construction areas). The effects of culvert installations and in-stream structure construction would have short term effects and would be limited to short sections of the project area streams (see discussion in the Direct and Indirect Effects Section above for Coldwater Streams Communities). Implementation of this alternative would not have any cumulative effects to the Upper Nantahala River Natural Heritage Area because project design features would prevent visible sediment from reaching the Nantahala River and no riparian vegetation would be disturbed. 3.5 RECREATION RESOURCE

Introduction – Recreation activities in the project area include hiking, camping, fishing, and hunting. The Chunky Gal hiking trail traverses the western boundary of the project area, paralleling Perry Gap Road (# 350) and crossing the road two times. Dispersed camping sites located on Buck Creek are popular with campers and fishermen. Hunters that use the area generally park on Forest Service roads at locked gates and walk into the project area to hunt. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum – The project area is managed for a Roaded Natural 2 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), LRMP p.III-73. The desired ROS setting described


on page G-4 of the Forest Plan states: Area is characterized by predominately natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment; interaction between users may be low, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. The desired ROS character for experience is described in the Forest Plan on page G-5: About equal probability to experience affiliation with other groups and for isolation from sights and sounds of humans. The opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment is possible; as are opportunities for both motorized and nonmotorized forms of recreation, but nonmotorized opportunities dominate. The desired ROS character for evidence of humans is described in the Forest Plan on page G-6: Natural-appearing setting may have modifications which range from being easily noticed to strongly dominant to observers within the area. However, from sensitive travel routes and use areas, these alterations generally remain unnoticed or visually subordinate. There is strong evidence of designated roads and/or highways.

The desired RN2 ROS character for social setting is described in the Forest Plan on page G-6: Frequency of contact is: Moderate on roads; Low to moderate on trails and away from roads. Direct Effects – Hikers and other recreationists in the project areas will be temporarily impacted by the noise and sights created by logging operations in Alternative B. Perry Gap road would be used as a primary timber haul road and therefore log trucks will be seen and heard by hikers on the Chunkly Gal Trail. These impacts will end following harvest operations. These effects would be minimal as the harvest unit in stand 23 of Compartment 122 is 250 feet away from the trail and the harvest unit in stand 27 of Compartment 122 is located 1,000 feet away from the Chunky Gal Trail. Campers and fishermen who use the dispersed campsites on Buck Creek will be temporarily displaced as rehabilitation of the dispersed sites is occurring. The direct effects of Alternative A are the continued deterioration of dispersed campsites on Buck Creek and consequently the movement of sediments into the creek. Indirect and Cumulative Effects - There would be no indirect or cumulative impacts. 3.6 SOIL RESOURCE Affected Environment - A soil survey was completed for Clay County in 1991 by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with other County, State and Federal agencies (Soil Survey of Clay County, North Carolina, 1998). Soils in the Thunderstruck Project area are generally coarse-loamy soils that formed from parent material weathered from high-grade metamorphic rocks (mica gneiss, hornblende gneiss), or colluvium deposited at the base of steep slopes. The most common soils occurring where soil disturbing activities may occur are the Edneyville-Chestnut complex (39% of all soils), and Plott fine sandy loams (48%).


Table 3.17: Soil Complexes Occurring in Thunderstruck Project Area

Mapping Unit Soils Classification

% Occurrence in Project

Area Activity Areas Affected

CmE, CnD

Chestnut-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex (CmE) and Chestnut Edneyville complex (CnD): Well drained to somewhat excessively drained soils on side slopes and moderately broad ridgetops. Windswept. Exposed to harsh climates. Difficult to traverse. Less than 1% C.105-18, C.105-38

CuD, CuE

Cullasaja-Tuckasegee complex: Very deep, well drained soils in coves, drainageways, and on toe slopes. 12%

C.105-18, C.105-28, C.105-38, C.105-39, C.105-40, C.122-23, C.122-27, C.122-28, Road crossings on Thunderstruck Creek & Tributaries of Tate Branch

EdE, EdF

Edneyville-Chestnut complex: Deep well drained soils on side slopes and narrow ridgetops. 39%

C.105-18, C.105-28, C.105-38, C.105-39, C.105-40, C.105-41, C.122-23, C.122-27, C.122-28, Road Construction

PwE, PwF

Plott fine sandy loam: Very deep, well drained soils on ridges and side slopes on north to east facing slopes, or south to west facing slopes that are shaded by higher mountains. 48%

C.105-28, C.105-39, C.105-40, C.105-41, C.122-23, C.122-27 C.122-28, Road Construction

Discussion: The potential effects of timber harvest activities that are of concern in regard to the soil resource are soil compaction, erosion, and soil productivity. Compaction is the lowering of the air space in soil caused by the passage of heavy equipment compacting soil particles. Compaction, which increases with the number of equipment passes, causes air and water holding capacity to be reduced. Higher soil moisture at the time of passage results in greater compaction. Log landings, roads, and primary skid trails will have the greatest occurrence of compaction. An indirect effect is the loss of the soils ability to absorb rain, which causes an increase in surface runoff, which causes movement of bare or exposed soil in the form of erosion. Another indirect effect of compaction is reduced plant growth due to physically reduced root systems and lowered gas exchange through the root system. Erosion is caused by the exposure of bare mineral soil when the organic root mat and duff layer have been removed. Erosion potential is somewhat dependent upon the soil type, slope, and existing surface cover. Erosion is most likely to occur when forest litter or vegetation is removed from an area with steep slopes. The primary causes of soil exposure are road construction, skid road construction, clearing for log landings, the spinning of skidder tires, and the repeated dragging of logs on skid trails. The major source of erosion from forest practices is from poor road design, location, and construction. Unbroken slopes of bare soil, such as may occur on some skid trails and roads, are of greatest concern for erosion. Severe prescribed fire can consume the duff layer and expose soil.


Soil productivity is a property of the top few inches of soil which is a mixture of mineral and organic matter. Soil erosion can remove some or this entire fertile layer and thereby reduce productivity. The productivity can be affected by timber harvest activities through removal of organic matter, and by prescribed fire which alters organic matter chemically and changes how it moves through the ecosystem. Alternative A – No action, as considered in this alternative, means that none of the vegetation management activities, associated road-related activities, or other activities would occur. Normal geologic erosion would continue from existing roads at present levels. Opportunities to improve existing roads would be limited. Any changes in soil productivity that may occur would be due to naturally occurring fires and major storms. There would be no management related cause for compaction or erosion of the soil resource. Erosion would continue to occur from dispersed undeveloped campsites on Buck Creek. Alternative B – Timber harvesting would result in some soil compaction, erosion, and loss of productivity. Impacts to soils will occur primarily in log landings, constructed skid trails and roads where movement of logs with heavy equipment will remove the leaf litter, exposing soils, and where multiple passes will compact soils. Loss of soil productivity will occur as a direct result of any erosion or compaction that may occur, primarily in constructed skid trails. Harvesting will comply with the Forest Plan general direction and standards (Forest Plan III-42) to minimize the impacts to soils, and with the North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (Forestry Best Management Practices Manual to Protect Water Quality, Sept. 2006). Soil exposed by skid trails would be revegetated promptly with seeding mixtures appropriate to the specific season. Disturbed soil at stream crossings would be revegetated and/or mulched the same day. Brush barriers, silt fence, or other measures would be used for 300 feet either side of perennial stream crossings. Seasonal restrictions would be placed on activities so that harvesting does not occur during the wettest periods of the year. The area over which soil compaction would occur would be reduced overall by concentrating skidding on a few designated skid trails. Impacts to soil productivity would be minimized as the actions listed above are taken to minimize erosion and compaction. Cumulative Effects - The effect of past harvest activities on soil erosion have ceased to exist as exposed bare soils have been revegetated and leaf litter has covered exposed soil. Some soil compaction may still exist in areas past harvested, but is limited to those areas where log landings, roads and skid trail were constructed and used, a relatively small portion of the project area. Compaction from past activities will cease over time as freezing and thawing breaks up compacted soils and as vegetation becomes established in compacted areas. There are no ongoing activities occurring on federal lands within the project area, and therefore no contribution to cumulative effects to area soils from any ongoing activities. There are no reasonably foreseeable future activities occurring on federal lands within the project area, and therefore no contribution to cumulative effects to area soils from any foreseeable future activities. There are no known ongoing or foreseeable actions on private lands that would contribute to cumulative soil impacts together with the Thunderstruck project.


3.7 VISUAL RESOURCE Affected Environment - The project area is generally a mature forest of continuous overstory broken only by old regeneration areas (now not easily distinguished from the surrounding mature forest), and existing roads that are only visible only when on the road itself or very near to the road. Scenery consists of vegetation and mountainous terrain as seen as background from Forest Service Road #437 east of the Nantahala River in Macon County. All proposed activities are located within Management Area 3B which has a modification Visual Quality Object (VQO), as established in the Forest Plan. As defined in the National Forest Landscape Management handbook, in areas that have been assigned a modification VQO man’s activities may dominate the characteristic landscape. Alternative A – Modification VQO’s would be met. Alternative B - Alterations to the landscape within the project area would be seen as openings created by timber harvests. The modification VQO would be met by designing the project to include retaining 20 to 30 square feet of basal area of selected canopy trees in order to soften the visual effect of harvest units and blend the units into the overall closed-canopy condition of the surrounding stands (generally speaking, 20 to 30 basal area is approximately 16 to 24 15-inch-diameter trees per acre). Views of harvest units would also be filtered or screened by foreground vegetation and blocked by higher elevation landforms and foreground vegetation. The harvest units would not be easily noticeable to the average viewer after 3-10 years of growth, as they blend in with the surrounding forest. In leaf-off season, segments of new road may be visible or existing roads may become more visible after harvest. The herbicide application methods that are proposed would result in irregular patterns of brown vegetaion interspared with green vegetation. Only undesirable target plants are treated using these hand-application methods. Browning of target vegetation would remain visible for about one year. The spaces created by eliminating target plants would fill in with grasses, shrubs and trees in one growing season. Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest areas are reforested and existing roads are screened by vegetation, so that neither are easily evident on lands in the project area. Private development occurring in the Nantahala River corridor east of the project area consists primarily of clearing of small woodlots and newly constructed cabins and homes. 3.8 HERITAGE RESOURCE In compliance with applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders and the Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement (PMOA) with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), a heritage resources survey was conducted for the proposed Thunderstruck Project area. Prior to fieldwork, the timber stands in the proposed project area were rated by the Forest Service archeologist. A heritage resources survey was conducted in 2007. A copy of the archeological report will be sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence prior to final approval of the project.


Alternative A – No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage resources are expected to result in this alternative. Alternative B – No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to heritage resources are expected to result in this alternative. If any previously unknown heritage resources are discovered during project activities, operations would be suspended until an evaluation is made by the Forest Archaeologist and appropriate mitigation measures are applied. Cumulative Effects - Cumulative effects to heritage resources are not expected to result from this alternative. There have been previous surveys in the Thunderstruck Project area. Future projects will not be undertaken without heritage surveys being carried out. 3.9 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The Tusquitee Ranger District provides timber related products to the private wood industry in Cherokee and Clay Counties, as well as other surrounding counties in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia. The Thunderstruck project would contribute to the employment and income of people involved directly in the local timber industry. Income earned as a result of the timber products industry is spent in the local area, contributing a positive effect to the local economy. Alternative A - No wood products would be made available to the timber industry from Forest Service lands in the Thunderstruck Project area. No timber sale revenues would be returned to the United States Treasury. Costs to the Forest Service are limited to those costs associated with project development and planning, resource analysis and documentation of that analysis. Alternative B – The project would benefit the local economy by providing approximately 6,300 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of timber products to the local timber industry. Work would be provided to people with skills in timber cutting, road construction, truck hauling, and wood processing and manufacturing. There would be people employed in timber sale preparation and harvest administration. Site preparation activities following a harvest would provide work to skilled laborers. Receipts from the sale of timber would be approximately $315,000. Costs associated with the planning and implementation of the project would be approximately $66,150. Regeneration costs needed to establish 330 acres of naturally regenerated hardwood seedlings would be approximately $73,700. It would cost $46,900 to release new regeneration from competing growth. There would be a revenue/cost ratio of 1.69, or in other words, $1.69 would be returned to the United States treasury for each $1.00 spent.


Table 3.18: Economic Projections Relative to Timber Harvest & Reforestation.

Alternative A No Action

Alternative B Proposed Action

Volume (CCF) 0 6,300 CCF Projected Costs Sale Preparation ($7 per ccf) $0 $44,100 Harvest Administration ($3.50 per ccf) $0 $22,050 Site Preparation for Natural Regeneration ($220 per acre) $0 $73,700 Seedling Release ($140/ acre - herbicides) $0 $46,900 Total Projected Costs $0 $186,750 Projected Revenue (@ $50/ccf) $0 $315,000 Revenue/Cost Ratio N/A 1.69

Environmental Assessment 58 July, 2010 Thunderstruck Project Chapters 4 and 5

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND AGENCIES/PERSONS CONSULTED USDA Forest Service Preparers and Persons Consulted Rick Semingson - Resource Planner/NEPA Coordinator – Nantahala National Forest Jason Farmer – Fisheries Biologist – Nantahala National Forest Wilson T. Rankin – Botanist – Nantahala National Forest Doreen Miller – Wildlife Biologist – Nantahala National Forest Horace Mitchell – Archeologist – Nantahala National Forest Tom Duke – Civil Engineering Technician – Nantahala National Forest Other Persons or Agencies, or Governments Consulted North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer Field Biologist - North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 5.0 REFERENCES

Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. 2003. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection.

General References

Triclopyr – Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. 2003.

Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. Imazapic – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report. 2004. Prepared for

USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. National Forests in North Carolina, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests Land and Resource

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1987 (supplemented, 1992) and Forest Plan Amendment 5, March 1994.

USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains

Final Environmental Impact Statement, 1989. USDA, Forest Service, 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing decisions about managing the National

Forest Transportation System. Miscellaneous Report FS-643, Washington, D.C National Forests in North Carolina, Pisgah and Nantahala Roads Analysis Process Report. 2003. National Forests in North Carolina, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, Management

Indicator Species Habitat and Population Trends.


National Forests in North Carolina, Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, List of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Forest-Concern Species of the National Forests in North Carolina. 2002.

National Forests in North Carolina, USDA Biological Conservation Database. Asheville, NC.

2002. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Clay County, North

Carolina. North Carolina Division of Forest Resources Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Sept. 2006. Forestry Best Management Practices Manual to Protect Water Quality Aquatic References 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. Bryan, S.A., J.D. Riley, and D.M Hill. 2004. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic Resources of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (unpublished). Ratzlaff, Allen. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801. Durkin, P.R. 2003a. Glyphosate – Human health and ecological risk assessment-final report.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a. Durkin, P.R. 2003b. Triclopyr – Revised human health and ecological risk assessments-final

reports. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 02-43-13-03b. Durkin, P.R. 2004. Imazapic – Human health and ecological risk assessment – final report.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. SERA TR 04-43-17-04b. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pages. 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. Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pages.


Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 594 pages. Meehan, W. R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their Habitat Components. 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. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages. Moran, J.D., C.N. Roghair. 2005. Stream channel and habitat attributes in the National Forests

in North Carolina before and after the hurricane flooding events of 2004. Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer, U.S. Forest Service, pp 192-195 and 200-203.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2007. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database. NCDENR. 2005. Basinwide assessment report – Little Tennessee River Basin. North Carolina

Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. Ridout, S. 2002. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth

University. Richmond, Virginia. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages. Wohl, D.L., J.B. Wallace, and J.L. Meyer. 1995. Benthic macroinvertebrate community

structure, function, and production with respect to habitat type, reach and drainage basin in the southern Appalachians (U.S.A.). Freshwater Ecology. 34: 447-464.

Abrams, M. D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forest. Bioscience 42: 454-353.

Botanical References

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. 2000. Version 1.2. Arlington, Virginia, USA:

Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. Nault, A., D. Gagnon. 1993. Ramet demography of Allium tricoccum, a spring ephemeral,

perennial forest herb. Journ. Ecology 81: 101-119. 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. Biological Conservation 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. Eagle Fork, 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. Wildlife References Braswell, Alvin L. 1989. Conservation status of North Carolina amphibians and reptiles.

Scientific council report to the Nongame Advisory Committee. Clark, Mary Kay, ed. 1987. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina. Part 1. A

reevaluation of the mammals. Occ. Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-3. 50 pp.

Gatrelle, Ronald R. 1998. Two new Nymphalidae from western North Carolina: New

subspecies of Speyeria aphrodite and Phyciodes batesii. The taxonomic report of the international lepidoptera survey. Volume 1. Number 3.

Lee, David S. and James F. Parnell. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of North Carolina.

Part Ill. A reevaluation of the birds. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1990-1.

Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey, and Julian R. Harrison 111. 1980.

Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, U.N.C. Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 264 pp.

Sever, David M., H.A. Dundee, and C.D. Sullivan. 1976. A new Eurycea (Amphibia:

Plethodontidae) from southwestern North Carolina. Herpetologica 32:26-29. Vanderah, Glenda C. and Scott K. Robinson. 1992. Distribution and habitat selection of the

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) in s. Illinois. Report submitted to the Audubon Council of Ill. 1 0 pp.

Heritage Resources References Buxton, Barry M, ed. 1985.The Great Forest: An Appalachian Story, Appalachian Consortium

Press, Asheville, North Carolina.


Hudson, Charles. 1994. The Southeastern Indians, University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Thomas, Douglas J. 1991. Soil Survey of Clay County, North Carolina, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Raleigh, North Carolina. Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis. 1999. Time Before History: The Archaeology of

North Carolina, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Walthall, John A. 1980. Prehistoric Indians of the Southeast, Archaeology of Alabama and the

Middle South, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy Sabloff. 1980. A History of American Archaeology. W.H.

Freeman, New York. Mooney, James. 1992. History, Myths and Sacred Formulas of the Cherokees, Bright Mountain

Books, Asheville, North Carolina. Yarnell, Susan L. 1998. The Southern Appalachians: A History of the Landscape, Southern

Research Station General Technical Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina.

National Register of Historic Places, National Register Information System (NRIS) database.

Environmental Assessment 65 Attachment 3: Misc. Tables Thunderstruck Project July 2010

6.0 APPENDICIES ATTACHMENT 1: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

THUNDERSTRUCK TIMBER SALE

NANTAHALA NATIONAL FOREST

TUSQUITEE RANGER DISTRICT

CLAY COUNTY

NORTH CAROLINA Wilson T. Rankin, Ph. D. Botanist, Nantahala National Forest Nantahala Ranger District 90 Sloan Road Franklin, NC 28734


1.0 Project Description 1.1 Alternative 1 No activities proposed. 1.2 Alternative 2 This alternative would regenerate 335 acres in nine stands by two-age harvest (Table 1.2). Seven of the units would be harvested using ground-based skidding, while two of the units would be harvested using overhead cables. Following harvest, the stands would undergo site preparation to remove undesirable vegetation and release seedlings. Three to five years following harvest, desirable trees, such as single stem pines, oaks, hickories and cherries, will be released from competing vegetation using a combination of herbicides. Table 1.2: Comparsion of management activities for the no action (Alternative 1) and preferred (Alternative 2) alternative of the Thunderstruck Project. Proposed Activity Proposed Units

Management Activities

Comp Stand Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 2: Preferred

Two-age harvest 105 18 none 35 acres 105 3 none 40 acres 105 11 none 40 acres 105 28 none 40 acres 105 22 none 36 acres 105 25 none 36 acres 122 23 none 40 acres 122 9 none 28 acres 122 15 none 40 acres

Wildlife openings none 5 openings each 0.5 acres Ponds for wildlife none 3 vernal ponds Road Maintenance none 3.30 miles Road Reconstruction none 1.85 miles Temporary Roads none 0.80 miles In addition to harvest activities, the project would construct five new wildlife openings, each approximately 0.5 acres. The openings would be maintained by mowing, and non-native, invasive plants growing in the openings would be treated with herbicides as needed. To improve amphibian reproduction, three vernal ponds would be constructed in areas already disturbed by harvest activities. These ponds would be designed to hold rainwater during the spring, when amphibians mate and lay eggs. To improve fish habitat, instream fish structures using native materials, such as rocks and logs, would be constructed on Buck Creek. Approximately 3.3 miles of Thunderstruck Road will undergo routine maintainance, such as


blading, graveling, daylighting and replacing culverts. Approximately 1.85 miles of an old woods road will be reconstructed to provide access to Compartment 122, and maintained as a system road. All system roads in the area would also be maintained as linear wildlife strips. Approximately 0.47 mile of temporary haul road will be constructed to access Stands 38 and 39 in Compartment 105, and 0.33 mile of temporary road will be constructed to access Stand 23 in Compartment 122. Construction will involve removing trees, blading and shaping to outslope and create dips, and surfacing with stone. Undeveloped campsites on Buck Creek will be repaired to reduce erosion into the creek. Repairs will include revegetating impacted areas, installing control devices to minimize erosion and limit traffic on the site, and stabilizing the stream banks using native materials such as rocks, debris and plants. Non-native invasive plants will be treated with herbicides as necessary along project roads. This alternative was developed to provide a sustainable supply of timber by regulating the growth and removal of trees through time, to improve existing timber stand conditions, and to develop and improve wildlife habitat. 2.0 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 2.1 Boundaries of Aquatic Analysis Areas Project area waters are defined as those in or near the activity areas, with the potential site-specific impacts on aquatic habitat and populations. Project areas waters do not necessarily 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 the Thunderstruck Project consist of the following watersheds: Barnards Creek downstream to its confluence with Buck Creek, Joel Cove downstream to its confluence with Buck Creek, Thunderstruck Branch downstream to its confluence with Buck Creek, Tate Branch to its confluence with the Nantahala River, Tipton Branch to its confluence with Nantahala Lake, Buck Creek to its confluence with the Nantahala River, and the Nantahala River arm of Nantahala Lake. The analysis area contains habitat for coldwater fish species and macroinvertebrates. Streams in the analysis area typically have substrates consisting mainly of cobble and gravels. In addition, these streams are currently supporting the designated uses described by NCDENR for Class B, C and Tr waters (see Attachment A1). Four of the streams have been designated outstanding resource waters. 2.2 Species Evaluated and Rationale Information specifically addressing aquatic PETS species was obtained from North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program


(NCNHP) records, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologists, and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) biologists. 2.2.1 Previous Survey Information No aquatic PETS species have been found during previous surveys in the analysis area. These surveys include mussel surveys by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, as well as electrofishing surveys conducted by the NCWRC and USFS. In addition, aquatic insects have been monitored by the NCDENR at fixed locations in the aquatic analysis area (NCDENR, 2005). 2.2.2 New Surveys or Inventories Conducted No additional aquatic surveys for PETS species were conducted for this project. Existing data were used in this analysis because previous surveys for threatened, endangered and sensitive aquatic species have been conducted in the area, and the project will be implemented to prevent visible sediment from entering analysis area streams. 2.2.3 Species Undergoing Analysis for Effects Fifteen aquatic PETS species are either known to occur or may occur on the Nantahala National Forest (Attachment A2). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of PETS species in Clay County. These species were then filtered using their habitat information and the availability of these habitats within the analysis area. Species that did not have suitable habitat within the analysis area were eliminated from further analysis. Based upon the results of this filtering process, no proposed, endangered, threatened or sensitive aquatic species were evaluated further, because none had suitable habitat in Clay County (Table 2.2). Table 2.2: Summary of endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species undergoing effects analysis for the Thunderstruck Project. Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Endangered None Not applicable Not applicable Threatened None Not applicable Not applicable Sensitive None Not applicable Not applicable 2.3 Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Species 2.3.1 Endangered and Threatened Species There are no known proposed, threatened or endangered species in the analysis area. No suitable habitat is available in the aquatic analysis area for any proposed, threatened or endangered species. In addition, the effects of the Thunderstruck Project would dissipate and become immeasurable before reaching any potentially suitable habitats outside the analysis area because


project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering the streams in the analysis area. For Alternatives 1 and 2, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any federally listed species or habitats. 2.3.2 Sensitive Species There are no known sensitive species in the analysis area. In addition, the effects of the Thunderstruck Project would dissipate and become immeasurable before reaching any potentially suitable habitats outside the analysis area because project design features would prevent visible sediment and herbicides from entering the streams in the analysis area. For Alternatives 1 and 2, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any sensitive species. 2.4 Determination of Effect for Aquatic Species The Thunderstruck Project would have no effect on any federally listed or proposed aquatic species or its habitat because none are known from, or with potential habitat in, the aquatic analysis area. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. The Thunderstruck Project would have no effect on any sensitive aquatic species or its habitat because none are known from the aquatic analysis area. Table 2.4: Determination of effect of the Thunderstruck Project on the evaluated proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive aquatic species. USFS Status

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Endangered None No effect. No effect. Threatened None No effect. No effect. Proposed None No effect. No effect. Sensitive None No impact. No impact. 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 activity areas to undergo effects, the analysis area for endangered, threatened and sensitive species was confined to the expected impact zone surrounding the activity areas of the project. The expected impact zone may be larger than the activity area because impacts such as increased sunlight and decreased humidity may extend beyond the areas undergoing active management. 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 proposed 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. Species without previous records from the analysis area, or not located during field surveys, were considered absent from the activity sites, and were not analyzed further. 3.2.1 Previous Survey Information The Biotics Database was queried for endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species growing in the activity areas. It contained no records for any endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species in the activity areas. 3.2.2 New Surveys or Inventories Conducted Field surveys for endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species were conducted in April and May, 2006, by Wilson Rankin, Botanist for the Nantahala National Forest, and May, June and September, 2006, by Josh Kelly, contract botanist. Field survey methodology consisted of a timed meander with increased intensity in the most diverse areas. Surveys were continued until no new species or microhabitat was detected (Goff, et al. 1982). No endangered, threatened or sensitive plant species were located during the field survey. 3.2.3 Species Undergoing Analysis for Effects Because the analysis area contained no records for any endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species, and field surveys did not locate any of these species in the analysis area, no endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species underwent further analysis for effects (Table 3.2.3). Table 3.2.3: Summary of endangered, threatened and sensitive plant species undergoing effects analysis for the Thunderstruck Project (see Attachment B1 for a complete list of species evaluated). Status Species Habitat Reason for Effects Analysis

Endangered None Not applicable Not applicable Threatened None Not applicable Not applicable Sensitive None Not applicable Not applicable 3.3 Effects of Alternatives on Botanical Species 3.3.1 Endangered and Threatened Species Because no endangered or threatened plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened plant species.


3.3.2 Sensitive Species Because no endangered or threatened plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any sensitive plant species. 3.4 Determination of Effect for Botanical Species Because no endangered or threatened plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any endangered or threatened plant species. Because no sensitive plant species were located in the activity areas, there should be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any sensitive plant species. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary for botanical species. 4.0 Terrestrial Wildlife Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 4.1Species Evaluated and Rationale Proposed, endangered, and threatened (PET) species considered in this analysis are those currently listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sensitive species considered in this analysis are those identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern (August, 2001). All proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive terrestrial animal species that might occur on the Nantahala National Forest were considered. 4.1.1 Previous Survey Information Potentially affected species were identified from information on habitat relationships, element occurrence s maintained by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and field data on the project area. Species with only incidental, migrant or historic occurrences in Clay County were not considered further. One threatened species, the bog turtle, was known to occur south of the activity areas near Buck Creek. In addition, Clay County is considered part of the potential range for the Indiana Bat, an endangered species, due to occurrences in adjacent counties. However, based on surveys to date, the species is not known to occur in Clay County. No sensitive species were known to occur in the project area prior to the surveys undertaken for this project. 4.1.2 Species Undergoing Analysis for Effects All but two of the proposed, endangered and threatened species, the bog turtle and the Indiana bat, were dropped from further consideration due to a lack of suitable habitat in the analysis area or being outside the known range (Attachment W1). All but eight of the sensitive species were excluded from further analysis due to lack of suitable habitat in the activity areas, or being outside the known range of the species (Attachment W1). As a result, one endangered species, one threatened species and eight sensitive species underwent further analysis for potential effects, because they either occur, or may occur, in the analysis area (Table 4.1.2).


Table 4.1.2: Known and potential endangered, threatened and sensitive terrestrial wildlife species undergoing further evaluation for the Thunderstruck Project. Species USFS

Status Habitat Description Likelihood of

Occurrence Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)

Endangered Roosts in caves and hollow trees May occur

Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)

Threatened Wet, marshy meadows Occurs

Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis)

Sensitive Treetops at edges of broadleaved forest

May occur

Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis)

Sensitive Lichen covered rock outcrops May occur

Frosted elfin (Callophrys irus)

Sensitive Open woods and borders, in dry situations

May occur

Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana)

Sensitive Deciduous and pine woodlands May occur

Glossy supercoil (Paravitrea placentula)

Sensitive Leaf litter on wooded hillsides and ravines

May occur

S. appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee)

Sensitive Moist forests at all elevations May occur

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii)

Sensitive Roosts in hollow trees in summer May occur

Southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus)

Sensitive Small streams 12-15' wide above 3000'

May occur

4.1.3 New Surveys or Inventories Conducted Proposed activity areas were surveyed for the presence of special habitats, such as wetlands, boulder fields, caves or mines, that could be adversely affected by project activities. No special habitats were located. The need for surveys for individual endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive species was considered in light of direction found at FSM 2672.43, Supplement No. R8-2600-2002-2. Inventories were not conducted for the bog turtle, because it is known to occur south of the activity areas near Buck Creek, and therefore was assumed to occur in the activity areas. Inventories were not conducted for the Indiana bat, because it was assumed to be present based on its range. Inventories were not conducted for seven sensitive species potentially occurring in the activity area (Table 4.1.3), because habitat is not limited across the forest, so information on the number and location of individuals in this particular area would not change the assessment of effects to viability of the population. Surveys were conducted for one sensitive species, the glossy supercoil, because canopy removal could adversely affect the habitat for this species. Surveys for the supercoil were conducted in June, 2006, by Dan Dourson, a field biologist from Stanton, Kentucky, in all areas proposed for two-age regeneration harvests.


4.2 Effects of Alternatives on Terrestrial Wildlife Species 4.2.1 Endangered and Threatened Species • Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 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 species communal roosting habits, it is probable that all 28 bats were Indiana bats. 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. 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. At present, this is the southernmost known Indiana bat maternity colony. 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 does exist within the area. Direct and Indirect Effects – Direct effects of disturbance and/or mortality from tree felling may occur between April 15 and October 15 if a roost tree containing a bat is cut. This is limited to this 6-month period because the bats are hibernating in caves the remainder of the year. Indirect effects may also occur to potential roosting and foraging habitat. To reduce the likelihood of direct effects to bats and indirect effects to habitat, this project will 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. This includes retention of standing trees with more than 25% exfoliating bark, shellbark, shagbark and bitternut hickories, snags, hollow, den, and cavity trees, trees in buffer zones along intermittent and perennial streams, and shade trees adjacent to some of the large snags. These measures would be implemented when the stands are marked for sale. This project may impact a maximum of 335 acres of suitable habitat by 2-age regeneration. Based on the small number of currently suitable or 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. The sequence of events that would result in a tree being cut down in which a bat is roosting is unlikely; therefore, direct effects to Indiana bats should not occur. Removing a small number of trees would not make the area unsuitable as summer habitat for Indiana bats. Indiana bats are known to use highly altered and fragmented landscapes. They may respond positively to habitat disturbance, particularly where forests are even-aged and closed-canopied. A diverse landscape may benefit Indiana bats, as long as sufficient mature forest and numbers of quality roost trees are provided. Given the amount of tree cutting, the area would still provide vast numbers of roost trees and potentially suitable habitat for Indiana bats. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – The Indiana bat model includes all identified past activities and ongoing activities within two miles of the proposed harvest units, as well as the proposed actions. There are no known proposed future activities.


Cumulative Effects – Each time the model calculates the habitat suitability index; the combined effect on Indiana bat habitat in the analysis area is determined. The Indiana bat habitat suitability index was calculated using the maximum tree-cutting alternative (Alternative B). This resulted in a 1.66% change from the baseline. The Forest Plan limits cumulative effects to less than a 5% change from the baseline (Amendment 10 of LRMP). Because there is only a very minor loss of potential Indiana bat habitat in the area impacted, the proposed action would not affect the availability of Indiana bat habitat in the area. Determination of Effect – This project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. • Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) The bog turtle is known to occur south of the project activity areas near Buck Creek. The habitat is maintained by beaver activity and the presence of F. S. Road 350A. Direct and Indirect Effects – Neither the habitat nor the slopes above the habitat will be affected by the proposed actions, so there should be no effect to the species. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Past beaver activity has, at times, improved the habitat by flooding invading shrubs and, at other times, degraded the habitat by impounding water. Cumulative Effects – Because there will be no direct or indirect effects, there will be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effect – The Thunderstruck Project will have no effect on the bog turtle. Consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. 4.2.2 Sensitive Species • Northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes treetops at the edges of broadleaved forest. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Tree felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. The habitat may be impacted positively by the creation of new forest edges around nine regeneration units and five wildlife openings proposed for Alternative 2. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Habitat created through past regeneration harvesting is no longer present as these stands have matured. There are no known ongoing or future projects what would create this habitat. Cumulative Effects – The cumulative effects would be the same as the direct and indirect effects.


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. This project may impact individuals of this species, but could benefit the habitat. The adverse effects to individuals would be minor considering the status and distribution of the habitat on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. • Rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species utilizes lichen-covered rock outcrops. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Tree felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. Regeneration activities should not affect the habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. 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 – Cumulative effects would be a slight increase in habitat lost due to wildlife opening construction and road reconstruction for Alternative 2. Determination of Effect - Forest-wide this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction and road construction/reconstruction. This project may impact individuals and cause a loss of habitat. The adverse effects to individuals and habitat would be minor, however, considering the status and distribution of the habitat on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability 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. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Tree felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. Regeneration activities should not affect the habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. 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 – Cumulative effects would be a slight increase in habitat lost due to road improvement work for Alternative 2. Determination of Effect– Forest-wide this species has lost habitat due to wildlife opening construction and road construction/reconstruction. This project may impact individuals of this species and cause a loss of habitat. The adverse effects to individuals and habitat would be


minor considering the status and distribution of the habitat on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability 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. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Tree felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. A small amount of habitat may be created by road improvement work for Alternative 2. Regeneration activities should not affect the habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. 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 – Cumulative effects would be a slight increase in habitat due to road improvement work for Alternative 2. Determination of Effect – Forest-wide this species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest roadside habitat. This project may impact individuals, but could benefit the habitat. The adverse effects to individuals would be minor considering the status and distribution of the habitat on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. • Glossy supercoil (Paravitrea placentula) No glossy supercoils were located in project activity areas; therefore, there will be no direct or indirect effects to this species. Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there will be no cumulative effects. • Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Direct and Indirect Effects – This species is found in moist forests in the southwestern mountains at all elevations. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Tree felling operations could impact individuals through direct crushing. Habitat may be lost by road improvement work and regeneration activities, which include 335 acres in Alternative 2. Habitat will be temporarily decreased where insolation increases from the removal of canopy trees. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – Habitat has been lost in the past due to road construction activities and past regeneration activities, which reduced habitat in the analysis area by 126 acres over the past 20 years. Stands older than 20 years have probably achieved canopy cover and reformation of the litter layer sufficient to support salamander populations. The power line in Compartment 122 is maintained in early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat.


Cumulative Effects – Habitat would exist throughout the area, except in the past and proposed regeneration areas and the power line corridor, which total 473 acres in Alternative 2. These 473 acres represent less than 15% of the two compartments. Much suitable habitat would remain. This cumulative effect will soon decrease, as many of these acres are close to 20 years old now and will shortly age into suitable habitat. 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/ reconstruction 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 may impact individuals of this species and cause a loss of habitat. The adverse effects to individuals and habitat would be minor considering the status and distribution of this species on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. • Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) This species is thought to roost in hemlock forests, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges or buildings, and uses other habitats for feeding. Little is known regarding summer nursery sites and summer foraging or roosting habitat. Suitable maternity habitat may be lacking across the forest, if otherwise appropriate sites are not exposed to the sun. Direct and Indirect Effects – Alternative 1 would result in a loss of foraging habitat as existing openings mature. Under Alternative 2, tree felling could impact individuals through direct crushing. Creating openings in the canopy could improve feeding habitat for forest bats, which are attracted to the insects supported by grassy/brushy habitat areas. No special roosting habitats, such as hemlock forests, rock crevices, caves, mines, bridges or buildings will be adversely affected. Habitat could be created by regeneration activities, which include 335 acres in Alternative 2. These 335 acres represent about 9% of the two compartments. Road construction and reconstruction should not affect the habitat. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects - Habitat has been created in the past due to regeneration activities on 126 acres in the past 20 years. These acres have matured and are no longer desirable feeding habitat. The power line corridor in Compartment 122 is maintained in


early successional habitat of about 12 acres. There are no known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – The actions proposed for Alternative 2, plus the existing power line, would result in cumulative effects of 347 acres, representing about 10% of the two compartments in the analysis area. Determination of Effect – This species has been collected from most counties in western North Carolina, although it is rarely trapped during mist-netting surveys. The species has probably benefited from past forest management, which created new forest openings to offset the concurrent maturation of other forest stands. This project may impact individuals of this species, but benefit the habitat. The adverse effects to individuals would be minor considering the status and distribution of this species on the national forest. Therefore, 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 is known to occur on small first order streams up to 12-15' wide, with rhododendron cover across Macon, Swain and Clay counties. Alternative 1 would have no effect. Road improvement across suitable streams could adversely affect individuals through direct crushing and effect habitat through direct loss and sedimentation. Direct loss of habitat should be minimal, however, and the sedimentation effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below each crossing. There will be a temporary increase in suspended sediments, but the effects should diminish as the stream crossings and new stream banks are re-vegetated. Herbicide treatments, crop tree release and construction of wildlife ponds should not affect individuals or the habitat. Effects of Past, Ongoing and Future Projects – The existing condition of the aquatic resources is the result of all past effects. Roads were constructed and culverts were installed in suitable streams for these projects. The effects of these culvert installations would have included direct loss of habitat of about 30 feet and sedimentation of approximately 75 feet of stream at each crossing. The sedimentation effects, however, would have exhibited short-term impacts and would have dissipated in the time since management activities occurred in the analysis area. There are no other known ongoing or future projects that would affect this habitat. Cumulative Effects – The cumulative effects would include the effects of constructing stream crossings for past projects, and road improvements for this project. Cumulative direct loss of habitat would be limited to the existing stream crossings. Sedimentation effects from Alternative 2 would be limited to road improvements. This impact would have short term effects, and would be limited to short sections of project area streams, affecting approximately 75 feet at each site. These effects would dissipate as they move downstream, and after each subsequent high flow event. 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. Alternative 2 may impact individuals of this species and adversely affect the habitat. The adverse effects would be minor considering the status and distribution of this species on the national forest. Therefore, this project is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability across the forest. 4.2.3 Consultation History Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Indiana bat has been completed. 4.3 Determination of Effect for Terrestrial Wildlife This project will have no affect on the threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). The project will have no effect on any other federally proposed or listed species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for the Indiana bat. The project may impact individuals of the northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis), rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis), frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee), eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), and the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus), but will not impact their viability across the forest (Table 4.3). This project will not impact any other sensitive species. No cumulative effects on species viability across the forest will result from this project. Table 4.3: Determination of effect of each alternative on the evaluated endangered, threatened and sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. Species USFS Status Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Indiana bat Endangered Not likely* Not likely* Bog turtle Threatened No impacts No impacts Northern bush katydid Sensitive No impacts May impact** Rock-loving grasshopper Sensitive No impacts May impact** Frosted elfin Sensitive No impacts May impact** Diana fritillary butterfly Sensitive No impacts May impact** Glossy supercoil Sensitive No impacts No impacts Southern Appalachian salamander Sensitive No impacts May impact** Eastern small-footed bat Sensitive No impacts May impact** Southern water shrew Sensitive No impacts May impact** *Not likely to adversely affect. **May impact individuals but 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 The Thunderstruck Project would have no effect on any federally listed or proposed aquatic species or its habitat because none are known from, or with potential habitat in, the aquatic analysis area. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. The Thunderstruck Project would have no effect on any sensitive aquatic species because none are known from, or with potential habitat in, the aquatic analysis area. 5.2 Botanical Endangered, Threatened 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. 5.3 Terrestrial Wildlife Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species This project will have no affect on the threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). The project will have no effect on any other federally proposed or listed species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for the Indiana bat. The project may impact individuals of the northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis), rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis), frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee), eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), and the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus), but will not impact their viability across the forest. This project will not impact any other sensitive species. No cumulative effects on species viability across the forest will result from this project. 5.4 Summary of Effects Determination This project will have no affect on the threatened bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii). The project will have no effect on any other federally proposed or listed species. The project is not likely to adversely affect the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for the Indiana bat. The project may impact individuals of the northern bush katydid (Scudderia septentrionalis), rock-loving grasshopper (Trimerotropis saxatilis), frosted elfin (Callophrys irus), Diana fritillary butterfly (Speyeria diana), southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee), eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), and the southern water shrew (Sorex palustris puntulatus), but will not impact their viability across the forest. This project will not impact any other sensitive species. No cumulative effects on species viability across the forest will result from this project.


/s/ Wilson T. Rankin, Ph. D. Botanist, Nantahala National Forest July 30, 2010 Contributing Biologists: Jason Farmer Aquatic Biologist, Nantahala National Forest Doreen Miller Wildlife Biologist, Nantahala National Forest


6.0 References and Data Sources Included in Environmental Assessment 7.0 Attachments Attachment 1A: Aquatic resources in the Thunderstruck analysis area. Stream Name1 Compartment/

Stand Kilometers in Project Areas

Kilometers in Analysis Area

Classification2

Nantahala River 122/28 0.2 7.4 B Tr Buck Creek 105/28,41 4.2 14.5 C Tr ORW Barnards Creek 105 - 4.2 C ORW UT Barnards Creek 105/18 0.2 1.9 C ORW Chestnut Branch 105 - 1.1 C ORW Fishprong Branch 105/18,38 0.2 1.8 C ORW Joel Cove 105/39 0.6 0.6 C ORW Thunderstruck Branch3 105/40 1.1 1.1 C ORW Tate Branch 122 - 2.4 C UT 1 Tate Branch 122 0.2 0.8 C UT 2 Tate Branch 122 0.8 0.8 C UT 3 Tate Branch 122 - 0.5 C UT 4 Tate Branch 122/23 0.6 0.6 C Tipton Branch 122/27 0.6 1.6 C Notes: 1 UT = Unnamed Tributary. 2 The B classification denotes waters designated for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the C classification. The C classification denotes waters designated for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The Tr classification denotes waters suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance of stocked trout. ORW waters are considered Outstanding Resource Waters. 3 Thunderstruck Branch is adjacent to FS 350-1. This stream channel was 1 meter wide and contained no water at the road crossing. The overstory vegetation consisted of yellow poplar, birch, and red maple. The understory vegetation consisted of yellow poplar, birch, and red maple. The stream gradient was 5%.


Attachment A2: 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 Hiwassee 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 Hiwassee 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 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


USFS Status


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


USFS Status


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 Forest, Montane Oak Forest, Rich

Cove Forest, Acidic Cove Forest, Roadside 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 Spray Cliff


USFS Status


spinigera 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


USFS Status


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 evaluated for the Thunderstruck Project. USFS Status

Species Brief Habitat Description {Counties1}

Analyzed Further/ Evaluation Criteria

Endangered Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel

High elevation forests, mainly spruce/fir {Av Bun Gr Ha Ja Mc Mi Sw Tr Wat Ya}

No/2

Endangered Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat

Roosts in hollow trees or under loose bark (summer); in caves (winter) {Ch Gr Ja Mac Mi Ru Sw}

Yes/1

Threatened Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle

Mature forests near large bodies of water (for nesting) {Ha Mc}

No/2

Threatened Clemmys muhlenbergi Bog Turtle

Bogs, wet pastures, wet thickets {As Av Bun Ch Cl Gr He Ja Mac Mc Mi Tr Wat Ya}

Yes/1

Threatened Mesodon clarki Nantahala Noonday Globe

Nantahala Gorge (endemic to this site) {Sw}

No/2

Sensitive Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat

Roosts in old buildings, hollow trees, caves, mines usually near water {Bun Bur Ch Gr Mac Mad Sw Tr}

No/2

Sensitive Microtus chrotorrhinus carolinensis Southern rock vole

Rocky areas at high elevations, forests or fields {Av Ha Ja Mac Sw Ya}

No/2

Sensitive Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat

Roosts in hollow trees, rock outcrops, bridges (summer); caves and mines (winter) {Av Bun Gr He Ja Ru Sw Ya}

Yes/1

Sensitive Sorex palustris puntculatus Southern water shrew

Stream banks in montane forests {Av Bun Cl Ha Mac Sw Wat}

Yes/1

Sensitive Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon

Cliffs (for nesting) {Av Bun Bur Ha Ja Mad Ru Tr Ya}

No/2

Sensitive Lanius ludovicia migrans Migrant loggerhead shrike

Fields and pastures (breeding season only) {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Thryomanes bewickii altus Appalachian Bewick's wren

Woodland borders or openings, farmlands or brushy fields, at high elevations (breeding season only) {As Av Bun Ha Ja Mac Tr}

No/2

Sensitive Desmognathus santeetlah Santeetlah dusky salamander

Stream headwaters and seepage areas; southwestern mountains {Gr Ja Sw}

No/2

Sensitive Eurycea junaluska Junaluska salamander

Forests near seeps and streams in the southwestern mountains {Ch Cl Gr}

No/2

Sensitive Plethodon aureolus Tellico salamander

Forests in the Unicoi Mountains {Ch Gr} No/2


USFS Status

Species Brief Habitat Description {Counties1}

Analyzed Further/ Evaluation Criteria

Sensitive Plethodon teyahalee Southern Appalachian salamander

High elevation, wooded slopes and forests; prefers hardwood forests and logs over pines and hemlocks {None indicated}

Yes/1

Sensitive Callophrys irus Frosted elfin

Open woods and borders, usually in dry situations; host plant-lupines, (Lupinus) and wild indigos (Baptisia) {Bun Ch Po}

Yes/1

Sensitive Cicindela ancocisconensis A tiger beetle

Shaded gravel and sandbanks on mountain brooks & small rivers with large boulders {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Melanoplus divergens Divergent Melanoplus

Glades and balds, 1800-4717 feet {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Melanoplus serrulatus Serrulate Melanoplus

Valleys and lower slopes, Nantahala Mountains {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave spider

Caves and along Nantahala River (apparently endemic to Swain County, NC) {Mac Sw}

No/2

Sensitive Nesticus sheari A cave spider

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

No/2

Sensitive Nesticus silvanus A cave spider

Habitat not indicated (apparently endemic to southern mountains of NC) {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Scudderia septentrionalis Northern Bush Katydid

Forests {None indicated} Yes/1

Sensitive Semiothisa fraserata Fraser Fir Angle

Spruce/fir forests with fraser fir {None indicated}

No/2

Sensitive Speyeria Diana Diana fritillary

Rich woods and adjacent edges and openings; host plants (Viola) {None indicated}

Yes/1

Sensitive Trechus luculentus unicoi A ground beetle

Apparently the mountains of Graham County {Gr}

No/2

Sensitive Trimerotropis saxatilis Rock-loving grasshopper

Lichen-covered rock outcrops {Tr} Yes/1

Sensitive Pallifera hemphilli Black mantleslug

High elevation forest, mainly spruce-fir {Av Bun Ha Ja Mi Sw Ya}

No/2

Sensitive Paravitrea placentula Glossy supercoil

Leaf litter on wooded hillsides {Mad Mi Sw}

Yes/1

Notes 1The counties listed are those in which the species is known to occur, has occurred in the past but has not been found in recent years, or is likely to occur according to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.


2County Abbreviations Ale=Alexander All=Allegheny As=Ashe Av=Avery Bru=Brunswick Bun=Buncombe Bur=Burke Cal=Caldwell Car=Carteret Cat=Catawba Ch=Cherokee Cl=Clay Cur=Currituck Da=Dare Gr=Graham Ha=Haywood He=Henderson Hy=Hyde Ir=Iredell Ja=Jackson Li=Lincoln Mac=Macon Mad=Madison Mc=McDowell Mi=Mitchell NH=New Hanover On=Onslow Or=Orange Po= Polk Ru=Rutherford Sw=Swain Tr=Transylvania Wak=Wake Wat=Watauga Ya=Yancey Evaluation Criteria 1 = Potentially suitable habitat; may occur. 2 = Lack of suitable habitat or outside the known or expected range.

United States Department of Agriculture...

Documents

Transcript of United States Department of Agriculture...