biological assessment and evaluationa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012....

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation

for the Redbird

Fuels Treatment Project

Redbird Ranger District

Daniel Boone National Forest

Prepared by:

Scott L. Reitz Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise

June 1, 2012

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Biological Assessment and Evaluation

iii

Table of Contents

Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 II. PROJECT AREA AND PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................. 3

Project Area ................................................................................................................. 3 Proposed Management Action ........................................................................................ 6 Project Design Features.................................................................................................. 9 Alternative Effects........................................................................................................11

No Action ................................................................................................................11 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................12 Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................17

III. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................................20 Species and Critical Habitat Cons idered ..........................................................................20 Species Evaluated in Detail ...........................................................................................22

Indiana Bat...............................................................................................................22 Snuffbox ..................................................................................................................30

IV. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .............................................................................32 Species Considered.......................................................................................................32 Species Evaluated in Detail ...........................................................................................35 MAMMALS................................................................................................................35

Rafinesque big-eared bat ............................................................................................35 Eastern small-footed bat.............................................................................................36

FISH...........................................................................................................................38 Eastern Sand Darter...................................................................................................38

INSECTS ....................................................................................................................39 Diana Fritillary .........................................................................................................39

VASCULAR PLANTS .................................................................................................41 Small Spreading Pogonia ...........................................................................................41 Stoneroot .................................................................................................................41 Butternut..................................................................................................................41

NON-VASCULAR PLANTS ........................................................................................43 Closter’s Brook-hypnum ............................................................................................43 Austin’s Leafy Liverwort ...........................................................................................43 Sullivant’s Leafy Liverwort........................................................................................43 Agoyan Cataract Moss...............................................................................................44

V. REFERENCES .........................................................................................................45

List of Figures

Figure 1. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project vicinity map ......................................................... 2 Figure 2. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project analysis and burn units .......................................... 4 Figure 3. Base of maternity roost tree .................................................................................26 Figure 4. Maternity roost tree (dark patches on tree are stain) ................................................26


iv

List of Tables Table 1. Project area summary ............................................................................................ 5 Table 2. Burn unit summary ............................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Line construction summary .................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Redbird Fuel Reduction Project wildlife project design features ................................10 Table 5. Burn unit Stream summary ...................................................................................16 Table 6. Cumulative effects summary .................................................................................18 Table 7. Daniel Boone National Forest proposed and federally listed species ...........................20 Table 8. Federally listed and proposed species eliminated from detailed evaluation ..................21 Table 9. Daniel Boone National Forest designated critical habitat ..........................................22 Table 10. Proximity of priority Indiana bat hibernacula to project area....................................25 Table 11. Status of sensitive and proposed endangered species ..............................................33


1

Summary This report analyzes the effects of treatments proposed in the Redbird Fuels Treatment (RFT) project environmental assessment (EA) on Federally Threatened, Endangered and Regionally Sensitive (TES) species within the RFT project area. The proposed project would treat approximately 5,700 acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and this report discusses the changes in wildlife and aquatic habitat conditions and discloses effects to TES species that would occur under the proposed action. Potential effects of no action are also assessed. Based on analysis presented in this report, there are no anticipated effects under either the proposed action or no action that would contribute toward a trend in Federal listing for any Regionally Sensitive species or result in effects to any Threatened or Endangered species that were not previously disclosed in the Forest Biological Assessment and Biological Opinion (USDA-FS 2003c and, USDI-FWS 2004a). As a result, this project complies with the Daniel Boone National Forest (DB) Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA-FS 2004a), the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (36 U.S.C. 1531-1544), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614) and USDA Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670).

I. INTRODUCTION This document evaluates effects of Federal activities proposed in the RFT project on 22 federally Threatened and Endangered species (T&E), one proposed federal species (proposed) and 71 Region 8 Sensitive (sensitive) aquatic and terrestrial species within the RFT project area. The objectives for completing this assessment include (1) to determine potential effects on federally threatened, endangered species and candidate species (FSM 2670.31) and if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the project area and on the species as a whole (FSM 2670.32), (2) to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-native animal species, and (3) to ensure that Forest Service activities do not cause any species to move toward federal listing. Section II includes a description of the project area and summarizes and describes Federal activities proposed under each of the alternatives considered in the RFT EA. Section III describes the status and habitat for T&E species and evaluates effects of the proposed actions on those species, and Section IV describes habitat for and evaluates effects of proposed actions on Region 8 sensitive species.

The RFT project area is located within the Cumberland Plateau physiographic region in Clay, Leslie and Owsley Counties. The project area is south of Forest Service Road 1649 near Laurel Creek, north of KY1533, east of KY-149 and west of KY-1533 and KY-1649 (see figure 1). A total of 10 separate burn units with treatments on NFS lands are proposed (see figure 2).


2

Figure 1. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project vicinity map


3

II. PROJECT AREA AND PROPOSED ACTION The section describes the project area and the proposed action identified in the RFT EA.

Project Area As shown in figure 1, the proposed burn units are scattered across the Redbird Ranger District (RD). In order to include lands adjacent to the proposed treatment units that may be affected and to better facilitate a landscape level analysis, the 10 burn units were grouped into five separate analysis units shown in figure 2. These areas (Rockhouse, Granny’s Branch, Britton Branch, Cherry Tree, and Pooler) were identified by following watershed boundaries (12 order HUCs) whenever possible, and collectively include the RFT project area.


4

Figure 2. Redbird Fuels Treatment Project analysis and burn units


5

The RFT project area totals approximately 23,700 acres and as shown in table 1, provides a diversity of habitat conditions. All areas are over 98 percent forested with mature forest conditions predominating. Young forest conditions (less than 50 years of age) occur on approximately one-third of the project area and all areas but Pooler contain a seedling/sapling forest component. Fire-mediated communities (Appalachian dry mesic oak and Eastern dry xeric oak), or communities where fire drives both the structure and composition of that community predominate in all areas, whereas fire-adapted communities, or communities that are adapted to fire but where vegetation limits the fire frequency and intensity (conifer northern hardwood and mixed mesophytic) occur on between 24 and 37 percent of the individual areas.

Due largely to steep and rugged terrain, much of the project area is relatively remote and between 66 and 82 percent of the areas are greater than 200 feet from an existing road. Also, most openings or non-forest habitat occur in close proximity to roads or other development. There are approximately 80 acres of large openings in the Rockhouse area that are maintained to provide cover and forage for elk and other wildlife species. Rock features and cliffline habitat are found in all areas, with Cherry Tree and Pooler containing the largest cliffline component.

Land use along the privately owned lands include family residential homes, subsistence farming and gas/mineral extraction. Land use on NFS land includes: recreation (e.g., utilizing designated trails; hunting; wildlife viewing), watershed improvement (e.g., riparian area protection; erosion control structures/waterbars), vegetation management, and gas/mineral extraction.

Table 1. Project area summary Project Area Analysis Units Acres 23,729 acres ( percent)

Habitat Brittion Branch5

6,315

Cherry Tree 2,125

Granny’s Branch5

4,146

Pooler5 2,033

Rockhouse5 9,110

Ownership acres ( percent) NFS Land 3,622 (57) 1,764 (83) 2,961 (71) 1,591 (78) 8,174 (90) Private 2,693 (43) 361 (17) 1,185 (29) 442 (22) 936 (10)

Cover Type acres ( percent) Forest 3,474 (96) 1,764 (100) 2,784 (94) 1,548 (97) 7,848 (96) Non-Forest 128 (4) 0 85 (1) 13 (1) 47 (1)

Forest Community and Structure1 acres ( percent) Appalachian Dry Mesic Oak2 2,570 (71) 1,242 (70) 1,695 (57) 986 (62) 4,673 (57) Appalachian Shortleaf Pine 0 0 0 36 (2) 32 (<1) Conifer Northern Hardwood 17 (<1) 0 51 (2) 0 93 (1) Eastern Dry Xeric Oak2 24 (1) 0 31 (1) 69 (4) 82 (1) Mixed Mesophytic 863 (24) 522 (30) 1,008 (34) 458 (29) 2,969 (36) Seedling/Sapling (0-10 yrs) 412 (11) 354 (20) 392 (13) 2 (<1) 579 (7) Pole (21-49 yrs) 471 (13) 77 (4) 522(18) 430 (27) 2,290 (28) Mature (50-150 yrs) 2,591 (72) 1,333 (76) 1,946 (66) 1,116 (70) 5,101 (62)

Stream and River Stream Miles 15.5 7.5 13.5 9.1 21.2 Red Bird River Miles 2.6 0 0 0 2.5 Stream/River Density(mi/mi2) 1.8 2.3 2.1 2.8 1.7


6

Table 1. Project area summary Project Area Analysis Units Acres 23,729 acres ( percent)

Habitat Brittion Branch5

6,315

Cherry Tree 2,125

Granny’s Branch5

4,146

Pooler5 2,033

Rockhouse5 9,110

Roads and Interior Habitat Road Miles 9.9 3.3 6.5 3.1 14.2 Road Density (mi/mi2) 2.3 2.7 2.0 1.6 2.3 Interior Habitat3 5,105 (81) 1,554 (73) 2927 (71) 1,333 (66) 7,480 (82)

Management Emphasis1, 4 Cliffline 4,300 (7) 655 (33) 243 (7) 483 (28) 632 (6) Habitat Diversity 2,925 (66) 1,011 (51) 2,331(68) 892 (52) 1,606 (14) Riparian 1,189(27) 301 (15) 835 (24) 353(20) 2,019 (18) Rare Plant Community 0 0 0 0 47 (<1) Ruffed Grouse Emphasis 3 (<1) 0 4 (<1) 0 7,003 (62)

1- NFS lands only 2 - Fire Mediated Community

3- Lands greater than 200 ft. from a road 4 – riparian/cliffline overlap other prescription areas and management emphasis acres will exceed 100 5-some stands do not contain vegetation data and total percent is less than 100

Proposed Management Action Many forest communities on the DBNF developed under more frequent fire regimes than exist today and due to decades of fire suppression, some oak and pine communities are being replaced by forest types less adapted to fire. Past fire suppression has also increased the risk of severe wildfire. In order to maintain or restore forest communities that depend on fire and reduce the risk of wildfire, the Redbird RD is proposing to implement prescribed burning on 10 units totaling approximately 5,670 acres, as shown in table 2.

Redbird Fuels Treatment Project Biological Assessment and Ev aluation

7

Table 2. Burn unit summary

Habitat

Analysis Areas

Total 5,666 acres

Britton Branch Cherry Tree Granny Branch Pooler Rock House Burn Unit acres1 – 5,666 total ( percent)

Britton Branch 1 1,077 ac.

Britton Branch 220 ac.

Cherry Tree

714 ac.

Granny’s Branch 1 363 ac.

Granny’s Branch 2 341 ac.

Pooler 545 ac.

Rock House 1 670 ac.

Rock House 2 626 ac.

Sugar 783 ac.

Venus 327 ac.

Forest and Non-Forest Cover Acres ( percent) Appalachian Dry Mesic Oak2 720 (67) 213 (97) 550 (77) 224 (62) 235 (69) 236 (43) 386 (58) 329 (53) 670 (86) 287 (88) 3,850 (68) Appalachian Shortleaf Pine 0 0 0 0 0 22 (4) 0 29 (5) 0 0 51 (<1) Conifer Northern Hardwood 0 0 0 9 (2) 21 (6) 0 0 0 48 (6) 0 78 (1) Eastern Dry Mesic Oak2 23 (2) 0 0 0 18 (5) 68 (12) 17 (3) 13 (2) 0 0 139 (2) Mixed Mesophytic 283 (26) 7 (3) 164 (23) 124 (34) 67 (20) 215 (39) 267 (40) 255 (41) 65 (8) 25 (8) 1,472 (26) Non-Forest and Brush 51 (5) 0 0 6 (2) 0 4 (1) 0 0 0 15 (4) 76 (1)

Forest Structure1 Acres ( percent) Seedling/Sapling 247 (23) 39 (17) 232 (33) 61 (17) 63 (19) 0 35 (5) 8 (1) 84 (11) 42 (13) 811 (15) Pole 163 (15) 66 (30) 0 52 (14) 110 (32) 105 (19) 147 (22) 420 (67) 47 (6) 69 (21) 1,179 (21) Mature 616 (57) 115 (53) 482 (67) 244 (67) 168 (49) 435 (80) 488 (73) 198 (32) 652 (83) 201 (61) 3,599 (64)

Streams Stream Miles 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.7 .7 2.0 1.5 3.2 0.2 NA Stream Density 1.1 0.7 0.6 1.2 3.2 2.2 1.9 1.5 2.6 0.4 NA

Forest Management Emphasis1,3 Acres ( percent) Habitat Diversity Emphasis 856 (80) 171 (72) 413 (58) 287 (88) 261 (75) 320 (57) 533 (80) 139 (16) 0 0 2,980 (53) Rare Communities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (<1) 0 1 (0) Riparian 142 (13) 34 (14) 68 (10) 33 (9) 74 (21) 70 (13) 107 (16) 194 (31) 236 (30) 76 (23) 1,034 (18) Ruffed Grouse** 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 (4) 441 (52) 783 (100) 327 (100) 1,575 (28) Cliffline 71 (7) 34 (14) 233 (32) 7 (2) 14 (4) 172 (3) 0 71 (8) 4 (1) 15 (5) 621 (11)

1- NFS lands only 2 - Fire Mediated Community 3 – riparian/cliffline overlap other prescription areas and management emphasis acres will exceed 100


8

The following is a discussion of the individual treatments included in the proposed action.

Treatments

Line Construction Proposed line construction is shown in table 3. Over 70 percent of the fire line used will consist of line associated with roads. Treatments needed to “refresh” these sections of line include hand trimming of limbs overhanging the road, and felling of hazard trees within 100 feet of the line. Approximately 14 percent of the total line used includes hand construction, which involves using hand tools to clear existing small trees, shrubs, duff and litter and expose mineral soil. Hand line will be approximately 4 to 5 feet wide and will weave between trees. Approximately 10 percent of the control lines are streams, where no clearing or disturbance will occur. Approximately 3 percent will be cleared by machine, which may involve clearing or mowing of existing vegetation on skid trails.

Table 3. Line construction summary

Unit Line Type in Miles ( percent)

Existing Road Handtool Cleared

Machine Cleared

Creek Drainage

Total Perimeter

Britton Branch 1 5.9 2.2 0.1 0.0 8.1 Britton Branch 2 0.5 0.4 1.2 0.8 2.8 Cherry Tree 4.5 1.1 0.0 0.7 6.3 Granny's Branch 1 3.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 4.5 Granny's Branch 2 1.8 2.2 0.0 0.5 4.5 Pooler 2.9 0.4 0.0 1.4 4.7 Rockhouse 1 5.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 5.8 Rockhouse 2 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Sugar 5.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 6.7 Venus 2.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 Total Line 38.6 (73) 7.6 (14) 1.5 (3) 5.1 (10) 52.7

Burning A low to moderate intensity burn is necessary to achieve project objectives. In order to ensure that desired burning conditions are met, all areas would be burned when weather conditions provide for safe ignition. Also a prescribed burn plan and all required documentation in accordance with USDA Forest Service, Region 8 or Daniel Boone National Forest standards must be completed and approved prior to implementation. Collectively these actions will ensure that burning conditions will be controlled, that adequate smoke dispersal will occur and that the fire related effects are consistent with those anticipated.

Burning can take place at any time of year, as long as required fuel, moisture and weather conditions are present, and as long as applicable Project Design Features (PDFs) are adhered to (see table 4). The timing of burning would also be determined by adaptive management monitoring. Prescribed burn implementation would consist of initial ignition taking place along ridge tops and containment lines at highest elevations, then moving downhill along containment lines as interior ignition takes place using aerial or ground based operations. Once ignited, the


9

prescribed burn moves through the project area driven by wind and terrain. Flame lengths should range from a few inches to three feet in height, consuming litter, grass, forbs and smaller fuels.

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat are determined by a number of factors including the burning intensity, as well as site-level fuels, topography and moisture conditions. Although there may be small areas (approximately 0.1 acre) that may experience more intense burning due to high fuel levels or slope conditions, it is expected that over 95 percent of the area treated will experience a moderate to low intensity burn. Although this intensity burning is expected to consume the litter, fine fuels and small diameter trees and shrubs less than 5 inches in diameter (Bowles and Jacobs 2007), it generally will not be hot enough to scorch the soil or result in mortality of overstory trees. Also, due to varying fuel and moisture conditions, implementation of BMP 3 (see table 4) will help ensure that overstory mortality is reduced.

Because site conditions vary, burning will not be uniform and treatment areas will have a mosaic of burned and un-burned lands. On average it is estimated that approximately 75 percent of the treatment areas will be burned with fingers or pockets of un-burned areas interspersed throughout the area. Also the amount and uniformity of burning will vary by forest type and topographic position, with south-facing slopes, dry plateau tops and fire mediated forest types experiencing a higher percentage of burned area. Conversely due to higher moisture conditions and lower slope position, burning would be reduced in riparian areas and portions of units containing mixed mesophytic and Northern Hardwood/hemlock forest. Similarly, due to the abundance of rock, burning would be reduced within cliffline areas or areas with surface rock.

Experience with past burning also shows that there will be small areas that contain higher fuel levels and/or site conditions that create more intense burning conditions. In these areas, some overstory mortality may occur. However overstory mortality is not expected to exceed 5 percent of any unit.

After ignition operations are completed and the prescribed burn has had adequate time to move through the project area, mop-up operations extinguish those areas that are still burning and pose a threat to fire control. Mop-up usually involves putting out burning or smoldering vegetation such as tree stumps, snags or downed logs. Mop-up does not occur unless the source is likely to cause the fire to spread outside of the control lines. Control is accomplished with water spray and/or hand tools. It may also include felling burning snags that would fall outside the fire line.

Although the total number of burns and burning frequency will be determined by adaptive management monitoring, this analysis assumes that up to five burns will be necessary and that the frequency of burning will be 3-5 years for the first three burns and 5-10 years for the following two burns.

Project Design Features Project design features (PDFs) discussed here include activities that occur during implementation that are designed to mitigate or reduce impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities. Table 4 identifies specific PDFs and displays the target species or habitat and the intended effect. The origins of PDFs are also displayed and those that start with a “DB,” were identified in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2004a), whereas PDFs specific to this project start with “BMP” (Best Management Practice). Effects described in the environmental consequences section of this document, are based on implementation of these PDFs.


10

Table 4. Redbird Fuel Reduction Project wildlife project design features PDF Code/Origin Project Design Feature Target Species & Effect

DB-WLF-1

Within the riparian corridor prescription areas, prohibit in-stream substrate disturbance by mechanical equipment from February 1 through July 31, if aquatic PETS species occur within one-quarter mile upstream and one mile downstream of the project site.

Minimize water quality impacts threatened, endangered and sensitive species.

DB-WLF-8

No trees may be cut within 2.5 miles of any Indiana bat maternity colony between May 1 and August 15. A tree that is an immediate threat to human health may be cut during this time.

Minimize impacts to roosting Indiana bats.

DB-WLF-9

For non-vegetation management projects, currently suitable Indiana bat roost trees may be felled only from October 15 through March 31, if they are more than five miles from a significant bat caves (Indiana bat). If tree removal occurs at other times, the trees must be evaluated for current Indiana bat use, according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol. (See LRMP 2-23 for Table 2 - 1)

Minimize impacts to Indiana bats and swarming habitat.

DB-WLF-12

No trees may be cut within 5 miles of a significant Indiana bat hibernaculum between September 1 and December 1. No significant bat hibernacula are known to exist on the Redbird Ranger District.

Minimize impacts to Indiana bats and swarming habitat.

DB-WLF 13

Where caves exist outside Cliffline Community Prescription Area, a minimum zone of 200 feet is to be maintained around openings to caves and mines suitable for supporting cave-associated species, as well as any associated sinkholes and cave collapse areas, except for designated recreational caves. Prohibited activities within this protective area include use of motorized wheeled or tracked equipment (except on existing roads and trails), mechanical site preparation, recreation site construction, tractor-constructed fire lines for controlled burns, herbicide application, and construction of new roads, skid trails, or log landings. Vegetation in this buffer zone may be managed only to improve habitat for PETS or Conservation species (LRMP, p.2-23)

Minimize impacts to all cave-dwelling wildlife.

DB-VEG-27

Resource management activities that may affect soil and/or water quality must follow applicable Kentucky Rules and Regulations for Water Quality Control and Kentucky's Best Management Practices for Forestry (BMPs) as a minimum to achieve soil and water quality objectives. When Forest Plan standards exceed Kentucky BMPs or water quality standards, Forest Plan standards shall take precedence (LRMP, p.2-27).

Minimize soil impacts

DB-VEG-29

The removal of coarse woody debris from within the scoured ephemeral stream zone will only be allowed if it poses a risk to public safety or water quality, degrades habitat for aquatic or riparian-associated species, or when it poses a threat to private property or Forest Service infrastructures (LRMP, p.2-27)

Maintain stream side woody debris.

DB-FIRE-1 Do not construct prescribed firelines with heavy, mechanized equipment (e.g., trackhoes and bulldozers) within the riparian corridor.

Minimize impacts to riparian areas from fireline construction.

DB-FIRE-2 Do not conduct a prescribed burn in an area where more than half of the soils are severely erodible with an average of less than one-half inch of litter and duff (LRMP, p.2-27).

Minimize potential for soil erosion


11

Table 4. Redbird Fuel Reduction Project wildlife project design features PDF Code/Origin Project Design Feature Target Species & Effect

DB-FIRE 8 Prescribed burning is not to occur within known Indiana bat roosting areas from May 1st to July 31st.

Minimize burning related mortality to Indiana bats.

1.E-FIRE-1

Prescribed burning of areas within the Riparian Corridor Prescription Area 1.E. would be completed in compliance with regulations governing treatment activities inside the corridor. Control lines within identified riparian corridors would be constructed or reconstructed by hand.

Minimize impacts to riparian dependent wildlife and resources.

DB-FIRE-Wet-1

Do not build firelines for prescribed burns through streamhead seeps/bogs, swamps, or other natural wetland rare community management zones, if they are likely to change the hydrologic balance.

Minimize effects of burning and fireline construction within riparian areas, wetlands, and areas with unique water features.

BMP-1

Prescribed burning would take place when fuel, soil, and weather conditions provide for removal of small diameter dead and down fuels but not result in significant reduction (i.e., >5 percent) of live overstory trees through cambium damage.

Minimize overstory mortality from burning and maintain existing canopy conditions

BMP-2

A prescribed burn plan will be prepared prior to ignition. Controlled burn projects must be implemented in compliance with the written plan (Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Reference Guide, September 2006).

Keep burning conditions at desired levels and reduce potential impacts from burning to all resources

BMP-3

A prescribed burn plan will be prepared prior to implementation of any burning and will comply with all State and Federal Regulations.

Keep burning conditions at desired levels and reduce potential impacts from burning to all resources.

BMP-4

Employ relatively low risk burn ignition on southern and western exposures on the down-wind side of planned burns on all units. These exposures, as well as ridge tops, generally have poor natural ability to accumulate organic matter. Execute ignition into or facing the wind along dominate ridges or along a controlled perimeter; allowing fire to back down slope will normally keep flame lengths below 3 feet. Employ “spot ignition” techniques to allow for near simultaneous ignition of the burn area and reduced burn time. Construct hand lines on slopes greater than 20 percent.

Keep burning conditions at desired levels and reduce potential impacts from burning to all resources.

Alternative Effects This section describes the effects to wildlife, aquatic species and plants from implementation of the proposed action, as well as effects that would be expected if no treatments were implemented (no action). Effects to individual species are also discussed in sections III and IV.

No Action Because there are no treatments proposed there will be no direct effects to any terrestrial or aquatic species, nor are there any adverse effects to water quality and stream and riparian habitat anticipated. Also forested communities that largely developed in the absence of fire including mixed mesophytic and conifer/northern hardwoods would be unchanged.


12

Due to the absence of fire, indirect effects related to shifts in species composition and diversity would continue to occur. For example due to decades of fire suppression, understory conditions including increased levels of downed woody debris and increased abundance of shade-tolerant species such as red maple and beech have increased across the project area. Because fire will continue to be excluded from the landscape under this alternative, these understory conditions will continue to predominate in all forest communities. Effects of this on wildlife include a continued reduction in the open understory conditions that characterize fire mediated communities and a continued decline in suitable habitat for species that prefer or require open forested stands with an herbaceous understory.

In addition to understory changes, fire suppression has also reduced species composition and fire mediated communities including pine, mixed oak/pine. Also oak on more mesic sites have been in decline and are being replaced by other tree species. Because fire would continue to be absent from the landscape under no action, current trends would continue, oak regeneration in the more mesic sites would not develop and Appalachian dry mesic and eastern dry xeric oak communities would continue to decline. Effects on wildlife would be a continued reduction in these fire mediated communities and the wildlife species that prefer or require them.

Currently approximately 11 percent of the project area (across 8 of the burn units) occurs as seedling/sapling forest less than 20 years of age. Within the next 20 years, most of the existing young forested habitat will be lost as seedling/sapling trees mature. Effects on wildlife will be a reduction in the distribution and use of species that prefer or require early successional habitat.

Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative, there are no direct or indirect effects to plants, fish or the aquatic resource anticipated.

Proposed Action

Wildlife

Direct Effects Approximately 76 percent of the project area will be unaffected by treatment and there are no direct effects anticipated on this area. The following is a discussion of potential direct effects on the 5,666 acres proposed for treatment.

Direct effects of new line construction and line “re-freshing” include possible mortality of less mobile individuals as well as behavior avoidance of mobile species. However because new line construction will only affect a small area and considering disturbance will only last for a few hours, potential effects are expected to be minor.

Proposed burning is expected to have some direct effects on wildlife inhabiting the site at the time of treatment. Behavioral avoidance of wildlife by fire has been observed and less mobile species such as small rodents are most likely to panic, while larger mammals usually move calmly during the fire. Upland game birds, raptors and many smaller birds are often attracted to fire, or to the smoking landscape as foraging sites (USDA-FS 2000).

Prescribed burning in the southeast indicates that deaths of wild animals are seldom attributed to fire (USDA-FS 2000). Although Means and Campbell (1981) noted deaths of several reptiles, they went on to say that very few reptiles and amphibians are killed by prescribed fire. Also overall, amphibians and reptiles did not appear to be disturbed by approaching fire and responded


13

in adaptive manners that minimized mortality (Russel et al. 1999). This is consistent with Renken (USDA-FS 2006), who states that although research is limited, studies to date indicate that fire results in little direct mortality of amphibians and reptiles and has no effect on the overall amphibian abundance, diversity, and number of species.

Direct impacts or mortality to mammals is also expected to be minor and no fire induced mortality of tree squirrels, furbearers or black bears (USDA-FS 2000) is anticipated. The ability of small mammals to go underground or to emigrate apparently accounts for the scant evidence of mortality from heat or suffocating smoke (Taylor 1981). When mortality does occur, it is usually negligible at the population level (Lyon et al.. 1978).

Impacts to invertebrates from fire vary and relatively large, highly mobile arthropods are unlikely to be negatively affected by fire. In central Ohio, prescribed burning had no negative effect on large predatory beetles (USDA-FS 2006), or on scavenging beetles (USDA-FS 2006). Similarly in south-central Kentucky, prescribed fire had little effect on ground-dwelling arthropod abundance, richness and diversity, but arthropod community evenness increased in response to fire (USDA-FS 2006). Conversely, fire can result in mortality and loss of habitat for less mobile arthropods on the forest floor (USDA-FS 2006). Generally the abundance of less mobile arthropods at the soil/litter interface can be severely reduced by burning, while effects on diversity, richness and evenness are less marked (USDA-FS 2006).

Most undesirable direct effects are overcome by choosing proper times, places and methods of prescribed burning. Since proposed burning will consist of a relatively slow moving backing fire, potential direct mortality resulting from proposed burning will be greatly reduced. Additionally fire, both natural and human-ignited, has been a part of the eastern Kentucky landscape for thousands of years (USDA-FS 2004b p. 1-22) and many species have evolved with the presence of fire in their forested habitat. Finally the DBNF NF is a partner in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative and in compliance with Executive Order 13186-Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds and in compliance with the MBTA.

Indirect Effects

Effects to Wildlife Approximately 76 percent of the project area will be unaffected by treatment under this alternative, and effects on this acreage will be similar to those described under no action. Effects on the 24 percent of the project area proposed for treatment are described below.

Indirect effects of proposed burning include modifications or changes in vegetative conditions on the affected sites. Bowles and Jacobs (2007) evaluated repeated understory burning that had been implemented in oak forests and over time, burned forest had a 97 percent reduction in shrubs and small saplings, but only a 38 percent loss of stems in the 2-4 inch size class. Also canopy openness was significantly greater in burned forest after 17 years of fire. Ground layer vegetation structure also changed measurably, with responses differing by guilds. Spring herbs were the dominant guild before burning and did not change over time. However cover and abundance of summer herbs increased over time in burned forest due to the increased light to the understory. This resulted in greater overall species richness in burned plots without loss of the spring herbs. As a result proposed burning will be expected to create more open understory conditions, with a decrease in woody vegetation and an increase in herbaceous vegetation. Generally this is expected to improve habitat for species that prefer or require forested habitat with a grass/forb understory and decrease habitat for species that utilize understory shrubs or low cover provided


14

by small diameter woody vegetation. Although burning intensity and will vary and most treatment areas are expected to have a mosaic of understory conditions.

Indirect effects of burning can also vary over time and with burning frequency. Artman et al. (2005) looked at repeated prescribed burning in Ohio and Indiana and although the frequency of burning was greater than proposed (i.e., once every 1 to 2 years), their results show that in the short term (within 2 years of burning), prescribed fire reduced habitat suitability for forest interior birds that nest on the ground and in low shrubs, but provides more favorable conditions for disturbance-dependent birds associated with savannas, woodlands and early successional forest. Populations of ground and low-shrub nesting bird species continued to occur at low population levels even after four successive years of fire, however, nesting success was lower in burned areas.

While nesting success was reduced, Artman et al. (2005) suggest that repeated burning may increase food accessibility for ground nesting birds by removing the leaf litter, brush and dense vegetation exposing both seeds and insects. Ground-foraging bird species were frequently observed feeding in recently burned areas and prescribed fire is a recognized management strategy to improve habitat for ground nesting gamebirds such as grouse and turkey (Artman et al. 2005). Use would also be expected to vary by season. For example, open woodlands and early successional habitats tend to exhibit earlier budbreak and flowering, and presumably arthropod abundance in these habitats are higher during the spring, than in closed canopy forests, that are weeks later phenologically (Artman et al. 2005). As a result, burned areas would likely improve foraging habitat during spring migration for neo-tropical migratory birds.

With the exception of small mammals, little research has been conducted in eastern forests on the influence of fire on mammals (USDA-FS 2006). Several studies have documented little or no change in relative abundance or community measures for non-volant small mammals in eastern oak forests following fires, despite reductions in leaf litter, small woody debris and changes in the understory and midstory composition and structure (USDA-FS 2006). Although Kirkland et al. (USDA-2006) and Ford et al. (USDA-FS 2006) observed virtually no change in coarse woody debris abundance following the low to medium intensity fires they studied. Results from prescribed burning in the Appalachians of North Carolina, and wildfire in Pennsylvania, suggest that small mammal abundance and species assemblages are not changed substantially by fires (USDA-FS 2006). Also Ford et al. (USDA-FS 2006) noted, that the abundance and assemblage patterns that existed prior to spring burning persisted following burning, for mesic-forest adapted species such as southern red-backed voles and smoky shrews (Sorex fumeus). Additionally masked shrews (S. cinereus), which were more common in riparian areas and areas with abundant coarse woody debris, occurred in both burned and control stands.

Other studies have documented short-term improvements in quantity and quality of forage for white-tailed deer (USDA-FS 2006) and in general, larger animals and many game or high demand species such as deer, black bear, bobwhite, grouse and rabbits are reported to increase after fires (Lyon et al. 1978). On the other hand, fire may temporarily displace or eliminate species that require dense understory vegetation often associated with late successional forest, whereas many species will be unaffected by fire (Lyon et al. 1978). It has also been suggested that species that prefer partially open canopies, herbaceous understories, reduced midstories, or savannah habitats likely will prosper in the presence of fire, including species of high conservation concern such as the Indiana bat (USDA-FS 2006).

Overall proposed burning is expected to result in a mosaic of burning conditions and a patchwork of different successional stages within a stand (or across a landscape) that would be expected to


15

enhance bird diversity and abundance (USDA-FS 2000). Also, Lyon et al. (1978) summarized 22 studies of breeding birds and mammals in burned and adjacent unburned habitat and overall, the result of fire was a slightly richer avifauna and little change in numbers of mammalian species.

While proposed burning is expected to result in mortality of some overstory trees, this will be kept under 5 percent and existing overstory conditions will be largely unchanged. Although some individual tree mortality and an occasional pocket of mortality would provide small breaks in the forest canopy, similar to those that would occur under natural disturbances such as windthrow. Additionally, the creation of dead and dying trees provide important foraging sites for woodpeckers and other bark gleaning species, as well as cavity-dependent species.

Effects to Forest Communities Many wildlife species prefer or require stand and landscape level conditions created through periodic wildfire. In order to assess the amount of habitat and fire mediated communities affected by treatment, table 1 displays the amount of each forest community within the project area, whereas table 2 displays the amount of each community treated. Five communities will be treated including Appalachian dry mesic oak (35 percent proposed for treatment), Appalachian short-leaf pine (75 percent of total proposed for treatment), conifer/northern hardwood (49 percent proposed for treatment), eastern dry xeric oak (67 percent of total proposed for treatment), and mixed mesophytic (25 percent of total proposed for treatment). Because all forest communities are either fire mediated or tolerant and considering that an un-treated portion of the fire-tolerant communities will continue to exist within all analysis areas, forest diversity will be maintained or improved.

One of the Forest and project objectives is to reduce/eliminate fire-intolerant species from upland fire-mediated areas (USDA-FS 2004a p. 2-11), including upland oak forest. Oak is widely recognized as a keystone species and acorns are probably the most important wildlife food in the deciduous forest of North America (McShay and Healy 2002). Also the abundance and pattern of acorns and their parent trees are of critical importance to most wildlife species (McShay and Healy 2002). Due largely to the exclusion of fire, oak forests are in decline and we are seeing more changes in less than a single generation of oaks, than we would have expected in 10 to 20 or more generations (USDA-FS 2006). Because repeated dormant season burning promotes an increased abundance of oak regeneration (USDA-FS 2006), it is expected to result in the long-term improvement in oak forest communities and the wildlife species that depend on them. Additionally, the use of prescribed fire should also contribute to the restoration and maintenance of a diverse herbaceous flora as well as woodlands, wooded grasslands/shrublands (USDA-FS 2004a p. 3-126) and the associated wildlife communities.

Treatment Effect Summary In summary, the above research suggests that effects of burning similar to that proposed on wildlife and wildlife habitat will vary. Proposed burning is expected to reduce habitat for some species/guilds, whereas other species/guilds will benefit. However, a mosaic of burning conditions will occur within all treatment areas, including reduced burning in riparian areas, near clifflines, and in wetter sites/communities. As a result, and considering that 76 percent of the project area will be unaffected by treatment, wildlife species diversity and abundance is expected to be maintained under this alternative.


16

Aquatic Table 5 displays the stream habitat within each of the burn units, as well as the amount proposed for treatment. In addition to this there are another 5.4 miles of the Redbird River that forms the western boundary of the Granny’s Branch and Rockhouse analysis areas, although the river is approximately one mile from the proposed treatments.

Table 5. Burn unit Stream summary Stream Stream Miles Percent of Stream Miles Treated

Britton Branch 2.1 13 Cherry Tree 0.8 9 Granny’s Branch 2.4 18 Pooler 0.7 7 Rockhouse 6.9 32 Total 12.8 19

A total of 12.8 miles of stream occur within the project area and of this, approximately 19 percent are proposed for treatment within six drainages. Additionally, approximately 18 percent of the project area occurs within the riparian prescription area.

Fish, mussels and aquatic insects can be affected by any activity that alters water quality conditions and/or affects stream, river or riparian habitat. The importance of maintaining riparian habitat was recognized in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2004a) and Forest-wide goals include (1) managing and/or restoring watersheds to protect ecological functions, aquatic species and habitats and (2) managing in-stream flows to protect stream processes and aquatic and riparian habitats (USDA-FS 2004a p. 2-12). In addition, the riparian corridor prescription area was identified and is managed to retain, restore, and/or enhance the inherent ecological process and functions of the associated aquatic, riparian and upland component. Although primarily only natural processes modify the landscape and resources in this area (USDA-FS 2004a 3-10), prescribed fire is permitted in this area to establish or maintain fire dependent communities (USDA-FS 2004a p. 3-11). So the importance of maintaining aquatic and riparian habitat was recognized very early in the planning phases of this project and effects of all proposed activities are based on implementation of PDFs displayed in table 4, as well as Forest-wide standards identified in the RFT EA and Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2004a p. 3-14 to 3-16).

Only approximately four percent of the project area riparian habitat will be affected by treatment and over 80 percent of the treatment units will occur outside of riparian areas and away from perennial and intermitted streams. As a result, much of the project does not occur within the influence of aquatic systems.

While burning will affect 1,034 acres of riparian habitat, due to the reduced burning conditions that would occur in these areas, much of the understory vegetation would be left largely intact. As a result, downed woody debris (DWD) and streamside cover would be largely maintained and potential impacts to water quality and aquatic macro-invertebrates reduced.

Potential erosion from proposed treatments would be greatest immediately after implementation of prescribed burns, with almost all of the erosion being generated from firelines. Potential for upland erosion and stream sediment were determined by the DBNF Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model and using this model, changes in stream sedimentation in the nine 6th level watersheds


17

affected by treatments were assessed. Results indicate that while proposed treatments would increase sedimentation in these watersheds, the projected increase represents less than a 1.33 percent increase over current conditions. These changes are often offset by other restoration projects in the watershed (i.e., road and OHV trail closures). Additionally, modeling shows that due to buffer strips and best management practices, the probability that sediment would actually be delivered to stream channels is greatly reduced and there is no measureable change to the Watershed Condition Rank or the Species Sediment Load index listed in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA FS 2004). As a result, it is unlikely that anticipated changes would influence water quality in any drainage. More detailed analysis of sedimentation and effects to water quality can be found in the Soil and Water (S&W) report for this project (Cotton 2011).

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are evaluated by looking at past, present and foreseeable future effects, which are most likely to result in a change in terrestrial and aquatic habitat conditions and/or affect the distribution and use of the area by individuals. This can include natural disturbances such as insect and disease infestations, as well as human-caused disturbance or habitat modification. In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions and past action effects are reflected in existing condition or baseline habitat for each species. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects (CEQ 2005).

Cumulative effects to the aquatic resource were evaluated across the collection of 6th level watersheds affected by treatment, as described in the project S&W report. Cumulative effects to wildlife were evaluated by looking at potential impacts across all ownerships within the project area (five analysis areas).

Activities that are most likely to have cumulative effects include timber harvest, wild and prescribed fire and activities that would be expected to result in long-term changes to forest or non-forest communities. Anticipated cumulative effects that are expected to occur under each of the alternatives during the analysis period (2001-2026) are displayed in table 6 and discussed in narrative form below. Two thousand and one was chosen as the beginning of the analysis period because it includes the prescribed burning that was implemented on the Forest for restoration of fire-mediated communities. Because it may take 15 years to implement proposed burning, 2026 was chosen as the end of the analysis period.


18

Table 6. Cumulative effects summary

Activity

Analysis Area Total

23,729 Ac. Britton Branch

6,315 Ac.

Cherry Tree 2,125 Ac.

Granny Branch

4,146 Ac.

Pooler 2,033 Ac.

Rock House 9,110 Ac

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Timber Harvest 2082 3 0 0 176 4 0 0 336 4 7202 3 Prescribed Burning 1,004 16 715 34 0 0 0 0 775 9 2,494 17 Wildfire 596 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,705 30 3,301 14 Transmission Line 0 0 0 0 2 <1 0 0 0 0 2 <1 Opening Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 1 68 <1 Wells1 11 <1 19 <1 3 <1 0 0 21 <1 53 <1 NNIS3 Herbicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 <1 40 <1 Proposed Action 1,297 21 714 34 704 17 545 27 2,406 26 5,666 24 Total Area Affected4 2,112 33 734 34 885 21 545 27 5,576 61 9,852 42

1-Each well location affects up to ½ acre so for each acre displayed, a total of 2 wells have or will be developed 2-Includes 85 acres of past harvest and 123 acres of future harvest 3-NNIS-Non-native Invasive Species 4-Only shows acres affected, as past and proposed prescribed burning occurs on the same site

Timber Harvest – While it is not possible to estimate the amount of timber harvest that will occur on private land, it is assumed that some harvest will occur. This would likely include a combination of both commercial and non-commercial harvest and for the purpose of this analysis; it is assumed that levels of harvest on private land within the next 15 years may occur on up to 1 percent of the private lands. Also all private land harvest would be expected to be widely scattered and overall, there would be very little change in the mix of forested age classes on non-federal land.

There have been 85 acres of past timber harvest on NFS lands and it is anticipated that within the next five years, another 635 acres of harvest will occur. While approximately one-third of this will be done non-commercially, all harvest involves a Shelterwood/2 age harvest with reserves, which will create early successional habitat on the acreage affected. Of the total acres treated, 334 acres are designed to promote ruffed grouse habitat within the Rockhouse analysis area.

Prescribed Burning – A total of approximately 3,900 acres of prescribed burning has occurred within the analysis areas in the last 10 years including approximately 750 acres in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2010 and 1,000 acres in 2007. All past and anticipated future prescribed burning occurs on NFS lands and involves restoration/maintenance of fire mediated communities. As described under indirect effects of treatment, over the long-term, burning is expected to result in a mosaic of burning conditions and a patchwork of successional stages (USDA-FS 2000).

JEC Transmission Line – A total of 1,300 feet of transmission line are being constructed along the southern boundary of the Granny’s Branch area. Treatment involves clearing and establishment of herbaceous vegetation on a 50-ft. right-of-way (ROW), which will affect approximately 2 acres of forested habitat, as well as long-term maintenance of the line.

Leslie County Telephone Line Maintenance – Optic lines would be installed and maintained in Leslie County. Lines would be hunt from existing poles or buried in existing road ROW. Burn


19

units would not be affected, but private land in the Rockhouse analysis area may be affected. Because all work will occur within existing ROWs there would be no change in forest habitat and any disturbance effects would be short-term in nature.

Windstream Line Installation/Maintenance – Install and maintain fiber optic lines. Lines would be buried in existing road ROWs or hung from existing poles. No burn units would be affected, although segments of ROWs within the Cherry Tree (1.1 mile), Granny’s Branch (2.0 miles) and Britton Branch (2.8 miles) analysis areas would be affected. Because all treatments would occur within existing ROWs, wildlife habitat will be unchanged and any disturbance-related effects would be short-term.

Opening Maintenance – The Rockhouse area includes approximately 68 acres of wildlife openings. These openings are maintained to provide wildlife cover and forage and annual maintenance involves mowing to reduce woody vegetation and maintaining desired grasses and forbs. This is an on-going treatment that is expected to continue in the future. Past treatment has also involved 40 acres of herbicide to reduce non-native invasive species (NNIS).

Well Development – Oil and gas development has been on-going and there are currently 103 wells within the analysis area, including 60 active gas wells, 4 that are oil and gas combined, 6 abandoned and 33 that are no longer producing. In addition, there are currently 3 new wells that are being permitted and would likely be developed during the analysis period. A total of 106 wells are expected to occur within the analysis area during the analysis period. Each well affects approximately ¼ to ½ acre of forest and adverse effects to wildlife include loss of forested habitat on the acreage affected, as well as long-term avoidance of the area for species sensitive to disturbance.

Wildfire – Approximately 3,300 acres or 14 percent of the analysis area has been affected by wildfire since 1998. Most of this (2,335 acres) was associated with the 2005 Gilberts Creek in the Rockhouse area. While there was one 330-acre fire in Britton Branch (2006), the remainder occurred as smaller fires between 3 and 20 acres in size. The burning intensity of all fires varied and included lightly burned areas, as well as areas where the fire consumed pockets of the overstory.

Cumulatively during the analysis period, a total of approximately 44 percent of the analysis area will be affected, whereas some disturbance will have occurred on between 27 and 61 percent of the individual analysis areas. However, over 80 percent of the past and anticipated future activity has involved re-introduction of fire that is designed to promote long-term sustainability of the forest. As a result, only 3-4 percent of the individual analysis areas have been affected by disturbances associated with timber harvest, opening maintenance or oil and gas development, whereas another 14 percent has been affected by wildfire. Also, although there were pockets of mortality associated with past wildfire, effects were largely short-term in nature due to re-establishment of understory vegetation within 2-3 years following the fire. As a result, only approximately 5 percent of each of the analysis areas experienced long-term impacts during the analysis period (timber harvest, oil and gas development, opening maintenance, transmission line, some wildfire). Due to the scattered nature of the sites and widespread availability of unaffected habitat, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated.


20

III. BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

Species and Critical Habitat Considered Twenty three (23) federally listed species were identified as potentially occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest by the USFWS, Kentucky Field Office, in a letter dated January 17, 2012 (USFWS 2012a). These species are listed in table 7.

Table 7. Daniel Boone National Forest proposed and federally listed species Scientific Name Common Name Status

Mammals Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Endangered Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat Endangered Plecotus townsendii virginianus Virginia Big-eared Bat Endangered

Fish Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter Endangered Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner Endangered Chrosomus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace Threatened Etheostoma susanae Cumberland Darter Proposed

Mussels Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Elktoe Endangered Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Endangered Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell Endangered Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel Endangered Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell Endangered Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell Endangered Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox Endangered2 Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket Endangered Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase1 Proposed Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel Endangered Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel Endangered

Plants Arenaria cumberlandensis Cumberland Sandwort Endangered Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary Threatened Schwalbea americana American Chaffseed Endangered Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod Threatened Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea Threatened Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover Endangered

1-Was not l isted on the January 2012 letter but proposed for l isting (USDI-FWS 2011g) 2- Officially l isted as endangered on 2/14/2012 (USDI-FWS 2012b).

A number of sources were reviewed in order to identify which of the species listed in table 8 could potentially be affected by the proposed actions including: (1) USFWS species list by county (USDI-FWS 2012a), (2) the Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission (KYNPC) rare plant


21

database, and (3) the Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) species accounts, available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Based on this review, 22 of the species listed in table 3 have ranges that are well outside this projects area of influence. As a result, these species will not be evaluated further in this biological assessment. These species, the rationale for their dismissal and the effect determination are displayed in table 8.

Table 8. Federally listed and proposed species eliminated from detailed evaluation Scientific Name Common Name Rationale for Dismissal Determination

Mammals

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005e) No Effect

Plecotus townsendii virginianus

Virginia Big-eared Bat

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005f) No Effect

Fish

Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005c) No Effect

Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005d) No Effect

Chrosomus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace Current distribution is not within area of influence

(USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005a) No Effect

Etheostoma susanae Cumberland Darter Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005b) No Effect

Mussels Alasmidonta atropurpurea Cumberland Elktoe Current distribution is not within area of influence

(USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005g) No Effect

Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005h) No Effect

Cumberlandia monodonta Spectaclecase

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005t). No Effect

Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005i) No Effect

Epioblasma capsaeformis Oyster Mussel Current distribution is not within area of influence

(USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005j) No Effect

Epioblasma florentina walkeri Tan Riffleshell Current distribution is not within area of influence

(USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005k) No Effect

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell Current distribution is not within area of influence

(USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005l) No Effect

Lampsilis abrupta Pink Mucket Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005o) No Effect

Pegias fabula Little-wing Pearlymussel

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005p) No Effect

Villosa trabalis Cumberland Bean Pearlymussel

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYCWCS 2005q) No Effect

Plants Arenaria cumberlandensis

Cumberland Sandwort

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011a) No Effect

http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp


22

Table 8. Federally listed and proposed species eliminated from detailed evaluation Scientific Name Common Name Rationale for Dismissal Determination

Conradina verticillata Cumberland Rosemary

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011b) No Effect

Schwalbea americana American Chaffseed Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011c) No Effect

Solidago albopilosa White-haired Goldenrod

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011d) No Effect

Spiraea virginiana Virginia Spiraea Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011e) No Effect

Trifolium stoloniferum Running Buffalo Clover

Current distribution is not within area of influence (USDI-FWS 2011b, KYNPC 2011f) No Effect

Four stream segments occurring on or adjacent to the Daniel Boone National Forest were designated as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service August 31, 2004 (USDI-FWS 2004b). These four stream segments are listed in table 9.

Table 9. Daniel Boone National Forest designated critical habitat

Stream Name Associated Species Administrative Location Designated Segment

*Buck Creek Cumberlandian combshell and oyster mussel

London Ranger District

Buck Creek mainstem from State Road 192 bridge, upstream to the State Road 328 bridge

*Marsh Creek Cumberland elktoe Stearns Ranger District

Marsh Creek mainstem from its confluence with the Cumberland River, upstream to State Road 92 bridge

*Rock Creek Cumberland elktoe Stearns Ranger District

Rock Creek mainstem from its confluence with White Oak Creek, upstream to River Mile 15.9

*Sinking Creek Cumberland elktoe London Ranger District

Sinking Creek mainstem from its confluence with the Rockcastle River, upstream to its confluence with Laurel Branch

Because there is no designated critical habitat on the Redbird RD or within affected watersheds, the proposed actions will have No Effect on critical habitat and their associated federally listed threatened and endangered species.

Species Evaluated in Detail Of the 23 species identified by the USFWS (USDI-FWS 2012a, USDI-FWS 2012b), only the Indiana bat and snuffbox are known to occur and/or have suitable habitat within or near the area of influence of the proposed project.

Indiana Bat The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) was originally listed in danger of extinction under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, and is currently listed as endangered under the


23

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The current Recovery Priority of the Indiana Bat is 8, which means the species has a moderate degree of threat and high recovery potential. As of October 2006, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) had records of extant winter populations at approximately 281 hibernacula in 19 states and 269 maternity colonies in 16 states. The 2009 winter census estimate of the population was 387,835 (USDI-FWS 2009), which is a 17 percent reduction since 2005.

The distribution, critical habitat description, life history, threats to recovery and forest habitat for the Indiana bat are summarized on pages 10 to 26 of the Forest Plan Biological Opinion (USDI-FWS 2004a), pages 8-10 of the Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA-FS 2003c) and pages 9-74 of the Revised Biological Opinion (USDI-FWS 2007).

Roosting and Forging habitat As described in the Forest biological opinion, revised biological opinion and Forest programmatic biological assessment (USDI-FWS 2004a, USDI-FWS 2007 and USDA FS 2004c), spring, summer and fall roosting habitat for Indiana bats consists primarily of dead trees with exfoliating bark or split boles, but live trees with large dead branches or damaged limbs, or preferred species with flaking bark such as white oak or hickory are also used. Single individuals or small groups of Indiana bats can also be found roosting in the warmer parts of caves during the summer and early fall, but these roosts appear to be temporary in nature (USDA FS 2004c).

Preferred roost trees are larger than nine inches diameter at breast height and are located in forested habitat where the degree of overstory canopy closure ranges from 60 to 80 percent. In general, it appears that the largest available trees with exfoliating bark or cavities, with at least some exposure to sunlight are most likely to be used as maternity roosts (Romme et al. 1995). Although the canopy may be largely closed, the roost tree selected often occurs near an opening that allows for solar radiation to reach the roost tree (USDI-FWS 2007). Sites with more closed canopy conditions may be used as alternate roosts during periods when temperatures are high or during inclement weather (USDI-FWS 2007).

Suitable roosting and foraging habitat and potential maternity habitat for the Indiana bat occur throughout the DBNF. Roost tree monitoring on the Forest in 1996 indicated that the majority of roost trees used by Indiana bats during the autumn months were located in stands greater than 50 years of age with relatively closed canopies, in natural canopy gaps, and in sites that had received a prescribed burn (Kiser and Elliott 1996 In USDA-FS 2003c). Summer maternity colonies, consisting of females and their young have been documented on NFS lands on the Cumberland (3 sites) and Stearns (1 site) Ranger Districts and at one site within the proclamation boundary on the Redbird Ranger District (including one in the Britton Branch analysis area).

Winter Habitat During winter, Indiana bats are limited to suitable underground hibernacula with highly restrictive temperature requirements. The majority of these sites are caves located in karst areas of the east-central United States; however, Indiana bats also hibernate in other cave-like locations such as abandoned mines (USDI-FWS 2007). Prior to entering the hibernacula in the fall, bats swarm near the entrance. This swarming activity is related to mating and may continue for several weeks (USDI-FWS 2007). Swarming occurs again in the spring prior to leaving the hibernacula. Recent work in Missouri (Romme et al. 2002)) and Kentucky (Kiser and Elliott 1996 and Gumbert 2001 In USDI-FWS 2007) have found that Indiana bats range up to 10 miles from hibernacula during the autumn and spring swarming periods.


24

On the DBNF, suitable winter habitat for Indiana bats is largely confined to areas where limestone caves occur including large sections of the Stanton RD, the northern part of the London RD and smaller portions of the Morehead, Somerset, Stearns and Redbird Ranger Districts. Although the DBNF does not contain any designated critical habitat or Priority I hibernacula, it does contain 8 priority II caves that harbor 30,000 or more Indiana bats, 16 Priority III caves that support 100 or more bats each winter and approximately 30 or more Priority III caves, that contain fewer than 35 Indiana bats in the winter (USDI-FWS 2004a). Seven of the eight Priority II caves and seven of the sixteen Priority III caves are located on the DBNF, whereas most of the others are on private land immediately adjacent to the Forest (USDI-FWS 2007).

Since 1990, the DBNF has harbored 20 to 25 percent of the known Indiana bat winter population in Kentucky and based on winter population estimates, it is estimated that the DBNF provides winter habitat for about 3 percent of the range-wide Indiana bat population (USDI-FWS 2007).

Threats Threats to the Indiana bat vary seasonally. At the hibernacula, threats include modification to caves, mines and surrounding areas that change airflow and microclimate in the hibernacula. Human disturbance and vandalism pose significant threats during hibernation through direct mortality and by inducing arousal, which depletes fat reserves. Natural catastrophes can also have a significant effect during winter because of the concentration of individuals in a relatively few sites (USDI-FWS 2007).

During summer months, possible threats are related to a loss or degradation of habitat and disturbance. Also because maternity colonies occupy landscapes that are predominated forested, forest fragmentation is a threat. Retention of large snags and preservation of over-mature trees to provide for a sustained supply of snags is also essential to maintain summer habitat for tree-roosting bats (USDI-FWS 2007). In addition to these threats, collisions with man-made objects, climate change and white nose syndrome (WNS) are increasingly being identified as significant threats to the future recovery of the Indiana bat (USDI-FWS 2011c). White-nose syndrome, a disease that affects hibernating bats is of particular concern, as it continues to spread rapidly and 11 cave-hibernating bats, including the Indiana bat, are already affected by or are at risk from WNS. Also, WNS has killed more than one million bats in the eastern United States, including as many as 90 to 100 percent of the bats in some hibernacula (USDI-FWS 2011d).

White nose syndrome was documented on April 13, 2011, in Trigg County, Kentucky, approximately 140 miles from the Redbird RD. It was also confirmed in western West Virginia during the winter of 2010/2011 and is suspected to occur in caves in northern Tennessee (USDI-FWS 2011e and USDI-FWS 2011f).

Project Area Habitat

Winter Habitat The closest limestone cave that provides critical Indiana bat habitat (Bat Cave) is located over 70 miles from the project area, whereas table 10 displays the proximity of the closest priority Indiana bat hibernacula to the project area.


25

Table 10. Proximity of priority Indiana bat hibernacula to project area Cave Status County Proximity to the Project Area

Line Fork Cave* Priority 1 Letcher >25 miles to the southeast Smokehole* Priority 2 Rockcastle >30 miles to the west Sparkle** Priority 3 Lee 21 miles to the northwest Ash** Priority 4 Lee 23 miles to the northwest

*-USDI-FWS 2007 **-Forest GIS Cave Layer and 2005 survey data

Field surveys of treatment units, combined with surveys associated with other projects in or near the treatment units did not identify any limestone caves. Additionally, the project area does not contain karst topography and sandstone is the dominant rock strata within and adjacent to treatment units. The absence of limestone or karst topography combined with the insoluble nature of sandstone, essentially eliminate the likelihood that the project area would provide caves suitable for bat hibernacula. While there are no caves within the project area, there are several abandoned mines including one in the Britton Branch 1 unit. Based on a Forest inventory, this site contains abandoned buildings that were part of a processing facility, 3 acres of overburden material and three portals that are back filled and partially collapsed. As a result it is unlikely that this site contains conditions suitable for bat hibernacula and the closest known hibernaculum is over 21 miles from the project area.

Summer Habitat Because of its predominantly forested nature and widespread availability of potential roost trees, suitable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat occurs within and adjacent to all treatment units. Additionally, a maternity roost tree was found on the district in July of 2007 and was active for that season. This site is located approximately ¼ mile west of the Britton Branch 1 Unit in the head of Rices Fork. The site was reviewed in the fall of 2010 to assess the conditions at the roost. As shown in figure 3 and figure 4, there was no bark remaining above 5 feet and bark at the base of the tree was almost gone. As of April 21, 2011, half of this tree has broken off and the remaining trunk does not have bark. Consequently, it is unlikely the site is being utilized as a roost site, although monitoring of the site will continue. Based on this documentation and availability of roosting and foraging habitat, the project area is considered suitable occupied Indiana bat habitat.


26

Figure 3. Base of maternity roost tree

Figure 4. Maternity roost tree (dark patches on tree are stain)


27

Environmental Effects

No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Because there are no activities proposed under this alternative there will be no direct effects to the Indiana bat. However because vegetation diversity and structural conditions would change, indirect effects to Indiana bat habitat would occur. In the short term (10 years), there will be little change in Indiana bat habitat; however, in the absence of fire, oak and pine communities would continue to decline and fire-mediated species such as red maple would continue to increase. The understory and midstory would continue to become more cluttered, with shade-tolerant species such as red maple and yellow poplar increasing. Over the long term, the cluttered understory and midstory and closed canopy conditions would provide less desirable Indiana bat roosting and foraging habitat. Also oak, which is a preferred roost species, would continue to decline on mesic sites.

Cumulative Effects Anticipated cumulative effects under no action are displayed in table 6 and discussed under the Cumulative Effects Section of this analysis. As described, by 2026, approximately 6,500 acres or 27 percent of the forested land within the project area will have been affected by timber harvest, prescribed burning, wildfire, and oil and gas development. However, there are no major land use changes anticipated and the availability and distribution of Indiana bat habitat will remain relatively unchanged across all ownerships. As a result, there are no long-term cumulative effects to this species or its habitat anticipated.

In addition to anticipated cumulative effects described previously, potential effects from White Nose Syndrome (WNS), a fungus linked to the death of thousands of bats in New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts was considered. A Forest-wide evaluation (USDA-FS 2008) was completed that looked at the status of WNS in Kentucky. It also assessed potential impacts and evaluated the need to re-initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although WNS has been recently documented in Kentucky, there is nothing to suggest WNS in conjunction with past and on-going, management actions of the DBNF that would adversely affect the Indiana bat.

No-action Determination Although implementation of No Action will result in less diverse forest conditions, there will be little change in existing roosting and foraging habitat. As a result and considering no treatments are proposed that could result in harm or harassment, a No Effect determination is made for the No-action alternative.

Proposed Action Activities proposed under this alternative are displayed in table 2 and general effects discussed above. Implementation of DB-FIRE-8 prohibits prescribed burning from May through July, which is considered the core summer use period. Restricting burning during this period also reduces the likelihood that non-volant bats would be affected. However, because April 1 coincides with the beginning of summer habitat occupation and considering summer use continues until September 15, proposed activities could have adverse direct impacts to the Indiana bat during these periods. The following is a discussion of direct and indirect impacts anticipated.


28

Direct Effects Effects to Roosting Bats

Anticipated direct effects to the Indiana bat and its habitat are discussed in the Forest biological assessment (USDA-FS 2003c), the supplemental information report to the programmatic biological opinion (USDA-FS-2004c), the Forest programmatic biological opinion (USDI-FWS 2004a) and the revised biological opinion (USDI-FWS 2007). Potential direct effects to non-hibernating bats include disturbance due to line layout and construction, ignition and burning, or mop-up activities. Potential effects during line layout and construction include primarily human disturbance and associated noise, although these activities could also result in removal of a roost tree that poses a safety hazard. Either of these activities could cause a bat to alter its normal behavior pattern and flush from its roost, making it more susceptible to predation and result in possible mortality. However, over 83 percent of the line involves using existing roads or streams and less than 3 acres of understory vegetation would be affected. As a result, potential disturbance would only occur for a short period of time when crews are in the area and the risk of impact is considered minimal (USDI-FWS-2004a).

Effects during ignition and burning include disturbance from crews and/or the helicopter, both of which would remain in the area for several hours until the burn is complete and effects include disturbance similar to that described above. In addition, mortality could result should a bat flush from an undiscovered roost and became exposed to heavy smoke and high heat conditions, resulting in mortality or injury (Dickenson et al. 2010). However, implementation of Forest standards and guidelines and PDFs that restrict burning during primary maternity period and core summer months are expected to greatly reduce risks. Also burning techniques can be used to reduce potential impacts. For example, ridge ignition, a tactic used on the DBNF, results in a reduction in average fire line intensities relative to other ignition tactics (Dickenson et al. 2010). Also, burning when fuel and wind conditions do not allow for intense burning, as is the case with the proposed action also helps to reduce potential direct effects, as well as reduce impacts to habitat (see PDF BMP-1 and 4).

Effects during mop-up include harassment and harm resulting from disturbance while the integrity of the fires line is being assured. In addition, standing snags that are on fire or smoldering could be felled during mop-up operations and harm or harassment could result to any Indiana bats remaining in the tree. However, disturbance will only occur for a short period of time and because the possibility of a bat remaining following burning is remote, mop up is believed to present a very minimal risk to Indiana bats (USDI-FWS-2004a).

Effects to foraging bats Although there may be some residual smoke in small areas that are still smoldering, because burning will occur during the day and considering that there are no hibernacula near the project area, there are no direct effects to foraging or swarming bats anticipated.

Effects to bats in caves, mines and swarming bats There are no caves or suitable hibernacula within or near the project area and the closest known Indiana bat hibernacula is over 20 miles away. As a result, there are no effects to hibernating bats anticipated.


29

Indirect Effects Indirect effects of proposed burning are discussed in the Supplemental Information report to the Programmatic Biological Opinion (USDA-FS-2004c) and the Revised Forest biological opinion (USDI-FWS 2007). Potential adverse effects discussed, include alteration of foraging habitat due to the reduction in understory vegetation, and a possible loss of suitable roost trees. However any reduction in habitat would be short term in nature (1 season). Also fire has been shown to improve bat habitat through snag production for roosting (Fire Science 2010). So while some short-term impacts to roosting habitat exist, proposed burning would also result in long-term benefits to Indiana bat roosting habitat.

The landscapes in Kentucky developed under more frequent burning by Native Americans and early pioneers that resulted in establishment of fire-mediated communities that provided the open canopy conditions preferred by Indiana bats for roosting and foraging (Romme et al. 1995). The absence of controlled burning on a landscape scale, along with suppression of wildlife, has resulted in development of dense woody understory species such as red maple and yellow poplar, which over time, will replace preferred roost trees such as oak and hickory (Romme et al. 1995). Additionally, burning similar to that proposed has been shown to create the open canopy conditions preferred for Indiana bat foraging, as well as increase insect abundance (Lacki et al. 2009, Fire Science 2010). Consequently, treatments would be expected to result in a long-term improvement in Indiana bat foraging habitat on over 5,000 acres.

Because over 69 percent of proposed burning would occur in fie-mediated forest types that are currently in decline, re-introduction of fire would be expected to result in the restoration of these fire-dependent communities, and provide the more open canopy conditions preferred for both foraging and roosting (Romme et al. 1995, USDA-FS 2006). This is supported by roost tree monitoring on the DBNF, which showed that areas that had received a prescribed burn, were preferred by Indiana bats during the autumn months (USDI-FWS 2004a).

Cumulative Effects Anticipated cumulative effects under no action are displayed in table 6 and discussed under the Cumulative Effects Section of this analysis. As described, by 2026, approximately 9,700 acres or 41 percent of the forested land within the project area will have been affected by timber harvest, prescribed burning, wildfire, and oil and gas development. However, there are no major land use changes anticipated and the availability and distribution of Indiana bat habitat will remain relatively unchanged across all ownerships. As a result, and considering that almost 60 percent of the project area will be unaffected and that approximately 50 percent of the anticipated effects are expected to result in long-term improvement in fire-mediated communities, there are no significant cumulative effects to this species or its habitat anticipated.

In addition to anticipated cumulative effects described previously, potential effects from White Nose Syndrome (WNS), a fungus linked to the death of thousands of bats in New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts was considered. A Forest-wide evaluation (USDA-FS 2008) was completed that looked at the status of WNS in Kentucky. It also assessed potential impacts and evaluated the need to re-initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although WNS has been recently documented in Kentucky, implementation of proposed treatments will not affect its spread. Also, there is nothing to suggest WNS in conjunction with past, on-going, and planned management actions of the DBNF would affect the Indiana bat in a manner not previously disclosed and discussed (USDA-FS 2008).


30

Proposed Action Determination Because proposed burning could result in harm or harassment to the Indiana bat, a “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is made for the Indiana bat. However, this prescribed fire project is consistent with the actions and provisions outlined in the Forest Plan (USFS 2004a), the Biological Assessment and prescribed burning supplement (USDA FS 2004c) and the Biological Opinion FWS #7-0580. Additionally with implementation of PDFs, potential risks are greatly reduced. Proposed burning would also result in the open understory conditions preferred for Indiana bat roosting, as well as help to maintain oak, which provides preferred roost trees. As a result, implementation of the proposed action may result in long-term benefits to the Indiana bat and its habitat.

Snuffbox

Background The snuffbox is usually found in small to medium-sized creeks in areas with swift current, although it has also been found in lakes and some larger rivers. Adults often burrow deep in sand, gravel or cobble substrates, except when they are spawning or the females are attempting to attract host fish (USDI-FWS 2010).

Snuffbox are suspension feeders, typically feeding on algae, bacteria, detritus, microscopic animals, and dissolved organic material. The life cycle of the snuffbox, like most freshwater mussels involves the female expelling the glochidia, which then attach to the gills or fins of a specific host fish species to complete development into juvenile mussels. Using fish as a host species allows the snuffbox to move upstream and populate habitats it could not reach otherwise (USDI-FWS 2010). Juvenile snuffbox have successfully transformed on a number of darters, sculphin and minnows (USDI-FWS 2010) and maintaining water quality conditions and resident native fisheries are necessary to maintain or restore existing populations of this species.

Threats Threats include dams, which affect both upstream and downstream mussel populations by altering river flow patterns, changing water temperatures and by creating still water in which snuffbox cannot survive. Pollution associated with contaminants or pesticides, which can reduce water quality, is a threat in some areas, and sedimentation, which can suffocate freshwater mussels can lead to decreased growth, reproduction, and survival (USDI-FWS 2010).

Forest and Project Area Habitat The snuffbox has been documented in the South Fork Kentucky River drainage from Clay Leslie and Owsley Counties. Although not documented within the project area, it has been documented in drainages below the project area (KY CWCS 2005m). As a result, the RFT project area is considered suitable un-occupied snuffbox habitat.


31


No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Effects Determination Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative and because aquatic and riparian habitat will remain relatively unchanged, there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to this species anticipated. As a result, implementation of no action will have No Effect on the snuffbox.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct and indirect effects to fish and aquatic habitat are discussed under the Treatment Effects Section of this analysis. As described, while potential exists for stream and water quality related impacts from proposed line construction and burning, with implementation of project and Forest design features identified in table 4, impacts would be greatly reduced. Also based on the analysis provided, including Forest monitoring of similar burning, it is unlikely that water quality or aquatic habitat within the project area would be adversely affected by activities proposed.

Cumulative Effects The majority of the sediment and water quality impacts within affected watersheds are a result of past activities. More specifically, the largest increases in stream sedimentation are from existing “Past and Present” land use changes that have occurred over the last 200 years. A majority of these changes have been the conversion of land from forest to either roads or low-density urban use. Future sources of stream sedimentation might include minor stream sediment increases from timber harvest or maintaining wildlife openings.

Within the affected watersheds, the cumulative percent stream sediment increases over current conditions are estimated to be less than 1.3 percent. These changes are often offset by other restoration projects in the watersheds (i.e., road and OHV trail closures). Although past, present, and foreseeable future actions will increase sedimentation over baseline conditions, there is no measurable change in Watershed Condition Rank or the Species Sediment Load index listed in the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 2004a p. 3-20) from this alternative (Cotton 2011).

In summary, although current levels of sedimentation would continue to occur on all ownerships, and some increases in sedimentation would occur, with implementation of PDFs and Forest Plan standards and guidelines, proposed treatments would not adversely affect water quality, or macro-invertebrate diversity and abundance, and there are no long-term cumulative impacts anticipated.

Proposed Action Determination There are no direct affects to this species anticipated. While potential exists for short-term affects due to sedimentation, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, a May Effect, Not likely to Adversely Affect determination is made for the snuffbox under the proposed action.

• Protection of stream and riparian habitat has been emphasized during all phases of this project. Also, monitoring shows that much of the riparian areas will be unburned or lightly burned, and streamside vegetation will be maintained.

• Implementation of Forest Plan standards and project design features will minimize potential for sediment to reach streams or river habitat.


32

• Forest monitoring of burning similar to that proposed, indicates that impacts to water quality or the aquatic community are not likely to occur.

IV. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This Biological Evaluation (BE) includes a brief description of the habitat for those species found on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species (RFSS) list for the DBNF and an analysis of potential impacts associated with each alternative being considered in the RFT Environmental Assessment (EA). The analysis evaluates the impacts of proposed alternatives in order to (1) avoid or minimize impacts to RFSS, whose viability has been identified as a concern (FSM 2670.32) and (2) if impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole (FSM 2670.32).

Species Considered A total of 41 species including 4 mammals, 4 birds, 12 fish and 10 mussels, 5 gastropods, 1 crustacean, 6 insects, and 29 plants will be evaluated in this report. Table 11 summarizes the status of these species within the RFT project area and each species is placed in one of the following three categories depending on their known occurrence and available habitat; (1) species occurrence has been documented and the project area is considered occupied habitat, (2) occurrence has not been documented, but suitable habitat is present, and (3) the project area does not contain suitable habitat and/or is outside the current known range of the species.


33

Table 11. Status of sensitive and proposed endangered species

Common Name Scientific Name Suitable

Occupied (1)

Suitable Unoccupied

(2)

Unsuitable Habitat or Outside Range

(3) Mammals

Rafinesque's big eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii X Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius X Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leib ii X Long-tailed shrew Sorex dispar blitchi X

Birds Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis X Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus X Appalachian Berwick's wren Thryomanes bewickii altus X

Fish Western sand darter Ammocrypta clara X Eastern sand darter Ammocrypta pellucida X Cumberland Johnny darter Etheostoma susanae X Ashy darter Etheostoma cinereum X Spotted darter Etheostoma maculatum X Tippecanoe darter Etheostoma tippecanoe X Mountain brook lamprey Echthyomyzon greeleyi X Northern madtom Noturus stigmosus X Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni X Longhead darter Percina macrocephala X Olive darter Percina squamata X Southern cavefish Typhlichthys subterraneus X

Mussels Cumberland papershell Anodontoides denigratus X Spectaclecase3 Cumberlandia monodonta X

Long-solid Fusconaia subrotunda subrotunda X

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus X

Tennessee clubshell Pleurobema oviforme X Pyramid pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum X Fluted Kidneyshell Ptchobranchus subtentum X Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica X Salamander mussel Simpsonaias ambigua X Purple lilliput Toxolasma lividus X

Gastropods Glossy supercoil Paravitrea placentula X


34



Occupied (1)

Suitable Unoccupied

(2)


(3) Shortspire hornsnail Pleurocera curta X Domed ancylid Rhodacme elatior X Delicate vertigo Vertigo bollesiama X Cupped vertigo Vertigo clappi X

Crustacean Big South Fork Crayfish Cambarus bouchardi X

Insects Helma's net-spinning caddisfly Cheumatopsyche helma X

Cliffline caddisfly Manophylax butleri X Pygmy snaketail Ophiogomphus howei X Appalachian grizzled skipper Pyrgus wyanddot X Diana fritillary Speyeria diana X Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia X

Vascular Plants Rockcastle aster Aster saxicastellii X Spreading yellow false foxglove Aureolaria patula X

American barberry Berberis canadensis X Juniper sedge Carex juniperorum X Small spreading pogonia Cleistes bifaria X Stoneroot Collinsonia verticillata X1 Kentucky Lady's slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense X French's shooting star Dodecatheon frenchii X Eggert’s sunflower Helianthus eggertii X Mountain heartleaf Hexastylis contracta X Butternut Juglans cinerea X1 Short’s (Globe) bladderpod Lesquerella globosa X Large-flowered Barbara's buttons Marshallia grandiflora X

Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata X Canby's mountain-lover Paxistima canbyi X White fringeless orchid Platanthera integrilabia X Bay starvine Schisandra glabra X Rock skullcap Scutellaria saxatilis X

Southern Oconee bells Shortia galacifolia var. galacifolia X

Blue Ridge catchfly Silene ovata X


35



Occupied (1)

Suitable Unoccupied

(2)


(3) Royal catchfly Silene regia X Little Mountain meadowrue Thalictrum mirabile X Cutleaved meadow parsnip Thaspium pinnatifidum X Sand grape Vitis rupestris X

Non-vascular Plants Closter's brook-hypnum Plagiochila sullivantii closteri X Austin’s leafy liverwort Plagiochila austinii X

Sullivant's leafy liverwort Plagiochila sullivantii var sullivantii X

A liverwort Radula sullivantii X Agoyan cataract moss Scopelophila cataractae X

1-Kentucky state nature preserve commission 2-documented from project area county in Kentucky nature preserve county report 3-Proposed Endangered

Species Evaluated in Detail Of the 42 species considered, 11 species either have been documented within the project area or the project area is within the range of that species and it contains suitable habitat. The species evaluated in detail in this assessment include; Rafinesque big-eared bat, eastern small-footed bat, eastern sand darter, Diana fritillary, small spreading pogonia, stoneroot, butternut, Closter’s brook-hypnum, Austin’s leafy liverwort, Sullivant’s leafy liverwort, and Agoyan cataract moss. The following is a discussion of the preferred habitat, forest and project area status and environmental effects for these 12 species.

MAMMALS The RFT project area provides habitat for two sensitive bat species. Because no known hibernacula exist and due to similar foraging and roosting requirements, these species are evaluated collectively.

Rafinesque big-eared bat

Background The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is an adaptive species with wide distribution. It lives in forested areas and has been documented roosting in limestone caves, sandstone caves, sandstone rockshelters, abandoned mine portals, cisterns, the undersides of bridges, abandoned buildings, and barn lofts/attics (Barbour and Davis 1974; USFS 1993). Its range extends from Kentucky to Florida and from Virginia to Texas (Sealander 1990; Barbour and Davis 1974, USFS 1993). These bats hibernate in twilight zone of limestone and sandstone caves; and they also use sandstone rockshelters and abandoned structures for maternity colonies (Sealander 1990).


36

Threats to Rafinesque’s big-eared bats in winter and summer habitats are not fully understood, but could come from natural events such as severe inclement weather, forest fire, disease, or a catastrophic natural event that causes significant habitat alteration (e.g., cave wall and ceiling collapse caused by natural geologic erosion or earthquake).

Although summer habitat is not fully understood, forest type and condition surrounding the known Rafinesque’s big-eared bat shelters include 50 basal area of mature trees with average diameter of 14 inches and height of about 55 feet, with mature tree species consisting of American beech, sugar maple, shagbark hickory, and yellow-poplar. Suitable mature forest habitat is widespread and exists on over 50 percent of the project area.

Forest and Project Area Status Presently, no maternity colony (natural or human made) or hibernacula are known to occur within the project area. However, this species has been documented within a mile of the Britton Branch and Pooler units and within 3 miles of Rockhouse, Cherry Tree, and Granny’s Branch analysis units. As a result, and considering the predominance of mature forest conditions (see table 1 and table 2), the RFT project area is considered occupied Rafinesque big-eared bat habitat.

Eastern small-footed bat

Background The eastern small-footed bat is distributed from eastern Canada and New England south to Alabama and Georgia and west to Oklahoma (Harvey 1999). Individuals are known to inhabit buildings and caves, and are found in the expansion joints of concrete highway bridges in the summer (Harvey 1999, Natureserve 2008). Additionally, they are known to roost beneath rocks and cave floors during summer and winter months (Barbour and Davis 1974).

Food habits are thought to be almost exclusively flying insects associated with riparian habitats and foraging habitat is often associated with riparian areas, although they may occur elsewhere. Additionally, summer habitat may be periodically used as bats move from one area to another.

Forest and Project Area Status The eastern small-footed bat likely occurs in forested areas throughout the DBNF. Reproducing females have been found in eastern Kentucky, but the species is believed to be most common on the DBNF during the winter. Presently, no maternity colony (natural or human made) or other cave-like habitat is known to occur within the project area. However, there was a 2001 documentation of this species in the Hals Fork drainage, 2 miles north of the Rockhouse unit. As a result and considering the presence of suitable foraging habitat, there is a high probability that the RFT project area is occupied by this species.


No Action Because there are no activities proposed under this alternative there will be no direct effects to these species. However, because vegetation diversity and structural conditions would change, indirect effects to habitat would occur. In the short term (10 years), there will be little change in habitat, however, in the absence of fire, oak and pine communities would continue to decline and fire-mediated species such as red maple would continue to increase. The understory and midstory would continue to become more cluttered, with shade-tolerant species such as red maple and


37

yellow poplar. Over the long term, the cluttered understory and midstory and closed canopy conditions would provide less desirable foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects Anticipated cumulative effects under no action are displayed in table 6 and discussed under the Cumulative Effects Section of this analysis. As described, by 2026, approximately 6,500 acres or 27 percent of the forested land within the project area will have been affected by timber harvest, prescribed burning wildfire and oil and gas development. However there are no major land use changes anticipated and the availability and distribution of available habitat will remain relatively unchanged across all ownerships. As a result, there are no long-term cumulative effects to either species or their habitat anticipated.

In addition to anticipated cumulative effects described previously, potential effects from White Nose Syndrome (WNS), a fungus linked to the death of thousands of bats in New York, Connecticut, Vermont, and Massachusetts was considered. A Forest-wide evaluation (USDA-FS 2008) was completed that looked at the status of WNS in Kentucky. It also assessed potential impacts and evaluated the need to re-initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although WNS has been recently documented in Kentucky, implementation of proposed treatments will not affect its spread. Also there is nothing to suggest WNS in conjunction with past, on-going or anticipated actions discussed here would affect either species.

No Action Determination Although implementation of no action will result in less diverse forest conditions, there will be little change in existing roosting and foraging habitat. As a result and considering no treatments are proposed that could directly harm individual bats, a No Impact determination is made for both the Rafinesque big-eared and eastern small footed bat under the No Action alternative.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Due to the likely presence of the Rafinesque’s big eared bat and suitable roosting/foraging habitat for the eastern small-footed bat, it is possible that burn areas could be occupied during treatment. So burning and line construction (see Treatment Effects) could result in direct effects, including disturbance and/or possible mortality. However potential impacts would be short term in nature (1-2 days). Also as described under treatment effects, burning within riparian areas and around suitable cliffline habitat will be greatly reduced and suitable foraging and roosting conditions will be maintained. As a result, and considering Forest Plan standards are in place to protect hibernacula discovered in the future, and considering that 73 and 78 percent of the project area cliffline and riparian habitat respectively will be left un-treated, the risk of impacts to these species is considered minimal.

Cumulative Effects Anticipated cumulative effects under no action are displayed in table 6 and discussed under the Cumulative Effects Section of this analysis. As described, by 2026, approximately 9,700 acres or 41 percent of the forested land within the project area will have been affected by timber harvest, prescribed burning, wildfire, and oil and gas development. However, there are no major land use changes anticipated and the availability and distribution of Indiana bat habitat will remain relatively unchanged across all ownerships. As a result, and considering that almost 60 percent of the project area will be unaffected and that approximately 50 percent of the anticipated effects are


38

expected to result in long-term improvement in fire mediated communities, there are no significant cumulative effects to these species or their habitat anticipated.

In addition to anticipated cumulative effects described previously, potential effects from White Nose Syndrome (WNS), a fungus linked to the death of thousands of bats in New York, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts was considered. A Forest-wide evaluation (USDA-FS 2008) was completed that looked at the status of WNS in Kentucky. It also assessed potential impacts and evaluated the need to re-initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Although WNS has been recently documented in Kentucky, implementation of proposed treatments will not affect its spread. Also there is nothing to suggest WNS in conjunction with past, on-going or anticipated actions discussed here would affect either species.

Proposed Action Determination Although short-term impacts to these species could occur, preferred project area rock/cliffline habitat will be largely unburned and the potential for adverse impacts is low. Also, suitable roosting habitat will be maintained and due to reduced clutter, foraging habitat may be improved in some areas. As a result and considering that implementation of Forest standards will minimize risks for harm or harassment should hibernacula be documented within the project area in the future, a May Impact individuals or habitat, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability determination is made for both the Rafinesque big-eared and eastern small footed bat.

FISH

Eastern Sand Darter

Background The eastern sand darter inhabits sandy areas of small creeks to large rivers. It is most abundant in larger sandy areas of moderate to large streams with currents not strong enough to wash away the sand (Trautman 1981 In USDA FS 2003a). It is also found frequenting the less turbulent, but clean swept margins of the main current over gravel and sand substrate (Burr and Warren 1986 In USDA FS 2003a).

Threats to this species include siltation, impoundment, mining and poor riparian management, all of which can affect water quality and preferred habitat conditions (Grandmaison and Mayasich 2004).

Forest and Project Area Status Although the eastern sand darter has not been documented within project area streams, recent documentation has occurred within Clay, Leslie and Owsley counties (http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/speciesInfo/speciesListCounty, Accessed 5/9/11) and it is likely that this species occurs within suitable habitat within one or more of the analysis units. As a result, the RFT project area is considered suitable occupied habitat for this species.

http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/speciesInfo/speciesListCounty


39


No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Effects Determination Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative and because aquatic and riparian habitat will remain relatively unchanged, there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to these species anticipated. As a result, implementation of No Action will have No Impact on these species.

Proposed Action Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to this species are the same as those described under the Snuffbox in section 3.

Proposed Action Determination There are no direct affects to this species anticipated. While potential exists for short-term affects due to sedimentation, based on the above analysis and the following rationale, a May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability determination is made for the Eastern sand darter under the proposed action.

• Protection of stream and riparian habitat has been emphasized during all phases of this project. Also monitoring shows that much of the riparian areas will be unburned or lightly burned and streamside vegetation will be maintained.

• Implementation of Forest Plan standards and project design features will minimize potential for sediment to reach streams or river habitat.

• Forest monitoring of burning similar to that proposed, indicates that impacts to water quality or the aquatic community are not likely to occur.

INSECTS

Diana Fritillary

Background On the Daniel Boone, this butterfly is found in open areas within the forest especially those that are open and well-lit. These conditions mimic open prairies and pine barrens from which the species is known further west and it may be found along grassland/forest edge or in forests that have been maintained in an open condition by repeated fires. The caterpillar feeds almost exclusively on violets and overwinters above-ground making them sensitive to spring and fall fires. Midstory removal and prescribed fire can create high quality foraging habitat for adults by increasing nectar sources. A variety of species are used, including common and swamp milkweeds, ironweed, red clover, coneflowers and butterfly bush. Individuals will use small openings and roadsides along forest edges in search of nectar plants, but do not go far from the woods (USDA-FS 2003b)

Forest and Project Area Status Although there is no known documentation within the project area, the Diana fritillary is known to occur throughout the DBNF and has been documented from Leslie and Owsley counties


40

(http://bioweb.wku.edu/faculty/Marcus/map_out.asp?species=04449) As a result and considering that several analysis areas and burn units contain suitable non-forest habitat (see table 1 and table 2), the project area is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.


No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects and Effects Determination Because there are no treatments proposed under this alternative, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated. As a result implementation of no action will have No Impact on the Diana fritillary.

Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Potential direct effects include short-term (one season/burn) disturbance and/or possible mortality during burning. Also if burning occurs in the spring, mortality to un-hatched larvae could occur. However because burning will involve a relatively slow moving backing fire, potential for mortality to mobile individuals is remote. Also, because a mosaic of burning conditions will result and considering herbaceous vegetation would re-establish within one season, suitable habitat would continue to be available. Because habitat for this species will be improved under this alternative (described below), it is likely the abundance and/or reproductive success will be improved over the long-term.

Effects of overstory and understory conditions from proposed burning were discussed in the Alternative Treatment Section of this analysis. As described, proposed burning is expected to increase the grass/forb understory and improve habitat for species that prefer or require woodlands with an herbaceous understory, as well as help maintain openings. Because this species utilizes openings and wooded grasslands, proposed burning would be expected to improve habitat on almost 25 percent of the project area non-forest habitat. As a result, treatments proposed are expected to result in a long-term improvement of suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects Potential cumulative effects were discussed under the Alternative Treatment Section and by 2026, it is anticipated that up to 25 percent of the suitable non-forested habitat may be affected under this alternative. However, future prescribed burning will occur in fire-mediated communities and both treatments will help to create understory conditions preferred by these species. Also, suitable habitat on private lands would remain largely unchanged. As a result, there are no significant cumulative effects anticipated and suitable habitat would continue to be available within all drainages where it currently exists.

Proposed Action Determination Implementation of the proposed action may directly affect individuals or result in mortality to un-hatched larvae. However, because burning involves a slow-moving backing fire, potential for mortality to mobile individuals would be reduced. Also, suitable habitat would be improved over the long term. As a result and considering 75 percent of the available habitat will be unaffected, implementation of the proposed action May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for this species.

http://bioweb.wku.edu/faculty/Marcus/map_out.asp?species=04449


41

VASCULAR PLANTS Because anticipated impacts to these species are similar, environmental effects to all three vascular plant species evaluated will be discussed collectively.

Small Spreading Pogonia

Background The Appalachian small spreading pogonia is known from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. It is known from numerous sites in at least 13 counties in eastern Kentucky. It generally occurs on dry soils, often at road cut or cliff edge, but is also known to occur in wet to moist grassy areas in the open. Large populations are documented from open, moist grassy areas in utility rights-of-way. Most of the small populations are associated with stream head wetlands, dry cliff edges or road banks of ridge roads.

Forest and Project Area Status Appalachian spreading pogonia is scattered across the Forest, occurring in colonies of several hundred plants or a few to single plants. The plant is known from about a dozen sites along ridge roads on the Stanton Unit of the Cumberland District and a single plant has been recorded on the Redbird Ranger District at the edge of a ridgetop road. Although not documented in the project area, suitable habitat exists and the RFT project is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.

Stoneroot

Background The plant may occur at the edge of forests on floodplain, habitat. It also inhabits forests ranging from moist, rich forests to rather dry oak forest (KYNHP 2011g).

Forest and Project Area Status This species has been documented on the DBNF and the Redbird district. While it has not been documented within the project area, suitable habitat exists and the RFT project area is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.

Butternut

Background The butternut grows on rich, moist soil and has an extensive range. It is found from New Brunswick to Minnesota and South Dakota, south to Georgia, the Florida panhandle, and Texas (Gleason & Cronquist 1991). The only significant threat to butternut is an exotic fungus (Sirococcus clavigignenti- juglandacearum) (Schlarbaum, S. E. http://www.invasive.org/symposium/schlarba.html December 28, 2009). Stems and branches of affected individuals that develop characteristic cankers usually die, or are easily broken during inclement weather (personal observation with Kim Tarter).

http://www.invasive.org/symposium/schlarba.html


42

Forest and Project Area Status Butternut is found throughout the Daniel Boone National Forest and is a common species on the Redbird Ranger District (personal observation with Kim Tarter). It is found on moist and rich soils along the banks of the Red Bird River and on north east-facing, moderate to steep slopes.


No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects and Determination Because there are no treatments proposed, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated. As a result, implementation of no action will have No Impact on the small spreading pogonia, stoneroot, or butternut.

Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Young butternut trees typically do not re-sprout following a top-killing fire (Farlee et al. 2009) and burning would eliminate any butternut regeneration consumed. Also, proposed burning could result in mortality of any stoneroot plants burned. However, a spring burn would be less likely to be harmful, as young plants would reproduce from a woody rhizome, whereas, a loss of seed production for a year could occur if a plant were burned during a fall burn. While proposed burning could also consume any small spreading pogonia that occur within the project area, because this species is found on moist sites that are less likely to burn, the likelihood that a small spreading pogonia would be killed is low.

While proposed burn units provide habitat for these species, they are found primarily in lower slope positions, riparian, floodplain habitat, or cliffline habitat. Considering that burning would start at the ridge top and gently back down the slope to keep fire intensity low where these species are most likely to occur, fire intensity and burning will be reduced in suitable habitat. Also, as described under alternative treatment effects, due to the reduced burning conditions that would occur in these areas, much of the understory vegetation would be left largely intact. Consequently, potential effects would be reduced and the likelihood of mortality to individual stoneroot and pogonia plants or young butternut trees is low.

The butternut is short-lived compared to many associated tree species, with a normal life span of less than 100 years. Additionally, if no disturbance such as fire, wind damage, or timber harvesting occurs to create open regeneration areas near aging butternuts, it may disappear from forest stands even if they do not contract the canker disease. Consequently, conservation of native butternut populations may be enhanced with management activities similar to those proposed that are designed to maintain existing trees in the best health possible, and provide opportunities for natural regeneration of new butternut trees (Woeste et. al. 2009).

Proposed Action Determination Proposed burning has the potential to kill stoneroot, small spreading pogonia, or young butternut trees that may occur on site. However, considering that no stoneroot or pogonia have been documented in the project area, that stoneroot reproduction would still occur on site following burning, that the moist conditions preferred by the small spreading pogonia would be less likely to burn and that proposed burning may help to maintain butternut over the long term,


43

implementation of the proposed action, a May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for these species.

NON-VASCULAR PLANTS Because of similar habitat requirements and anticipated impacts, environmental effects to non-vascular plants will be evaluated collectively.

Closter’s Brook-hypnum

Background Closter's brook-hypnum is known from a few scattered sites in the eastern United States. It is found generally attached to submerged rocks in streams. It may also be on rocks adjacent to streams and subject to wetting (Crum and Anderson 1981).

Forest and Project Area Status A single record for the DBNF exists for the Red River Gorge (Studlar and Snider 1989-rockhouse), but it may occur elsewhere on the Forest. Although not documented, the project area does provide suitable habitat. As a result, the RFT project area is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.

Austin’s Leafy Liverwort

Background, Forest and Project Area Status Austin’s leafy liverwort is found on shaded rocks often in mats of other bryophytes in the Appalachian chain. Two occurrences are known for Kentucky, one from Cumberland Falls State Resort Park (Norris 1967), McCreary-Whitley Counties, and one from the Red River Gorge area (Studlar and Snider 1989).

Although not documented from the Redbird District, the analysis units do provide suitable habitat and the project area is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.

Sullivant’s Leafy Liverwort

Background, Forest and Project Area Status Sullivant's leafy liverwort is found on shaded rocks often in mats of other bryophytes in the Appalachian chain. It is frequently found on moist, bryophyte-covered boulders or on rockhouse or cliff walls. It is most often found in crevices or on shady boulders where humidity is high but where water does not flow (Natureserve 2011, Accessed 5/9/11) and is known from Letcher and Wolfe counties in Kentucky. A single occurrence is known from the Red River Gorge area (Studlar and Snider 1989).

Although not documented from the Redbird District, the analysis units do provide suitable habitat and the project area is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.


44

Agoyan Cataract Moss

Background, Forest and Project Area Status Agoyan Cataract moss is a species associated with metal-containing substrates. It is considered rare in the United States (North Carolina, Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas) and elsewhere in the world (Mexico, Guatemala, western South American, Sumatra, Himalayas, central Africa). Recorded habit is “on thin soil over bare rock or roadcut near stream and on decomposed rock of roadcut at 2800-3000ft elevation” [NC] (Crum and Anderson 1981, pp 276-277).

It is recorded from the Red River Gorge area (Wolfe County, Studlar and Snider 1989) and could well be on sites at London, Stearns and Redbird districts in suitable habitat associated with moist and shaded mine spoils. As a result, the RFT project is considered suitable un-occupied habitat for this species.


No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects and Determination Because there are no treatments proposed, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated. As a result, implementation of no action will have No Impact on the Closter’s Brook-hypnum, Austin’s Leafy Liverwort, Sullivant’s Leafy Liverwort, or Agoyan Cataract Moss.

Proposed Action

Direct, Indirect Effects, Cumulative Effects All species occur in wet or shaded areas, within rock outcrops or clifflines or on thin soils that are less likely to burn. So, while there is potential for individual plants to be killed, because of the reduced level of burning that occurs in these areas, the likelihood of direct mortality or modification of suitable habitat is low. As a result, there are no significant direct, indirect or cumulative effects anticipated.

Proposed Action Determination While proposed burning has the potential to adversely affect these species, considering that they have not been documented within the project area and that preferred habitat will receive reduced burning conditions and frequency, reducing the potential for mortality or habitat changes, implementation of the proposed action May Impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or reduce viability for the Closter’s Brook-hypnum, Austin’s Leafy Liverwort, Sullivant’s Leafy Liverwort, or Agoyan Cataract Moss.


45

VI. REFERENCES Artman, V.L., T. F. Hutchinson, and J.D. Brawn. 2005. Fire Ecology and Bird Populations in

Eastern Deciduous Forests. Studies in Avian Biology No. 30:127-138.

Barbour, Roger W., W. H. Davis. 1974. Mammals of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY.

Bowles, M.L., K.A. Jacobs and J.L. Mengler. 2007. Long-term Changes in an Oak Forest’s Woody Understory and Herb Layer with Repeated Burning. Journal of the Torey Botanical Society. 134(2) pp. 223-227.

Burr, B.M. and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1986. A Distributional Atlas of Kentucky Fishes. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Scientific and Technical Series No. 4.In USDA FS 2003a.

Cotton, C. 2011. Redbird Fuel Treatment Project Hydrology Report. Daniel Boone National Forest. 15 pp.

Council on Environmental Quality. 2005. June 24, 2005 Memorandum to the heads of federal agencies. Guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effect analysis. 4 pp.

Crum, H. & L. Anderson. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. 2 volumes. Columbia University Press, New York. 1328 pp.

Dickinson, M.B., J.C. Norris, A.S. Bova, R.L. Kremens, V. Young and M.J. Lacki. 2010. Effects of wildland fire smoke on a tree-roosting bat: integrating a plume model, field measurements, and mammalian dose-response relationships. Can. Jo. For. Res. 40: 2187-2203.

Farlee, L., K. Woeste, M. Ostry, J. McKenna and S. Weeks. 2009. Conservation and Management of Butternut Trees. Purdue University Forestry and Natural Resources. Purdue Extension. FNR-21-W. 10 pp.

Fire Science Brief. 2010. Burning and Bats: Fire’s Effect on the Endangered Indiana Bat. M. Dickenson, M. Lacki, J. Norris, R. Kremens, A. Bova and V. Young collaborators. Issue 109, May 2010. 6 pp. Available at: www.firescience.gov.

Gleason, H.A., A Cronquist. 1991. Manual of the Vascular Plants of the Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada. D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., Princeton, N.J. 986 pp.

Grandmaison, D. J. Mayasich and D. Etnier. 2004. Eastern Sand Darter Status Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40. 45 pp.

Gumbert, M.W. 2001. Seasonal roost tree use by Indiana bats in the Somerset Ranger District of the Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. M.S. Thesis. Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky. 136 pp. In USDI-FWS 2007

Harvey, Michael J., J. Scott Altenbach, Troy L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Bat Conservation International, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.

http://www.firescience.gov/


46

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005a. Species accounts; Blackside dace range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005b. Species accounts; Cumberland darter range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005c. Species accounts; dace range map. Duskytail darter. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005d. Species accounts; Palezone darter range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005e. Species accounts; Gray myotis range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005f. Species accounts; Virginia big-eared bat range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005g. Species accounts; Cumberland elktoe range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005h. Species accounts; Fanshell range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005i. Species accounts; Cumberland combshell range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005j. Species accounts; Oyster mussel range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005k. Species accounts; Tan riffleshell range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005l. Species accounts; Northern riffleshell range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005m. Species accounts; Snuffbox base map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005o. Species accounts; Pink mucket range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005p. Species accounts; Little wing pearly mussel range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

















47

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005q. Species accounts; Cumberland Bean range map.. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005r. Species accounts; Ranfinesque big-eared bat range map. Available at http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005s. Species accounts; Eastern small-footed bat range map. Available at; http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp. Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 2005t. Species accounts; Spectaclecase range map. Available at; http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/stwg/default.asp. Accessed 3/25.11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011a. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. Cumberland sandwort. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011b. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. Cumberland rosemary. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011c. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. American chafseed. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011d. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. White-haired goldenrod. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011e. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. Virginia spiraea. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011f. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. Running buffalo clover. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2011g. KSNPC Rare Plants Database. Stoneroot. Available at: http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants . Accessed 3/25/11.

Kiser, J.D. and C.L. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Report prepared for Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Nongame Program, Frankfort, KY. 65 pp. In USDA-FS 2003c

Lacki, M.J., D.R. Cox, L.E. Dodd and M.B. Dickenson. 2009. Response of Northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis) to Prescribed Fires in Eastern Kentucky Forests. Journal of Mammalogy, 90(5): 1165-1175.

Lyon LJ, H.S. Crawford, E. Czuhai, R.L. Fredriksen, F. Harlow, L.J. Metz, H.A. Pearson. 1978. Effects of fire on fauna: a state-of- the-knowledge review. General Technical Report WO-6. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.





http://eppcapp.ky.gov/nprareplants








48

McShea WJ, W.M. Healy, editors. 2002. Oak Forest Ecosystems: Ecology and Management for Wildlife. Baltimore, Maryland, USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Means DB, H.W. Campbell. 1981. Effects of prescribed burning on amphibians and reptiles. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. pp. 89-97.

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0 [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.natureserve.org/explore. (Accessed 1/11/08)

Natureserve 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 5.0 [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.natureserve.org/explore. Accessed 5/9/11

Norris, D.H. 1967. Bryophytes of Cumberland Falls State Park, Kentucky. Castanea 32:159-171.

Romme, R.C., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. Report submitted to the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Bloomington, Indiana, by 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio. Federal Aid Project E-1-7, Study No. 8

Rommé, R.C., A.B. Henry, R.A. King, T. Glueck, and K. Tyrell. 2002. Home range near hibernacula in spring and autumn. Pp. 153-158. A. Kurta and J. Kennedy (eds.), The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX.

Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear and D.C. Guynn Jr. 1999. Prescribed Fire Effects on Herpetofauna: Review and Management Implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 27. No. 2. pp. 374-384.

Schlarbaum, S. E., F. Hebard, P.C. Spaine and J. C. Kamalay. 2009. Three American Tragedies: Chestnut Blight, Butternut Canker and Dutch Elm Disease. Available at: http://www.invasive.org/symposium/schlarba.html December 28, 2009

Sealander, John A. & Gary A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas Mammals. The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Studlar, S.M. and J.A. Snider. 1989. Bryophytes of the Red River Gorge of Kentucky: Floristics and Phytogeography. Castanea 54:133-152.

Tarter, Kim N. 2011. Personal observations from 1993-2009.

Taylor DL. 1981. Wildlife considerations in prescribed fire in national parks. Prescribed Fire and Wildlife in Southern Forests. April 6 through 8. Myrtle Beech SC. Pp 51-55.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. 2nd Edition. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. In USDA FS 2003a

U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Cooperative Inventory of Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Rare Species, Daniel Boone National Forest, Redbird Ranger District.

USDA-FS 2000. The Role of Fire in Nongame Wildlife Management and Community Restoration: Traditional Uses and New Directions. Proceedings of a Special Workshop.

http://www.invasive.org/symposium/schlarba.html


49

Nashville Tenn. Northeastern Research Station. General Technical Report NE-288. 143 pp.

USDA-FS 2003a. Viability Assessment Report for Lake Cumberland/Cave Run Lake Habitat Association. Prepared by John Omer. Daniel Boone National Forest. 8 pp.

USDA-FS 2003b. Viability Assessment Report For Dry Mesic Oak Forest Habitat Association. Prepared by Pamela J. Martin. Daniel Boone National Forest. 10 pp.

USDA FS. 2003c. Programmatic Biological Evaluation for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Daniel Boone National Forest. November. 53 pp.

USDA FS. 2004a. Land and Recourse Management Plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB 117A. 280 pp.

USDA FS, 2004b. Final environmental impact statement for land and resource management plan for the Daniel Boone National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Daniel Boone National Forest, Winchester, KY.

USDA-FS 2004c. Supplemental Information to the Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Effects on the Indiana Bat Associated with Prescribed Burning on the Daniel Boone National Forest. 10 pp.

USDA-FS 2006. Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. M.B. Dickinson ed. 2005 November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 303 pp.

USDA-FS 2008 –A Review of Requirements Necessary to Reinitiate Formal Consultation Due to Possible Effects of White-nose Syndrome. Daniel Boone National Forest. Winchester, KY. 14 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2004a. Final Biological Opinion on implementation of the revised Land and Resource Management plan and its effects on the Indiana bat, Daniel Boone National Forest Kentucky. FWS#04-0227. 53 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2004b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins. Federal Register 69:53136-53180.

USDI-FWS 2007. Revised Final Biological Opinion on implementation of the revised Land and Resource Management Plan and its effects on the Indiana bat, Daniel Boone National Forest, Kentucky. Dated April 3, 2007. 128 pp.

USDI-FWS 2009. Rangewide population estimate for the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis).

USDI-FWS. 2010. Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra. Fact Sheet. Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 2 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2011a. Federally Listed Species and Designation of Critical Habitat on the Daniel Boone National Forest. FWS#2011-B-0239. 2 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2011b. Federally listed species by County. Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office. Frankfort, KY.


50

USDI-FWS. 2011c. Indiana bat Fact Sheet. New York Field Office. Available at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/ibat.htm. Accessed 3/25/11.

USDI-FWS 2011d. White-nose syndrome: What is killing our bats? October 2010. 2 pp.

USDI-FWS. 2011e. White-nose syndrome occurrence map. 2/2/11.

USDI-FWS. 2011f. White-nose syndrome confirmed in Kentucky. News Release. 4/13/11.

USDI-FWS 2011g. Federal Register Proposed Rule to List the Spectaclecase Mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta) and Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphhyus). Vol. 76, No. 12, Wednesday January 19, 2011. 30 pp.

USDI-FWS 2012a. FWS #2011-B-0239: Daniel Boone National Forest Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat. January 17, 2012. Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office. 4 pp.

USDI-FWS 2012b. Federal Register Determination of Endangered Status for the Rayed Bean and Snuffbox Mussels throughout Their Range. Volume 77 Issue 30. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-14/html/2012-2940.htm. Accessed 2/17/2012

Woeste, K., L. Farlee, M. Ostry, J. McKenna, S. Weeks. 2009. A Forest Manager’s Guide to Butternut. North. J. Appl. For. 26(1): 9-14.In Farlee et al. 2009

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/ibat.htm

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-14/html/2012-2940.htm

biological assessment and evaluationa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012....

Documents