roses creek ea -...

Environmental Assessment

Roses Creek

Grandfather Ranger District Pisgah National Forest Burke County North Carolina

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service February 2010

Roses Creek Environmental Assessment


Location of Action: Grandfather Ranger District Pisgah National Forest Burke County, North Carolina

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: John W. Crockett Grandfather District Ranger 109 East Lawing Drive Nebo, NC 28761

For More Information: Ted Oprean Project Leader (828) 877-3265 x200 (828) 884-7527 (fax) Michael Hutchins ID Team Leader (828) 682-6146 (828) 682-9179 (fax)

Send Electronic Comments to: comments-southern-north-carolina-pisgah-grandfather

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9510 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


1

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE & NEED ................................................................................................................2 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Proposed Action – Alternative B .......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................ 12 1.5 Issues ................................................................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................. 15 2.1 Range of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 15 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...................................................................................................... 15 2.3 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .............................................................. 20 2.4 Project Design Features and Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives ......................................... 21 2.5 Summary Comparison of Actions by Alternative ............................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................................... 23 3.1 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat .......................................................................................................... 23 3.2 Wildlife Habitat .................................................................................................................................. 32 3.3 Non-native Invasive Plants ................................................................................................................ 36 3.4 Pesticides .......................................................................................................................................... 39 3.5 Soil Resources .................................................................................................................................. 41 3.6 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 46 3.7 Scenery Resources ........................................................................................................................... 47 3.8 Management Indicator Species ......................................................................................................... 48 3.9 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species ................................................... 51 3.10 Old Growth ...................................................................................................................................... 53 3.11 Other Areas of Concern .................................................................................................................. 55

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND OTHERS ........................................................... 56 4.1 ID Team Members ............................................................................................................................. 56 4.2 Government Agencies and Elected Officials Contacted .................................................................... 56 4.3 Others Contacted .............................................................................................................................. 56

APPENDIX A – BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 57

APPENDIX B – AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................. 85

APPENDIX C – OLD GROWTH ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 92

APPENDIX D – APPROPRIATENESS OF HARVEST ANALYSIS ............................................................. 95

APPENDIX E – FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................. 101

APPENDIX F – PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR PESTICIDE USE AND PRESCRIBED FIRE ....... 105

ROSES CREEK PROJECT MAPS ............................................................................................................. 107


2

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE & NEED

1.1 Background _________________________________________________ This proposal is located in the 8,608 acre Roses Creek Forest Plan Analysis Area (AA) which comprises compartments 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, and 300 in Burke County, North Carolina. The Roses Creek AA is about 15 miles northeast of Marion, North Carolina (see Figure 1-1, General Vicinity Map). The AA is accessed by State Roads (SR) 126, 181, 1240, and 1261 and Forest Service Roads (FSR) 118 and 210. Additional project-level maps of proposed actions are located at the end of this Environmental Assessment (EA).

Figure 1-1: General Vicinity Area of Roses Creek Proposal (proclamation boundary depicted)

General Vicinity of Roses Creek Proposal


3

1.1.1 Current Condition – Linville Gorge Wildfire

During the summer of 2007 the Linville Gorge Wildfire burned 4,959 acres within the Linville Gorge Wilderness and both the Back Creek and Irish Creek areas. Approximately 3,000 acres (or 60%) of the Linville Gorge Wildfire are within the Roses Creek AA. During the summer of 2008, employees of the District, Forest, and Forest Health reviewed the burned area using aerial photography and ground proofing that determined about 1,040 acres in the 8,608 acre AA burned with 0-10 year age class characteristics, or about 12% (535 acres in Compartment 293, 136 acres in Compartment 294, 174 acres in Compartment 295, and 195 acres in Compartment 297 – see proposal map at end of EA). In spring 2009, about 111 acres of the Linville Gorge Wildfire on the west side of the Back Creek Road (FSR 118) were planted with shortleaf pine to reforest areas burned by the fire.

1.1.2 Project Record This EA tiers (40 CFR 1502.20) to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Plan. This EA also incorporates by reference (1502.21) the project record. The project record contains specialist reports and other technical documentation used to support the analysis and conclusions in this EA. The specialist reports provide additional detailed analysis. This EA incorporates by reference the Nantahala and Pisgah Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report. This report along with Monitoring and Evaluation Reports for the National Forests in North Carolina contains the most current information about Forest population trends for MIS species.

1.2 Proposed Action – Alternative B ________________________________ The Proposed Action (Alternative B) was developed to meet the Purpose and Need (Section 1.3 below). Maps of the proposal are located at the end of the EA. The following table summarizes harvest-related information for the Proposed Action:

Table 1-1: Roses Creek Harvest Proposal

Stand (Unit)

Mgt Area

Acres (GIS)

Proposed Treatment for Meeting Desired Conditions Forest Type1

300-1 300-2

3B 3B

22 39

Two-Age Regeneration with Uniform Distribution of Reserve Trees – An average basal area of 15-25 ft2/ac of shelterwood reserve trees would be marked to leave on site indefinitely to create a two-aged stand structure along with new regeneration. Other merchantable trees would be cut and removed. Favored reserve trees would include trees with dens, large and long-living hardwood trees with potential to become den trees, 9”-12” diameter at breast height (dbh) trees with potential as high-quality sawtimber in the future, mast-producing trees, and long-living yellow pines. Likely species to leave would include black gum, hickory, white oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak, and yellow-poplar. Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, and black locust would not be left as reserve trees due to their tendency to windthrow or die earlier than other trees. White pine and sweet gum would not be left as reserve trees due to their potential for unwanted seed production. Two or more good reserve trees might be left close together, but the goal is to limit shading of new regeneration, so no more than 30 ft2/ac would be left except within designated inclusions. Some spots might have less than 15 ft2/ac after harvest due to accidental logging damage or the absence of suitable leave trees at that spot.

White Pine (WP) – Upland

Hardwood (UH)

UH – WP – Yellow Pine

(YP)


4

Stand (Unit)

Mgt Area

Acres (GIS)


Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh that were not marked to leave. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, and dogwood would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, rhododendron, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. To prevent damage to reserve trees and developing regeneration, prescribed burning would not be used. As natural regeneration from seed, seedlings, seedling sprouts, and stump sprouts develops a new age-class, a two-aged stand structure would result. New regeneration would be more diverse in terms of species richness than the existing stand, but subsequent TSI treatments including herbicide release and manual crown-touching release are expected to be needed to control rapid growth and competition of red maple, silverbell, yellow-poplar, and other species. Small enrichment plantings with blight resistant American chestnuts or oaks might occur within hardwood regeneration areas on suitable sites if seedlings become available.

295-3 295-4 295-5

3B 3B 3B

30 28 18

Sanitation Thinning – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Although this would create some variable size openings where white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine occur in clumps, the majority of the harvested area would retain variable basal areas above 40 ft2/ac. Reduction in residual stocking would allow crown expansion and increased diameter growth of residual trees. To prevent damage to reserve trees, prescribed burning would not be used.

WP – UH UH – WP WP – UH

295-6 294-7 294-8 294-9

3B 3B 3B 3B

16 36 39 39

Two-Age Regeneration and Restoration to Shortleaf Pine and Oak – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Due to the relative abundance of white pine in this stand, the majority of the harvested area would have sparse overstory remaining with variable basal areas of residual trees below 30 ft2/ac. These openings in the tree canopy would be managed for the growth of regeneration. As a new age-class develops, a two-aged stand structure would result. Distribution of residual trees would be non-uniform, with clumps of various sizes and irregular shapes. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh in openings. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. The stand would be broadcast burned to reduce logging slash, top kill small trees and shrubs, promote development of fire-dependent plants, and prepare planting spots. Shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted on a wide (10’ x 12’) spacing to develop as new regeneration in openings along with upland hardwoods and other yellow pines. Subsequent prescribed burning and/or selective herbicide release would be used if needed to maintain desired species composition and plant communities.

WP – UH UH – YP UH – YP

WP

294-10 3B 40 Two-Age Regeneration with Non-Uniform Distribution of Reserve Trees – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, yellow-poplar, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white

WP


5

Stand (Unit)

Mgt Area

Acres (GIS)


oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Due to the relative abundance of white pine in this stand, the majority of the harvested area would have sparse overstory remaining with variable basal areas of residual trees below 30 ft2/ac. These openings in the tree canopy would be managed for the growth of natural regeneration. As a new age-class develops, a two-aged stand structure would result. There are several areas within the stand where inclusions of oaks and other hardwoods can be featured as an older age component. Distribution of residual trees would be non-uniform, with clumps of various sizes and irregular shapes. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh in openings leaving large and healthy soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, rhododendron, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. Because of the north-facing aspects and east-facing coves in this stand, the site is more moist and would be difficult to prescribe burn. New regeneration in openings would be more diverse in terms of species richness than the existing stand, but subsequent TSI treatments including herbicide release and manual crown-touching release are expected to be needed to control rapid growth and competition of white pine and yellow-poplar.

Total 307

1 Forest Type determined by Forest’s Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions (CISC) database

In addition to the proposed 307 acres of timber harvesting, the Roses Creek Proposal would:

Use and maintain existing classified (system) roads. Utilize and reconstruct about 2.3 miles of existing unimproved non-system roads (old

“woods” roads) to access units for timber harvesting activities. The roads would be disked, seeded, and permanently closed for all access following harvest activities.

Utilize and reconstruct about 1.3 miles of existing improved non-system road and construct about 0.3 miles of new system road to access Units 9 and 10. This ~1.6 miles would be placed onto the Forest’s Transportation System and would have a Road Management Objective (RMO) of D1 (linear wildlife opening, open to non-motorized use) and would be closed with a gate. A travel analysis has been completed for this activity and is part of the project file. There are several non-system roads that have been identified in the AA that have specific recommendation for them identified in the AA 509 transportation analysis (see Forest website at: http://www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/nepa/nepa.htm).

Site prepare about 101 acres of natural regeneration by slashdown and cut stump treatment using a 50% solution of Triclopyr amine in water.

Site prepare about 130 acres of artificial regeneration by slashdown and cut stump treatment with a 50% solution of Triclopyr amine in water followed by prescribed burn.

Plant shortleaf pine on 130 acres following artificial site preparation by handtools, herbicide, and prescribed burning.

Perform an understory treatment with herbicide using the streamline method with a 20% solution of Triclopyr ester mixed in mineral oil on about 76 acres of stands thinned to remove white pine seedlings and saplings.


6

Control/manage grass, herbaceous, and woody plants growing through and along about 1.4 miles of the paved Table Rock Road, Forest Service Road (FSR) 99 using herbicides.

Selectively apply herbicides to control/manage about 5 acres total of non-native invasive plant species along Forest Service System Roads.

Release newly regenerated stands with herbicide on about 231 acres (all units) using 20% Triclopyr ester formulation in mineral oil by streamline application method 1-3 years following site preparation.

Designate at least 50 acres of small patch old growth communities in Compartments 294, 295 and 300 (at least 150 acres total).

Create and maintain a fuel break around facilities and improvements within the Outward Bound complex.

Develop about 12 additional acres of wildlife fields (1½ - 2 acres in size each) on log landings in Units 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10, seed with a seasonally suitable clover and wildflower seed mix, and plant with an old variety of apple trees.

Reintroduce populations of the sensitive brook floater into lower reaches of Steels Creek and Upper Creek with assistance from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

Perform stream rehabilitation along about 1.2 miles of Back Creek and a tributary by placing large woody debris and constructing log vanes in about 35 sites/structures. Activity would be completed by trackhoe and would use entire trees (root wad included) from outside riparian areas where available.

Discourage unauthorized equestrian access use onto Back-Irish Creek Road (FSR 118) at or near Irish and Reedys Creeks by felling trees within access routes.

Daylight about seven acres along the Back-Irish Creek Road (FSR 118). Daylighting would occur for 30 feet on either side of the road for about 1.75 miles and would exclude riparian areas, areas with potential scenery impact to the Wilderness, and where the 2007 Linville Gorge wildfire burned along the western side of the road.

An analysis for controlling/managing non-native invasive plant species across the Forest has been completed under a separate decision-making process. This decision will allow herbicide use across the Grandfather Ranger District, including locations within this AA that may not have been treated with this proposal.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ___________________________________ 1.3.1 Existing & Desired Conditions

Following is a description of the existing condition and desired condition of the 10 timber units proposed for silvicultural treatments including harvesting:

Table 1-2: Roses Creek Existing & Desired Conditions

Unit Comp - Stand #

Existing Condition1 Desired Conditions

1

300-12 50+ year old white pine/cove hardwood stand

White oak, chestnut oak, and yellow poplar to dominate the overstory with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum in the midstory. White pine will remain a minor component in the overstory. 300-13

90 year old upland hardwood/white pine stand

2 300-19 85 year old upland White oak, chestnut oak, and yellow poplar


7

Unit Comp - Stand #

Existing Condition1 Desired Conditions

hardwood/white pine stand

dominate the overstory with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum in the midstory. White pine will remain a minor component in the overstory. 300-21

90 year old white pine stand

300-23 90 year old upland hardwood/white pine stand

3 295-09 97 year old white pine/cove hardwood stand

White oak, chestnut oak, and yellow poplar with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum in the midstory. White pine will remain as a minor component in the overstory.

4 295-08 97 year old upland hardwood/white pine stand

White pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine are removed to allow unit to be dominated by white oak, chestnut oak, and shortleaf pine along with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum.

5

295-07 97 year old white pine/upland hardwood stand

White pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine are removed to allow unit to be dominated by white oak, chestnut oak, and shortleaf pine along with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum. 295-12

82 year old white pine/upland hardwood stand

6 295-12 82 year old white pine/upland cove hardwood stand

White pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine are removed to allow unit to be dominated by white oak, chestnut oak, and shortleaf yellow pine along with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum. Shortleaf yellow pine is established and prescribed fire is initiated to maintain fire-adapted species.

7 294-10 90 year old upland hardwood/ shortleaf yellow pine stand


8 294-12 90 year old white pine/upland hardwood stand


9 294-23 90 year old stand comprising white pine


10 294-21 90 year old stand comprising white pine

White pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine are removed to allow unit to be dominated by white oak, chestnut oak, and shortleaf yellow pine along with sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum.

1 – Age determined by Forest’s Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions (CISC) database


8

1.3.2 Purpose & Need

There is a compelling need to restore healthy forest conditions in the Roses Creek AA because less fire-dependent species (white pine) have become established in the AA and the amount of hard mast species (hickories and oaks) and fire dependent species (shortleaf yellow pine) is currently not at desired levels. Forest Plan direction is to: Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations (Forest Plan, page III-29). The purpose of the harvesting and reforestation (planting) is three-fold: (1) decreasing the amount of white pine in the AA while increasing the amount of shortleaf yellow pine in the AA; (2) increasing hard mast producing tree species (oaks and hickories) while retaining other species that improve habitat diversity (i.e. blackgum) and providing for a continuous supply of timber; and (3) restoring fire-dependent ecosystems through prescribed fire. The Roses Creek AA is the next area the Grandfather Ranger District has identified to ensure each compartment is scheduled for management analysis at a 10-year interval (order of entry).

There is a need to rehabilitate streambanks and improve aquatic habitat in the AA. The purpose of placing large woody debris, constructing log vanes, and discouraging equestrian use within and adjacent to Back Creek is to redirect flow; dissipate stream energy; and reduce potential impacts from sedimentation and erosion within Back Creek and a tributary stream.

There is a need to improve rare aquatic species distribution in the AA. The purpose of augmenting brook floater populations in Steels Creek and Upper Creek is to ensure a sensitive aquatic species is not extirpated and increase species diversity.

There is a need to designate small patch old growth communities in Compartments 294, 299, and 300 because no old growth communities are currently designated in them. The purpose of designating small patch communities in Compartments 294, 299, and 300 prior to harvesting is to ensure there is a network of old growth communities across the Forest.

There is a need to develop additional acres of permanent grass/forb wildlife habitat in the AA because there are currently 16 acres of permanent grass/forb wildlife habitat (one serves as a helispot for medi-vac). The purpose of the additional 12 acres of wildlife fields and seven acres of daylighting is to ensure about 33 acres of permanent grass/forb wildlife habitat is established in the AA, further moving the area towards the desired condition of 42 acres of permanent grass/forb habitat.

There is a need to control/manage populations of non-native invasive plants in the AA because they have become established in the AA. The purpose of the approximately 5 acres of herbicide application along Forest Service roads is to control/manage existing non-native invasive species. A separate Forest-wide analysis for controlling/managing non-native invasive species has been completed earlier this year and will provide additional opportunities for treating future populations of non-native invasive species across the Forest, including this AA.

There is a need to improve habitat diversity and ensure fire dependent and fire-adapted ecosystems are maintained in the AA. Currently, the proposed area for burning was burned by the 2007 Linville Gorge wildfire. Fire plays an important role in shaping the ecosystem in this AA. The purpose of prescribe burning up to about 2,315 acres in the Chimney Gap area (not within the Linville Gorge Wilderness) in the next several years when burn conditions are appropriate (likely in 10-15 years), is to improve habitat diversity and ensure fire-dependent and


9

fire-adapted ecosystems are maintained (see Alternative C map at end of EA). Prescribed burning was part of the April 2008 proposal.

1.3.3 Forest Plan Direction

Approximately 4,823 NFS acres of the 8,608 NFS acres (56%) in the Roses Creek AA are within management areas (MAs) suitable for timber harvesting (1B and 3B) and approximately 3,785 NFS acres (44%) are within MAs unsuitable for timber harvesting (4C and 7). The Roses Creek proposal is within Management Area 3B (suitable for timber harvesting) where Forest Plan standards state on pages III-31 & 32 to:

c. Disperse early successional habitat [0-10 years in age] across the landscape according to the following desired conditions.

Management Area Compartment Area Analysis Area

2A At least 5% Not to exceed 10% At least 5% Not to exceed 10%

1B & 3B At least 5% Not to exceed 15% At least 5% Not to exceed 15%

4A & 4D Not to exceed 10% Not to exceed 10%

c. (cont.) The Forest Supervisor must approve proposals which exceed these levels [emphasis added]. The proposal must be supported by a site-specific analysis and for reasons such as insect and disease control, fire salvage, other events requiring salvage or other compelling needs such as threatened and endangered species habitat requirements.

Compartment 294 has 1,355 forested acres and is to provide between 68 – 203 acres of 0-10 year age class (5%-15%). The proposed 154 acres of regeneration harvesting in the compartment would take the compartment’s 0-10 year age class level to 21% when added to the current 136 acres of burn developed 0-10 year age class. The majority of the 0-10 year age class created by the wildfire in this compartment (about 88%) is within MA 4C and is unsuitable for timber harvesting—the remaining 12% is within MA 3B and is suitable for timber harvesting (see MA descriptions below).

Compartment 295 has 1,024 forested acres and is to provide between 51 – 154 acres of 0-10 year age class (5%-15%). The proposed 16 acres of regeneration harvesting in the compartment would take the compartment’s 0-10 year age class level to 19% when added to the current 174 acres of burn developed 0-10 year age class. The majority of the 0-10 year age class created by the wildfire in this compartment (about 86%) is within MA 4C and is unsuitable for timber harvesting—the remaining 14% is within MA 3B and is suitable for timber harvesting (see MA descriptions below).

The Forest Plan states on page III-29: Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations. This proposal would exceed 0-10 year levels by an additional 6% in Compartment 294 and an additional 4% in Compartment 295.

[R]egular and sustained flow of habitats means that at regular intervals (10 years) stands of a given age-class grow into the next age-class, and they are replaced using several options for vegetation management activity. For example, as a regenerated area becomes 11-20 years old, a new area is regenerated to provide habitat for species that need 0-10 year old forested stands. These areas continue to grow and mature, providing habitat at each successional stage.


10

[a]cross the Forests through space and time means that similar habitats are dispersed so those habitats are provided across the Forests, somewhat uniformly, in proximity to other various habitats of different stand ages (through time). Actions under the Forest Plan were not to provide large blocks of one habitat type located miles away from similar habitats.

[f]or diversity and viability of plant and animal populations means that species richness is promoted by creating and maintaining varied habitats within a general forest area. As an example, one compartment might have eight or ten different age-classes, including streamside management zones, seedling/sapling stands, mid-successional (maximum mast production), old growth, and grass/forb habitat.

On March 10, 2009, the Grandfather District Ranger sought approval to exceed the percentage of 0-10 year age class habitat in Compartment 294 by 6% and Compartment 295 by 4%. In a letter dated March 20, 2009, the Deputy Forest Supervisor stated: I have reviewed the Roses Creek Proposal and agree with the need to exceed Forest Plan standards regarding the percentage of the area in the early successional habitat (ESH). Past and projected fire activity within the project area will keep a percentage of the area perpetually in ESH; there is a need during this entry to regenerate additional acres to better distribute ESH. Therefore I am approving the additional 6% within compartment 294 and 4% in compartment 295.

The April 2, 2009, Roses Creek scoping document incorrectly stated: Given the existing Forest Plan direction for the percentages of 0-10 year age class in each compartment, a site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment [emphasis added] would be needed within Compartments 294 and 295 to implement this project. As described above, Forest Plan standards state the Forest Supervisor must approve [emphasis added] proposals that exceed ESH levels; therefore, a site-specific, non-significant Forest Plan amendment is not necessary.

This proposal was developed to address management opportunities identified for timber, wildlife, and other forest resources within the project area. Management opportunities were identified through a comparison of existing conditions with desired current and future conditions defined by the General Direction and Standards for MA 3B and 18 in the Land and Resource Management Plan, Amendment 5, for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Forest Plan, USDA March 1994). The general direction and goals for MA 3B is to emphasize a sustainable supply of timber with few open roads while permitting road construction for resource management and to manage habitat of mixed ages of forests primarily for wildlife species such as wild turkey, deer and other animals requiring similar environments (Forest Plan, pages III-63 and III-71).

Embedded within MA 3B is MA 18; which consists of the aquatic ecosystem, riparian ecosystem, and closely associated plant and animal communities and is actively managed to protect and enhance, where possible, the distinctive resource values and characteristics dependent on or associated with these systems (Forest Plan, page III-179). Forest Plan direction states to use prescribed fire (controlled fire) to reduce fire hazards (Forest Plan, page III-52). Management Area 3B Forest Plan direction prescribes needed stand treatments to emphasize quality hardwood sawtimber as the primary product (Forest Plan, page III-75) and by applying appropriate timber harvest methods to produce a continuous (sustainable) supply of sawtimber and other wood products (Forest Plan, page III-71).


11

Management Areas 1B (sustainable timber harvesting and motorized access), 4C (visually pleasing scenery without timber harvesting), and 7 (wilderness) are also within the AA; however, no harvesting or road development is proposed within them.

A portion of the Linville Gorge Addition Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA – Compartments 293, 294, 295, and 297) is within the AA; however, no harvesting or road development is proposed within it. There are no North Carolina State proposed Natural Heritage Areas or wild and scenic river designations in the AA.

1.3.4 Why Here, Why Now?

The existing condition of the Roses Creek AA has been evaluated and compared against the desired future condition for the area as described in the Forest Plan. Where resources in the area are found to be outside the desired future condition, opportunities for moving the resources towards the desired future condition exist. The Roses Creek AA was chosen at this time for vegetation management over other AAs on the Grandfather Ranger District because of its planned order of entry in the Grandfather Ranger District’s Order of Entry and the last appreciable timber harvest in the Roses Creek AA that developed 0-10 year age class habitat was about 11 years ago (about 152 acres). Forest Plan standards schedule to revisit each stand in MA 3B every 10 years to meet 0-10 year age class habitat standards (Forest Plan, pages III-75). Harvesting is proposed in this area in part to meet Forest Plan direction which states: Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations (Forest Plan, page III-29) and to assure: A sustainable supply of timber is achieved through regulating the growth and removal of trees through time. (Forest Plan, page III-71). The proposal was developed to move resources in the area towards the desired future condition using active management (see also Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3 above).

1.3.5 Restoration

Some activities in the Roses Creek AA respond to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest’s six Restoration Focus Areas, which were developed collaboratively between the Forest, partner organizations, and research scientists in August 2008. The six focus areas are shown below, along with proposed Roses Creek activities that fall within each focus area.

The activities listed are considered restorative because they meet the Forest Service Manual (FSM) definition of ecological restoration by assisting in the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed by establishing the composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions (FSM 2020-2008-1).

1.3.5.1 Restoration of Streams and Watersheds Streambank rehabilitation along Back Creek and a tributary system Reintroduction of sensitive brook floaters in Steels Creek and Upper Creek

1.3.5.2 Restoration of Rare Native Communities

Reintroduction of sensitive brook floaters in Steels Creek and Upper Creek


12

1.3.5.3 Restoration of Fire-dependent and Fire-adapted Ecosystems1 Prescribed burning near Chimney Gap (Alternative C) Removal of white pine in Units 3 – 10 Planting of shortleaf pine in Units 6 – 9

1.3.5.4 Restoration of Diversity in Low-diversity Forest Stands

Removal of white pine in Units 3 – 10 Planting of shortleaf pine in Units 6 – 9

1.3.5.5 Restoration of Viable Native Plant Communities by Controlling Invasive Species

Application of herbicides on 5 acres of non-native invasive plant species along Forest Service roads

1.3.5.6 Restoration of Wildlife Habitat

Increasing hard mast producing tree species (oaks and hickories) Developing 0-10 year age class habitat

1.4 Public Involvement ___________________________________________ The proposal was initially listed in the April 2008 edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) and has been listed in the July 2008, October 2008, January 2009, April 2009, July, October 2009, and January 2010 editions. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping beginning on April 4, 2008. An open house was hosted by employees of the Forest Service in Nebo, North Carolina on April 29, 2008.

Following the April 2008 scoping, members of the public provided comments questioning the purpose and need for regenerating timber stands in the AA to develop early successional habitat (ESH or 0-10 years in age). Concerns were raised that the Linville Gorge Wildfire had burned with more severe impacts than expected, creating hundreds of acres of 0-10 year age class. During the summer of 2008, employees of the District, Forest, and Forest Health reviewed the burned area using aerial photography and ground proofing that determined about 1,040 acres in the 8,657 acre AA burned with 0-10 year age class characteristics, or about 12% (535 acres in Compartment 293, 136 acres in Compartment 294, 174 acres in Compartment 295, and 195 acres in Compartment 297).

On April 8, 2009, the proposal was submitted for an official 30-day Notice and Comment period that concluded on May 8, 2009. Using comments from the public, other agencies, and organizations as well as an internal review, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of issues to address and alternatives to analyze.

On August 17, 2009, members of interested local environmental organizations met in the field with Forest Service employees to discuss the proposal in more detail.

1 While not part of this proposal, 27 acres of fire-adapted shortleaf pine were planted in the Linville Gorge Wildfire in 2008 and about 111 acres of fire-adapted shortleaf pine were planted in the Linville Gorge Wildfire in 2009


13

1.5 Issues ______________________________________________________ Issues are defined as a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about environmental effects. Issues are used to develop alternatives, mitigation measures, or analyze environmental effects. The Forest Service separated issues into two groups: significant and other. All comments received have been reviewed and a determination on significance was made.

1.5.1 Diversity of Wildlife Habitat

The proposal may not develop enough brushy interface and permanent grass/forb wildlife habitat Significant because additional grass/forb habitat can be developed to meet desired

conditions of 0.5% from the Forest Plan (page III-23). The current grass/forb habitat in the AA is 0.24%.

1.5.2 Exceeding Forest Plan Standards for 0-10 Year Habitat

The proposal would require approval for exceeding 0-10 year habitat in Compartments 294 and 295 Significant because an alternative can be developed that does not exceed Forest Plan

standards.

1.5.3 Herbicide Use

Herbicide use may impact wildlife, aquatic, botanical resources and humans Significant because an alternative can be considered that does not use herbicides to treat

non-native invasives or competing vegetation.

1.5.4 Botanical Resource

Harvest-related activities and may impact threatened, endangered, sensitive, Forest Concern, and Management Indicator botanical Species Non-significant because Forest Plan standards and best management practices (BMPs)

would be implemented to reduce potential for adverse impacts and site-specific field verification—there would be effects to individual botanical species but they are expected to be localized and are not expected to affect populations.

1.5.5 Water Quality & Aquatic Resources

Road construction, reconstruction, and harvest-related activities and may impact threatened, endangered, sensitive, Forest Concern, and Management Indicator aquatic Species Non-significant because Forest Plan standards and best management practices (BMPs)

would be implemented to reduce potential for adverse impacts and site-specific field verification—there would be effects to individual aquatic species but they are expected to be localized and are not expected to affect populations.

1.5.6 Non-native Invasives Plants

Management activities may increase infestation of non-native invasive plants Non-significant due to project design features.


14

1.5.7 Wildlife Resource

Harvest related activities may impact threatened, endangered, sensitive, Forest Concern, and wildlife Management Indicator wildlife Species Non-significant due to site-specific field verification. There would be effects to

individual wildlife resources but they are expected to be local and are not expected to affect populations.

1.5.8 Cultural Resources

Harvest related activities may impact cultural sites Non-significant due to site-specific field verification and project design.

1.5.9 Soil Resource

Harvest related activities may impact soils Non-significant due to implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines and BMPs

to soil mapping units identified with erosion hazard and project design.

1.5.10 Non-timber Related Economics

Harvest related activities may impact non-timber related markets Non-significant due to concern being outside the scope of an EA. Concern is addressed

at the Forest Plan level (Note: a financial efficiency analysis was completed to assess if the project will be able to cover anticipated costs – see Appendix E).

1.5.11 Scenic Resources

Harvest related activities may impact scenic resources Non-significant due to site-specific field verification and design of stands near scenic

areas of concern.

1.5.12 Other Issues of Concern

Harvest activities may adversely affect park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment Non- significant – project does not propose actions within park lands, prime farmlands,

wetlands (as per 1977 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990), wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. It also would not violate local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.


15

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Range of Alternatives _________________________________________ The range of alternatives developed and analyzed by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) was driven by the purpose and need underlying the proposal (Chapter 1, Section 1.3), and by the issues responding to the proposal. An alternative should (1) reasonably respond to the purpose and need and (2) address one or more significant issue. The only exception is the No Action Alternative, which is required by regulation [40 CFR 1502.14(d)].

The IDT considered five alternatives. Following internal review, four alternatives were considered in detail and one was eliminated from consideration.

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ________________________________ Four alternatives were considered in detail by the IDT; Alternative A – No Action, Alternative B – Proposed Action, Alternative C, and Alternative D. Project design features for activities in the action alternatives are also described in this chapter.

2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action

Under this alternative no new activities would be implemented– existing conditions would remain. This alternative serves as the environmental baseline for analysis of effects.

2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action Please see Section 1.2, Chapter 1 above for a detailed description of Alternative B.

2.2.3 Alternative C

Alternative C was developed to address comments received during the 30-Day Notice and Comment Period. The following table summarizes harvest-related information for Alternative C:

Table 2-1: Roses Creek Harvest Alternative C

Stand (Unit)

Mgt Area Acres (GIS)

Proposed Treatment for Meeting Desired Conditions

300-1 300-2

3B 3B

22 39

Two-Age Regeneration with Uniform Distribution of Reserve Trees – An average basal area of 15-25 ft2/ac of shelterwood reserve trees would be marked to leave on site indefinitely to create a two-aged stand structure along with new regeneration. Other merchantable trees would be cut and removed. Favored reserve trees would include trees with dens, large and long-living hardwood trees with potential to become den trees, 9”-12” diameter at breast height (dbh) trees with potential as high-quality sawtimber in the future, mast-producing trees, and long-living yellow pines. Likely species to leave would include black gum, hickory, white oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak, and yellow-poplar. Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, and black locust would not be left as reserve trees due to their tendency to windthrow or die earlier than other trees. White pine and sweet gum would not be left as reserve trees due to their potential for unwanted seed production. Two or more good reserve trees might be left close together, but the goal is to limit shading of new regeneration, so no more than 30 ft2/ac would be left except within designated inclusions. Some spots might have less than 15 ft2/ac after harvest due to accidental logging damage or the absence of suitable leave trees at that spot. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees


16

Stand (Unit)



between 2” and 8” dbh that were not marked to leave. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, and dogwood would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, rhododendron, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. To prevent damage to reserve trees and developing regeneration, prescribed burning would not be used. As natural regeneration from seed, seedlings, seedling sprouts, and stump sprouts develops a new age-class, a two-aged stand structure would result. New regeneration would be more diverse in terms of species richness than the existing stand, but subsequent TSI treatments including herbicide release and manual crown-touching release are expected to be needed to control rapid growth and competition of red maple, silverbell, yellow-poplar, and other species. Small enrichment plantings with blight resistant American chestnuts or oaks might occur within hardwood regeneration areas on suitable sites if seedlings become available.

295-3 295-4 295-5

3B 3B 3B

30 28 18

Sanitation Thinning – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Although this would create some variable size openings where white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine occur in clumps, the majority of the harvested area would retain variable basal areas above 40 ft2/ac. Reduction in residual stocking would allow crown expansion and increased diameter growth of residual trees. To prevent damage to reserve trees, prescribed burning would not be used.

295-6 294-7 294-8 294-9

3B 3B 3B 3B

16 36 39 39

Two-Age Regeneration and Restoration to Shortleaf Pine and Oak – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Due to the relative abundance of white pine in this stand, the majority of the harvested area would have sparse overstory remaining with variable basal areas of residual trees below 30 ft2/ac. These openings in the tree canopy would be managed for the growth of regeneration. As a new age-class develops, a two-aged stand structure would result. Distribution of residual trees would be non-uniform, with clumps of various sizes and irregular shapes. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh in openings. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. The stand would be broadcast burned to reduce logging slash, top kill small trees and shrubs, promote development of fire-dependent plants, and prepare planting spots. Shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted on a wide (10’ x 12’) spacing to develop as new regeneration in openings along with upland hardwoods and other yellow pines. Subsequent prescribed burning and/or selective herbicide release would be used if needed to maintain desired species composition and plant communities.

294-10 3B 40

Two-Age Regeneration with Non-Uniform Distribution of Reserve Trees – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, yellow-poplar, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Due to the relative abundance of white pine in this stand, the majority of the harvested area would have sparse overstory remaining with variable basal areas of residual trees below 30 ft2/ac. These openings in the tree canopy would be managed for the growth of natural regeneration. As a new age-class develops, a two-aged stand structure would result. There are several areas within the stand where inclusions of oaks and other hardwoods can be featured as an older age component. Distribution of residual trees would be non-


17

Stand (Unit)



uniform, with clumps of various sizes and irregular shapes. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh in openings leaving large and healthy soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, rhododendron, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated with herbicide, while the stumps of desirable species would not be treated. Because of the north-facing aspects and east-facing coves in this stand, the site is more moist and would be difficult to prescribe burn. New regeneration in openings would be more diverse in terms of species richness than the existing stand, but subsequent TSI treatments including herbicide release and manual crown-touching release are expected to be needed to control rapid growth and competition of white pine and yellow-poplar.

Total 307

In addition to the 307 acres of harvesting, Alternative C would:




Site prepare about 101 acres of natural regeneration by slashdown and cut stump treatment using a 50% solution of Triclopyr amine in water.

Site prepare about 130 acres of artificial regeneration by slashdown and cut stump treatment with a 50% solution of Triclopyr amine in water followed by prescribed burn.

Plant shortleaf pine on 130 acres following artificial site preparation by handtools, herbicide, and prescribed burning.

Release newly regenerated stands with herbicide on about 231 acres using 20% Triclopyr ester formulation in mineral oil by streamline application method 1-3 years following site preparation.

Perform an understory treatment with herbicide using the streamline method with a 20% solution of Triclopyr ester mixed in mineral oil on about 76 acres of stands thinned to remove white pine seedlings and saplings.

Reintroduce populations of the sensitive brook floater into lower reaches of Steels Creek and Upper Creek with assistance from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

Perform stream rehabilitation along about 1.2 miles of Back Creek and a tributary by placing large woody debris and constructing log vanes in about 35 sites/structures. Activity would be completed by trackhoe and would use entire trees (root wad included) from outside riparian areas where available.



18

Control/manage grass, herbaceous, and woody plants growing through and along about 1.4 miles of the paved Table Rock Road, Forest Service Road (FSR) 99 using herbicides.

Selectively apply herbicides to control/manage about 5 acres total of non-native invasive plant species along Forest Service System Roads.



Develop about 12 additional acres of wildlife fields (1½ - 2 acres in size each) on log landings in Units 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10, seed with a seasonally suitable clover and wildflower seed mix, and plant with an old variety of apple trees.

Prescribe burn 2,315 acres in the Chimney Gap area (not within the Linville Gorge Wilderness) in the next several years when burn conditions are appropriate. Control lines would entail natural features and roads, handline, and dozer line. Existing control lines from the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire would be used for this burn. The area would be burned periodically as conditions allow.

Daylight about seven acres along the Back-Irish Creek Road (FSR 118). Daylighting would occur for 30 feet on either side of the road for about 1.75 miles and would exclude riparian areas, areas with potential scenery impact to the Wilderness, and where the 2007 Linville Gorge wildfire burned along the western side of the road. Follow-up herbicide use may be necessary in some daylighted areas if monitoring determines non-native invasives become established.

Daylight 50 feet around two existing fields in Compartment 294 (except around the field within Unit 7).

2.2.4 Alternative D Alternative D was developed to address comments received during the 30-Day Notice and Comment Period to develop an alternative that would not necessitate exceeding Forest Plan ESH standards. The following table summarizes harvest-related information for Alternative D:

Table 2-2: Roses Creek Harvest Alternative D

Stand (Unit)



300-1 300-2

3B 3B

22 39

Two-Age Regeneration with Uniform Distribution of Reserve Trees – An average basal area of 15-25 ft2/ac of shelterwood reserve trees would be marked to leave on site indefinitely to create a two-aged stand structure along with new regeneration. Other merchantable trees would be cut and removed. Favored reserve trees would include trees with dens, large and long-living hardwood trees with potential to become den trees, 9”-12” diameter at breast height (dbh) trees with potential as high-quality sawtimber in the future, mast-producing trees, and long-living yellow pines. Likely species to leave would include black gum, hickory, white oak, chestnut oak, northern red oak, and yellow-poplar. Virginia pine, scarlet oak, black oak, and black locust would not be left as reserve trees due to their tendency to windthrow or die earlier than other trees. White pine and sweet gum would not be left as reserve trees due to their potential for unwanted seed production. Two or more good reserve trees might be left close together, but the goal is to limit shading of new regeneration, so no more than 30 ft2/ac would be left except within designated inclusions. Some spots might have less than 15 ft2/ac after harvest due to accidental logging damage or the absence of suitable leave trees at that spot. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees


19

Stand (Unit)



between 2” and 8” dbh that were not marked to leave. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, and dogwood would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, rhododendron, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated manually, while desirable species would not be treated. To prevent damage to reserve trees and developing regeneration, prescribed burning would not be used. As natural regeneration from seed, seedlings, seedling sprouts, and stump sprouts develops a new age-class, a two-aged stand structure would result. New regeneration would be more diverse in terms of species richness than the existing stand, but subsequent TSI treatments including manual release and manual crown-touching release are expected to be needed to control rapid growth and competition of red maple, silverbell, yellow-poplar, and other species. Small enrichment plantings with blight resistant American chestnuts or oaks might occur within hardwood regeneration areas on suitable sites if seedlings become available.

295-3 295-4 295-5 295-6

3B 3B 3B 3B

30 28 18 16

Sanitation Thinning – Merchantable white pine would be cut and removed while retaining all other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, pitch pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine. Although this would create some variable size openings where white pines occur in clumps, the majority of the harvested area would retain variable basal areas above 40 ft2/ac. Reduction in residual stocking would allow crown expansion and increased diameter growth of residual trees. To prevent damage to reserve trees, prescribed burning would not be used.

294-8 294-9

3B 3B

39 39

Two-Age Regeneration and Restoration to Shortleaf Pine and Oak – Merchantable white pine, scarlet oak, and Virginia pine would be cut and removed while retaining other species, including white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine. Due to the relative abundance of white pine in this stand, the majority of the harvested area would have sparse overstory remaining with variable basal areas of residual trees below 30 ft2/ac. These openings in the tree canopy would be managed for the growth of regeneration. As a new age-class develops, a two-aged stand structure would result. Distribution of residual trees would be non-uniform, with clumps of various sizes and irregular shapes. Following logging, site preparation would include slash down of residual trees between 2” and 8” dbh in openings. The largest and healthiest soft mast-producing trees such as sourwood, service berry, dogwood, and blackgum would be retained where available. To prevent prolific sprouting of red maple, mountain laurel, sweet gum, and other competing species, the cut surface of stumps of those species would be treated manually, while desirable species would not be treated. The stand would be broadcast burned to reduce logging slash, top kill small trees and shrubs, promote development of fire-dependent plants, and prepare planting spots. Shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted on a wide (10’ x 12’) spacing to develop as new regeneration in openings along with upland hardwoods and other yellow pines. Subsequent prescribed burning and/or selective manual release would be used if needed to maintain desired species composition and plant communities. Apply Sporax to cut white pine stumps in Units 8 and 9 to reduce incidence of infection by annosus root rot in adjacent stands.

Total 231

In addition to the 231 acres of harvesting, Alternative D would:




20


Site prepare natural regeneration on about 61 acres manually by slashdown. Site prepare artificial regeneration on about 78 acres manually by slashdown followed by

prescribed burn. Plant shortleaf pine on 78 acres following artificial site preparation by handtools, herbicide,

and prescribed burning. Release newly regenerated stands manually on about 132 acres 1-3 years following site

preparation. Perform an understory treatment manually on about 92 acres of stands thinned to remove

white pine seedlings and saplings. Reintroduce populations of the sensitive brook floater into lower reaches of Steels Creek

and Upper Creek with assistance from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Perform stream rehabilitation along about 1.2 miles of Back Creek and a tributary by

placing large woody debris and constructing log vanes in about 35 sites/structures. Activity would be completed by trackhoe and would use entire trees (root wad included) from outside riparian areas where available.


Develop about 10 additional acres of wildlife fields (1½ - 2 acres in size each) on log landings in Units 1, 2, 6, 8, 9 seed with a seasonally suitable clover and wildflower seed mix, and plant with an old variety of apple trees.

Control/manage grass, herbaceous, and woody plants growing through and along about 1.4 miles of the paved Table Rock Road, Forest Service Road (FSR) 99 manually.

Control/manage about 5 acres total of non-native invasive plant species manually along Forest Service System Roads.



2.3 Alternative Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study __________ Pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.14(a), one alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study: Alternative 1 – No Harvesting within Compartment 295.

2.3.1 Alternative 1 – No Harvesting within Compartment 295

Under this alternative, the harvest activities displayed in Units 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 for Alternative B – Proposed Action would be performed, but no harvesting would take place in Units 3, 4, 5, and 6. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because removing white pine in these


21

units and Unit 10 is necessary to meet project objectives which in part are to: [r]estore healthy forest conditions in the Roses Creek AA because less fire-dependent species (white pine) have become established in the AA and the amount of hard mast species (hickories and oaks) and fire dependent species (shortleaf yellow pine) is currently not at desired levels (see Section 1.3.2, Chapter 1).

2.4 Project Design Features and Monitoring Common to Action Alternatives _________________________________________________

The action alternatives share these project design features and would become mandatory if the responsible official selects an action alternative for implementation (see also Appendix A and Appendix F).

2.4.1 Project Design Features

1. Marking guidelines would include prioritizing the following tree species for retention, where they occur: white oak, red oak, hickory, black oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine.

2. Additional trees (30 ft2 basal area/acre) would be retained along FSR 118 in Units 7 & 8 to preclude 4-wheel drive vehicles from entering the units.

3. Timber contractor would place a gate in Unit 8 following harvest activities to preclude 4-wheel drive vehicles from entering proposed wildlife field off of FSR 118.

4. Two 12 inch diameter or greater black gum trees would be retained within every 10 acres of vegetation treatment (harvesting, stand improvement, site preparation) where it occurs.

5. Retain ¼ of grape arbors within every 10 acres of vegetation treatment (harvesting, stand improvement, site preparation) where they occur.

6. Springs/seeps would be excluded from harvest by retaining a 10-foot wide tree perimeter on each side and no heavy equipment would be permitted entry into it.

7. Threatened, endangered, and Regional Forester’s sensitive species would be considered in the burn plan prior to ignition to ensure there are no adverse impacts to them.

8. To reduce potential for spread of non-native invasive plants in the AA, native plants would be used for wildlife improvement or erosion control.

2.4.2 Monitoring

1. National objectives include reducing impacts from invasive species and improving the effectiveness of treating selected invasive species on the Nation’s forests and grasslands. Survey areas would be established to monitor control efforts. Survey areas would be established before control treatment, checked during treatment, and within nine months after treatment. A post-treatment evaluation report would be completed and filed in the project file (purpose is to monitor effectiveness of treatments). Follow-up herbicides treatments would occur should monitoring determine necessity.

2.5 Summary Comparison of Actions by Alternative ___________________ The following table summarizes management activities within each of the alternatives analyzed in detail:


22

Table 2-3: Roses Creek Proposed Management Activities by Alternative

Proposed Activity Alternative

A B C D Regeneration timber harvesting (two-age – acres) 0 231 231 139 Non-regeneration timber harvesting (sanitation thin – acres) 0 76 76 92 Total harvesting (acres) 0 307 307 231 0-10 year age class in Roses Creek AA (%) 121 15 15 14 Utilize and reconstruct existing unimproved temporary roads and permanently close them by disking and seeding after harvest activities (miles)

0 2.3 2.3 1.6

Utilize and reconstruct an existing improved non-system road and add it to the Forest’s transportation system; it would be closed with a gate (miles)

0 1.3 1.3 ½

Construct a new road and add it to the Forest’s transportation system; it would be closed with a gate – road prism is already in place (miles)

0 0.3 0.3 0

Site prepare natural regeneration by slashdown and herbicides (acres) 0 101 101 02 Site prepare artificial regeneration by slashdown, herbicides, and prescribed burn (acres)

0 130 130 02

Plant Shortleaf pine following artificial site prepapration (acres) 0 130 130 78 Understory treatment with herbicides to remove white pine seedlings (acres)

0 76 76 02

Release newly regenerated stands 1-3 years after site preparation with herbicides (acres)

0 231 231 02

Control/manage vegetation growing through Forest Service Road 99 with herbicides (miles)

0 1.4 1.4 02

Control/manage non-native invasive plants along Forest Service Roads (acres)

0 5 5 02

Apply Sporax to cut white pine stumps (acres) 0 0 0 78

Designate small patch old growth in Compartments 294, 299, and 300 (acres) 0 186 186 186

Develop 1½ - 2 acre sized wildlife fields on log landings (acres) 0 12 12 10 Create and maintain a fuel break around Outward Bound’s facilities? No Yes Yes Yes Reintroduce brook floaters to Steels Creek and Upper Creek? No Yes Yes Yes Perform stream rehabilitation along about 1.2 miles of Back-Irish Creek by placing large woody debris and log vanes?

No Yes Yes Yes

Fell trees along Back-Irish Creek Road (FSR 118) near Irish and Reedys Creeks?

No Yes Yes Yes

Daylight 30 feet either side of FSR 118 for about 1.75 miles? No Yes Yes No Daylight 50 feet around two existing wildlife fields in Compartment 294?

No No Yes No

Prescribe burn 2,315 acres in the Chimney Gap area (outside Linville Gorge Wilderness)?

No No Yes No

1 – Due to about 1,040 acres burned with ESH characteristics from the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire 2 – Treatments would occur (78 acres), but manually and not with herbicides


23

CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The following table displays past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the Roses Creek analysis area (AA) that would be accounted for in cumulative effects, as appropriate, by resource analysis and could have a cumulative effect in the AA:

Table 3-1: Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions within the Roses Creek AA

Activity Description

Fire/Fuels

Logging Wildfire (30 acres in 2008) Linville Gorge Wildfire (3,000 acres in 2007) Helispot constructed near Forest Service Road (FSR) 99 for medi-vac (1 acre in 2007) – campers access it today

Recreation/Special Uses/ Roads

Outward Bound replaced underground powerline in FSR 210B roadbed (spring 2009) Repairs to FSRs following 2004 tropical storms

Timber Harvesting Past harvesting (<20 years ~638 acres): shelterwood (142 ac); two-age (177 ac); clearcut (261 ac); thinning (37 ac); and salvage (21 ac) harvest prescriptions

Private Lands

~100 acres of harvesting in Compartment 300; ~100 acres of harvesting in Compartment 294; ~100 acres of harvesting in Compartment 293 20 acre forested hunting camp in Compartment 295 20 acre forested hunting camp in Compartment 297

3.1 Hydrology and Aquatic Habitat _________________________________ This analysis addresses activity area waters and AA waters. Activity area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts to aquatic habitat and populations. The AA encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities, in addition to treatment area waters. The AA is larger than the treatment area – see Definitions section of Biological Evaluation (BE), Appendix A for aquatic AA boundary. Additional analysis on aquatic habitat is disclosed in Appendix A [BE]; Section 3.8 [Management Indicator Species (MIS)], and; Section 3.9 [Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES), and Forest Concern (FC) Species] of this document. Additional information on aquatic resources can be found in the aquatic resource report, which is part of the project record.

3.1.1 Existing Condition

Existing data for aquatic resources within the aquatic AA is used to the extent it is relevant to the proposal. This data exists in two forms: 1) general inventory and monitoring of Forest aquatic resources, and 2) data provided by cooperating resource agencies from aquatic resources on or flowing through the Forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in this analysis. Data collected prior to 1980 is used as a historical reference. Project-specific surveys are conducted to obtain reliable data where none exists.

Substrate within the activity area waters (see following tables) was evaluated and visually estimated. The three primary types of substrate that exist were documented at each macroinvertebrate sample site. This information is valuable for determining the amount of habitat available for TES species, MIS, as well as other aquatic organisms. Un-named tributaries are listed as (UT).


24

Table 3-2: Forest Plan Watersheds 54 (Roses Creek) & 20 (Steels Creek Watershed) – National Forest System lands (NFS) only

Stream Name Unit Activity Area (mi) Analysis Area (mi)

Simpson Creek 1 0.2 4.1 2 0.4 0

Roses Creek 0 1.8 UT 1 0 0.2

UT 2 0 0.1 Reedys Fork 3 0.6 1.2

4 0.5 0 UT 1 5 0.4 1.2

6 0.3 0 UT 2 5 0.45 1.15

6 0.1 0 Irish Creek 0 2.5

UT1 0 1.3 UT 2 0 0.8

Back Creek 7 0.6 3 8 0.6 0 9 0.2 0 10 0.6 0

UT 1 0.2 1.2 UT 1 Steels Creek 2 0.1 0.2 UT 2 Steels Creek 2 0.1 0.3 Total 5.35 19.05

Table 3-3: NFS and Private Property (total length of stream plus stream restoration)


Simpson Creek 1 0.2 4.1 2 0.4

Roses Creek 1.8 Private 5.8 UT 1 0.2

Private 1.0 UT 2 0.1

Private 0.65 Reedys Fork 3 0.6 1.2

4 0.5 Private 1.2 UT 1 5 0.4 1.2

6 0.3 Private 0.1 0.5 UT 2 5 0.45 1.15

6 0.1 Irish Creek 2.5

Private 3.3 UT1 1.3 UT 2 0.8

Private 0.2 Back Creek 7 0.6 3.0

8 0.6


25


9 0.2 10 0.6

Private 0.4 Stream Restoration 1.0

UT 1 0.2 1.2 Stream Restoration 0.2 Steels Creek 2 0.5 Total 6.65 32.1

In the Roses Creek AA, landforms can be characterized as Valley Types I and II using the Rosgen (1996) classification. Typical for these valley types, the area has predominantly stable stream types characterized as "A" and "B", depending on the valley type that they occur. Occurring less frequently are "F" and "G" stream types depending on local stream and riparian conditions. These two stream types are typically unstable due to high bank erosion rates (Rosgen, 1996), and are having adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. Within the Back Creek drainage where unstable channel conditions occur, stream rehabilitation is proposed within approximately 1.1 miles of stream to improve channel stability and aquatic habitat. Implementation of this work is expected to reduce sediment loading to near background (undisturbed) levels. Rates of erosion from stream banks following this type of work are estimated to decrease by 91 percent, based on forest monitoring of storm recovery work implemented during 2006 and 2007.

Existing old roads and skid trails in the AA are existing threats to the streams and drainages. Impacts from these sources are limited to down slope movement of sediment from road runoff and culvert fills. In most cases, it is suspected that a majority of sediments from these sources are deposited in the natural vegetative filters before they reach areas of perennial streams. In surveying the Roses Creek activity areas, the roads were generally in good, stable condition.

3.1.2 Effects Analysis

This discussion assumes all Forest Service timber sale contract clauses, North Carolina Best Management Practices (BMP), and any other required management practices relating to water quality would be implemented successfully. Should an implemented contract clause or BMP fail during project implementation, immediate corrective action would be taken to reduce impacts to aquatic resources.

Effects are disclosed below for: 1) transportation access on aquatic resources; 2) timber harvest on aquatic resources, water quality, and riparian areas; 3) herbicide use; 4) Back Creek stream rehabilitation; 5) augmentation of brook floater; 6) wildlife fields and daylighting; 7) timber stand improvement (TSI); 8) prescribed burning; and 9) cumulative effects.

3.1.2.1 Effects of Access on Aquatic Resources

Alternative A

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would perpetuate the existing condition described above. Aquatic habitat quality, quantity, and populations would continue in their natural dynamic patterns. It is important to note that natural processes include aspects such as extinction of species and loss of habitat types.


26

Alternatives B & C

Alternatives B & C are discussed together for potential impacts to aquatic resources from access because both of these alternatives require one stream crossing in an UT to Back Creek. This stream crossing would be necessary to access Unit 10 on the proposed newly constructed 0.3 miles of road.

The installation of the stream crossing would require approximately 26 linear feet of direct impacts to the stream bottom. During the culvert installations, there would likely be a temporary fluctuation of turbidity within the UTs to Back Creek. This turbidity would be minimized by the implementation of BMPs and Forest Practice Guidelines (FPGs). As a result, no measurable direct adverse impacts to aquatic habitat or organisms are expected to occur from the improvement of access into the area.

The road drainage on all temporary roads within the activity area would be designed so water flows off the road bed and enters into vegetation rather than directly into activity area streams. Following harvest activities, disc and seeding of all unsurfaced temporary roads, skid roads and log landings would occur.

A small quantity of sediment may enter UT Back Creek during culvert installation; however, these effects would not be measurable approximately 75 feet below the new crossing. The effects of the culvert installations would be minor because any disturbed soil would be seeded and mulched within one working day of completion of construction; therefore, very little sediment is expected to enter streams. Effects from the culvert installation would be immeasurable at the confluence with Back Creek because the culvert installation would occur several hundred feet above the confluence.

Sedimentation from the culvert installation may reduce the quality of the habitats within UT Back Creek by partially filling pools. However, the stream is only approximately 2 feet wide at the proposed crossing and is only 2-4 inches deep. Therefore, little to no pool habitat exists within the activity area. Where water does slow into more pool-like habitat, sedimentation may be evident. These effects may persist until the next bank full flow event (the flow event which occurs approximately every 2½ years). These impacts would affect approximately 0.03 miles of the approximately 32 miles (0.09%) of cool water streams within the aquatic AA.

A small quantity of sediment may enter AA streams at the existing crossings during timber hauling. This turbidity would not be measurable and is not expected to cause any loss of habitat for aquatic within the aquatic AA.

An evaluation of the AA roads and their condition was conducted by the Grandfather Ranger District after improvements were made to system roads following the 2004 tropical storms. Improvements on these roads addressed erosion issues and corrected any problems the roads were creating for aquatic habitat.

Alternative D

There is no plan to construct any new road under Alternative D. This alternative drops Unit 10, which eliminates the need for the stream crossing in UT Back Creek.

There would be no direct or indirect effects to UT Back Creek with the implementation of Alternative D. No fluctuation of sediments would occur as a result of culvert installations.


27

A small quantity of sediment may enter AA streams at the existing crossings during timber hauling. This turbidity would not be measurable and is not expected to cause any loss of habitat for aquatic within the aquatic AA.

An evaluation of the analysis area roads and their condition was conducted by the Grandfather Ranger District after improvements were made to system roads following the 2004 tropical storms. Improvements on these roads addressed erosion issues and corrected any problems the roads were creating for aquatic habitat.

3.1.2.2 Effects of Timber Harvest on Aquatic Resources, Water Quality, and Riparian Areas

Alternative A

The existing condition of aquatic resources has been described above. Natural fluctuations in population stability, and habitat quality and quantity would continue.

Alternatives B, C, & D

Action Alternatives B, C, and D have been discussed together in regards to impacts to aquatic resources because riparian buffers have been delineated so that no impact to aquatic habitat would occur from harvest activities.

North Carolina Forest Practices Guidelines (NC-FPGs) and Forest Plan standards (BMPs) would be implemented during harvest activities. Applications of Forest Plan standards are intended to meet performance standards of the state regulations. Visible sediment derived from timber harvesting, defined by state regulations, should not occur unless there is a failure of one or more of the applied erosion control practices. Should any practice fail to meet existing regulations, additional practices or the reapplication of existing measures would be implemented as specified by state regulations. According to the NC Forestry BMP Implementation survey 2000 thru 2003: [i]mplementation of BMPs is critical in protecting water quality. Monitoring of the BMP structures in the English White Pine Project (Pisgah Ranger District) occurred during a two inch rain event in the summer of 2007. Straw bales, mulching, and seeding had been installed two weeks prior to the event. The stream adjacent to the activity area was flowing clear and void of sediment from the associated activities.

There is no proposal to harvest within any 100 foot riparian area of perennial streams within the Roses Creek Project area. According to the Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) Vol. 1: Under these conditions, no increase in water temperature is anticipated under any of the alternatives. Since riparian-area treatment is not expected under any alternatives, availability of woody debris would be positively influenced if there was no harvest anywhere within the riparian zone on each streambank (page IV-36). The culvert installation for this project is associated with existing roads and therefore would not cause any disturbance to the existing riparian vegetation.

Units 3, 4, and 6 have riparian areas located within the stands that would be excluded from harvesting. These include seeps within Units 3 and 4 that would have a riparian buffer delineated around it so no impacts would occur to the seep including any harvesting or felling activities. Units 4 and 6 both have perennial streams that do not appear on the aquatic AA maps that would be protected with 100 foot no harvest riparian buffers.

Water quality should not be affected because Forest Plan standards and NC-FPGs are followed, and timber sale contract clauses are implemented. Stream temperatures would not be adversely


28

affected because adequate shade would be maintained along perennial and intermittent streams. In the past, the implementation of the NC-FPGs have protected streams during similar past actions. Long-term adverse impacts from these similar past actions have not been apparent. When failure of any BMP or NC-FPG has occurred it has been corrected immediately.

3.1.2.3 Effects of Herbicide Use

Alternative A

The existing condition of aquatic resources has been described above. Natural fluctuations in population stability, and habitat quality and quantity would continue.

Exotic invasive plants would likely continue to invade riparian vegetation without appropriate treatment of these species within the Roses Creek AA.


In accordance with the Vegetation Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM-FEIS), herbicide spraying would not occur within 30 horizontal feet of water unless the herbicide has been approved for aquatic applications. The ester formulation of the herbicide Triclopyr has potential to cause direct mortality to aquatic organisms at a concentration of 0.74 parts per million (ppm). The amine formulation of Triclopyr can be lethal at concentrations of 91 ppm (VM-FEIS). Concentrations of Glyphosate at 24 ppm can be lethal to some aquatic organisms (VM-FEIS). Sublethal effects, such as lethargy or hypersensitivity, have been observed in fish at concentrations of 0.1 mg/L – 0.43 mg/L. No adverse effects have been observed in fish or aquatic invertebrates from exposure to imazapic concentrations up to 100 mg/L. Field applications of herbicides where stream buffers have been maintained have resulted in concentrations of these herbicides in streams below the lethal concentration – generally concentrations ≤ 0.0072 ppm in the adjacent streams (Durkin, 2003a; Durkin, 2003b; and Durkin and Follansbee, 2004). Furthermore, these herbicides degrade into nontoxic compounds in approximately 65 days (VM-FEIS). The 30 foot buffers would prevent the Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Glyphosate or Triclopyr from reaching the LC50 (Lethal Concentration at which 50% of the organisms suffer mortality) for any aquatic species (VM-FEIS) because the herbicides would not enter the streams in any measurable quantity. Concentrations of these herbicides in adjacent waters where the waters were buffered (33 feet) resulted in concentrations of ≤0.0072 ppm. These concentrations are too low to produce the lethal or sub lethal effects described above. Treatment area streams would be protected by a 30 foot buffer (minimum) which would prevent the concentrations of these herbicides from accumulating within the treatment area streams in measurable quantities. There would be no effects to coldwater streams community because the amount of herbicides in activity area waters would be immeasurable.

3.1.2.4 Effects of Back Creek Stream Rehabilitation

Alternative A

Sedimentation and erosion will continue along the riparian area of Back Creek and along stream banks of both Back Creek and an unnamed tributary.

Turbidity and sediment loading can cause mortality by injuring and stressing individuals or smothering eggs and juveniles. Available habitat, including the interstitial space within substrate used as spawning and rearing areas, may be covered with sediments. Larger, more mobile


29

aquatic species, such as fish are able to temporarily escape the effects of sedimentation by leaving the disturbed area.


The action alternatives would have direct short-term (<1 year) adverse effects on turbidity and fine sediment mobilization, but positive, long-term, effects on hydrology and water quality of Back Creek. Constructed structures would redirect stream flow away from stream banks, where it is causing erosion, and back into the middle of the channel. Stream banks would be sloped back to a stable angle upstream and downstream of each vane where practical. Stream banks would be seeded, mulched, and planted with native riparian vegetation.

Vane structures would be installed to work with the existing streambed form of the channel. Therefore, location of the vanes would generally coincide with existing riffle and pool habitats. Much of the bed material removed from the channel during construction would be placed on the upstream side of the vanes against the stream bank to enhance the deposition that would naturally occur there. The areas along the bank, both upstream and downstream of the vanes, would fill in after construction as deposition occurs over the years. By doing so, the channel would narrow and generally improve water quality and aquatic habitat. A narrower channel would be deeper and less prone to water temperature warming. Pools and riffles would be well defined and of better quality than currently at the site.

The vanes are not likely to increase peak flow levels or the risk of flooding since they are designed to increase channel efficiency. Following construction of the vanes, the wetted channel width at low flow is expected to narrow by approximately 6 feet on average and deepen by about 0.2 feet. As a result, stream flow velocity is expected to increase slightly through the reach. Based on the general USGS safety standard (depth x velocity less than six) the summertime average flows would be safe for wading. The need for public river safety education would not increase with this alternative.

Additionally, the proposed vane and the associated bank work would help stabilize the channel of Back Creek. Stabilizing the bank would reduce the existing chronic source of sediment, improve aquatic habitat, and establish riparian vegetation. A short-term pulse of sediment created from the construction of the vanes is expected but would be outweighed by the long-term benefit of a stable stream channel. Implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines requiring erosion control while working in riparian areas would further reduce sediment input.

Table 3-4: Effects to Aquatic Resources from the Stream Restoration Project for the Roses Creek Proposal

Aquatic Habitats Alternative A

No Action Alternatives B, C, & D

Short-term impacts (<1 year)

Eroded stream banks would continue to contribute sediment to the river and degrade aquatic habitat.

Placement of rock vanes and log structures would cause short-term turbidity during construction but enhance aquatic habitat upon completion. Stream bank erosion and subsequent sedimentation would be reduced should flooding occur in the short-term.


30

Aquatic Habitats Alternative A

No Action Alternatives B, C, & D

Long-term impacts (>1 year)

Unstable banks would continue to erode causing degradation of aquatic habitats. Alluvial, streamside forests would continue to degrade due to invasive plants resulting in a further loss of “recruitable” large wood to the river.

Rock vanes and log structures would help direct flows away from stream banks, decreasing erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity in stream. Habitat quality would be improved because of the pool habitat formed by the vanes. Roots from new plantings would hold soil thus, reducing sediment and improving aquatic habitat. Treatment of non-native invasive plants, stabilizing stream banks, removal of the gabion baskets, and relocation of trail and parking area, and streamside planting would improve streamside vegetation and large wood recruitment important for aquatic habitat.

3.1.2.5 Effects of Augmentation of Brook Floater

Alternative A

The brook floater populations in lower Steels Creek would remain in their current state without the potential of augmentation upstream into the aquatic AA, reducing potential for species diversity.


In accordance with the Forest Plan, these alternatives would address augmentation of native brook floaters: Use habitat restoration, improvement, and reintroduction to re-establish or expand native species populations and diversity (Forest Plan, page III-24). The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission is raising brook floaters at the Tablerock Fish Hatchery so existing populations within the area would not be impacted (i.e. moved from one stream to another). It is expected that the augmentation of brook floaters within the watershed would increase overall species diversity depending upon the survival of the specimens.

3.1.2.6 Effects of Wildlife Fields and Daylighting

Alternative A

The existing roads and wildlife fields would continue in their present state and eventually not be considered openings anymore. This would likely have no impacts to aquatic resources within the area.


The development of new wildlife fields and the daylighting of existing roads (linear wildlife openings) is not expected to have any negative impacts on the aquatic resources within the Roses Creek AA due to project design and Forest Plan standards and direction. None of the related activities to achieve this aspect of the project would occur within the riparian areas of any streams within the AA. Where streams are within 100 linear feet of the linear opening, no daylighting will occur. No development of wildlife fields will occur within the riparian area of any AA streams.


31

3.1.2.7 Effects of Timber Stand Improvement (TSI)

Alternative A

No TSI work and/or site preparation will occur with Alternative A. The existing condition described above would continue.


No TSI work and/or site preparation would occur within the 100 foot riparian area of any analysis area stream. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts from TSI work to the aquatic resources within the area.

3.1.2.8 Effects of Prescribe Burning

Alternative A, B, & D

There is no plan to prescribe burn with these alternatives. Therefore, there would be no impacts to aquatic resources (positive or negative) from the implementation of prescribed burns.

Alternative C

A 2,315 acre burn in the Chimney Gap Area is proposed to be implemented with Alternative C. This burn would utilize existing dozer and handlines from the 1007 Linville Gorge Wildfire. There are no expected adverse impacts to aquatic resources because the lines would be constructed to avoid impacts to aquatic resources – dozer line would be outside 100 foot riparian areas.

3.1.2.9 Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

Cumulative effects on aquatic species and habitat are the integration of any direct or indirect effects into the existing condition—and include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, including those not occurring on NFS lands. Most often, cumulative effects are seen as either a degradation or improvement of an already impacted situation, but they can also be the first step in the degradation or improvement process. Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats and populations from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions. There are no other known activities within the aquatic AA that could be added to the existing condition to cause adverse cumulative effects.


Expected cumulative effects should not be any greater than the direct and indirect effects disclosed above for each alternative and there should be no adverse cumulative effects to AA aquatic resources, based on the project’s design features included in this analysis.

Remnants of the past timber activities where access was associated with the projects are in many cases on-going contributors to adverse impacts to aquatic resources. In general, undersized culverts and degraded stream crossings cause constant sources of problems for aquatic resources including unstable stream banks and channelization. Within the AA for Roses Creek, solutions to these problems have been addressed where they were discovered during field surveys. There are places within riparian areas of this project area that have historically been harvested. However, as these areas continue to grow older, conditions should improve as large woody debris input into analysis area streams returns to a more natural state.


32

Existing trails or roads with problems that are inside cutting units would be addressed with the Roses Creek project and roads being added to the system with this project would be repaired.

The restoration that is proposed for Back Creek would improve aquatic habitat and prevent further erosion from occurring. The temporary impacts from construction would be outweighed by the long term benefits.

As a result, the expected cumulative effects should not be any greater than the direct and indirect effects disclosed above and there should be no adverse cumulative effects to the aquatic resources within the aquatic AA based on the proposal’s design features. There are no other known activities within the aquatic AA that could be added to the action alternatives to cause adverse cumulative effects.

3.2 Wildlife Habitat _______________________________________________ Wildlife effects were evaluated over the Roses Creek Forest Plan AA, which comprises compartments 293-295 and 297-300 (see also Definitions section of BE, Appendix A). The Linville Gorge Addition inventoried roadless area (IRA) on the western side of the AA makes up approximately 2,637 acres as well as 4,901 acres of Interior Habitat Patch 35. About 700 acres of the AA is within the Linville Gorge Wilderness, but no activities are proposed within it. As stated above in Section 1.1.1, Chapter 1, the Linville Gorge Wildfire burned about 3,000 acres within the Roses Creek AA, with about 1,040 of the burned acres exhibiting 0-10 year age-class characteristics (about 12% of the AA).

The following tables display forest type, habitat, and age-class information:

Table 3-5: Existing Forest Types Within the Roses Creek AA

Species/Forest Type Acres (GIS) 2007 Linville Gorge

Wildfire % of AA

White Pine 986 ac 26 ac 11% Hemlock-Hardwood 34 ac 8 ac <1% White Pine–Cove hardwood 269 ac 12 ac 3% White Pine–Upland Hardwood 526 ac 1 ac 6% Shortleaf Pine & oak 25 ac <1% Shortleaf Pine 115 ac1/ 1% Pitch Pine & oak 96 ac 16 ac 1% Virginia Pine & oak 1,537 ac 483 ac 18% Loblolly Pine 45 ac <1% Virginia Pine 459 ac 163 ac 5% Pitch Pine 199 ac 53 ac 2% Cove hardwoods–White Pine-Hemlock 156 ac 2% Upland Hardwood–White Pine 987 ac 9 ac 11% Chestnut–Scarlet oak–Yellow pine 1,928 ac 169.2 ac 22% White–Black oak–Yellow pine 129 ac 1% Red oak–Hickory-Yellow pine 154ac 24 ac 2% White–Red oak–Hickory 555 ac 13 ac 6% Yellow poplar–White-Red Oak 295 ac <1 ac 3% Chestnut–Scarlet oak 38 ac <1% Brush Species 159 ac 39 ac 2% Total 8,692 ac 1,017 ac 100%

1/ ~115 acres of shortleaf pine planted in the Linville Gorge Wildfire March 2009


33

Table 3-6: Age Class Representation (post 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire)

Age Class – Habitat Vegetation Component Acres (GIS)

Percentage of AA

Shrub habitat 114 ac 1% 0-10 age – Early Successional 1,081 ac 13% 11-20 age – Early Successional 519 ac 6% 21-40 age – Mid Successional 579 ac 7% 41-100 age – Mature Forest 5,631 ac 65% 101+ age – Old Forest 667 ac 8% Grass/forb habitat 12 ac1/ <1% Total 8,615 ac 100% Open road density - mi/mi2 2/1.5 mi/mi2

1/ Includes existing linear wildlife openings and wildlife fields (considered higher quality wildlife grass/forb habitat), 1.5 acre helispot used by campers (considered lower quality wildlife grass/forb habitat), and 5 acres of seeded fire lines (Linville Gorge Wildfire)

2/ Includes 6.9 mi of NC State roads – USFS open road density = 1.1 mi/mi2

3.2.1 Effects Analysis

3.2.1.1 Alternative A – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, the 1,040 acres burned severely by the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire would serve as 0-10 year age class in the AA. This equates to about 12% of the AA in 0-10 year-age class (535 acres in Compartment 293, 136 acres in Compartment 294, 174 acres in Compartment 295, and 195 acres in Compartment 297) almost all of it within either Management Areas unsuitable for timber harvesting (4C and 7) or within the Linville Gorge Addition IRA. These acres would not be scheduled for timber harvesting over the decades and would not be managed to improve opportunities for enhancing wildlife habitat using commercial harvesting practices. There are no other known activities within the wildlife AA that could be added to the existing condition to cause adverse cumulative effects.

3.2.1.2 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct & Indirect Effects

The following tables disclose the forest types and age class distribution by action alternative (refer to Section 3.8 below for additional discussion of effects to wildlife habitat and Appendix B for additional discussion on age-class distribution):

Table 3-7: Existing Forest Types Within the Roses Creek AA and Proposed Changes by Action Alternative

Species/Forest Type Acres (GIS) Alt B Alt C Alt D

White Pine 986 ac -101 -101 -56 Hemlock-Hardwood 34 ac White Pine–Cove hardwood 269 ac -102 -102 -102 White Pine–Upland Hardwood 526 ac Shortleaf Pine & oak 25 ac Shortleaf Pine 115 ac1/ Pitch Pine & oak 96 ac Virginia Pine & oak 1,537 ac Loblolly Pine 45 ac Virginia Pine 459 ac Pitch Pine 199 ac Cove hardwoods–White Pine-Hemlock

156 ac +632/


34

Species/Forest Type Acres (GIS) Alt B Alt C Alt D

Upland Hardwood–White Pine 987 ac -27 -27 Chestnut–Scarlet oak–Yellow pine

1,928 ac -81 -81 -33

White–Black oak–Yellow pine 129 ac Red oak–Hickory-Yellow pine 154ac White–Red oak–Hickory 555 ac Yellow poplar–White-Red Oak

295 ac

Chestnut–Scarlet oak 38 ac Brush Species 159 ac 1/ ~115 acres of shortleaf pine planted in the Linville Gorge Wildfire March 2009 2/ Increase is due to removal of white pine only in Units 3-6 and conversion of those units from white pine –

upland hardwood forest type to cove hardwood – white pine – hemlock forest type

Table 3-8: Age Class Representation (post 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire) and Proposed Changes by Action Alternative

Age Class – Habitat Vegetation Component Acres (GIS)

Percentage of AA

Alt B Alt C Alt D

Shrub habitat 114 ac 1% 0-10 age – Early Successional 1,081 ac 13% +231 +231 +139 11-20 age – Early Successional 519 ac 6% 21-40 age – Mid Successional 579 ac 7% 41-100 age – Mature Forest 5,631 ac 65% -231 -231 -139 101+ age – Old Forest 667 ac 8% Grass/forb habitat 12 ac1/ <1% +122/ +122/ +82/

Total 8,615 ac 100% Open road density - mi/mi2 3/1.5 mi/mi2 1.5 mi/mi2 1.5 mi/mi2 1.5 mi/mi2 1/ Includes existing linear wildlife openings and wildlife fields (considered higher quality wildlife grass/forb

habitat), 1.5 acre helispot used by campers, and 5 acres of seeded fire lines (Linville Gorge Wildfire) 2/ New grass/forb and seeded temp roads utilized for access 3/ Includes 6.9 mi of NC State roads – USFS open road density = 1.1 mi/mi2

3.2.1.3 Creation of 0-10 Year Age Class Habitat

Alternatives B & C each develop about 231 acres of 0-10 year age class habitat in the AA, about 92 more acres than the 139 acres developed under Alternative D. When added to the existing 0-10 year age class habitat created by the 2007 acre Linville Gorge Wildfire, there would be 15% 0-10 year age class habitat in the AA under Alternatives B & C and 14% 0-10 year age class habitat in the AA under Alternative D – meeting Forest Plan standards at the AA level.

The 0-10 year age class habitat on private lands is generally from one area (approximately 5% of the private lands) and the limited commercial nursery stock land (approximately 1% of private lands) within this AA. These areas provide limited and lower quality 0-10 year age class habitat because of continual human disturbance to wildlife.

3.2.1.4 Creation of Grass/Forb Habitat

Alternatives B & C would create about 12 additional acres of grass/forb habitat following harvest activities using log landings and Alternative D would create about 8 additional acres of grass/forb habitat; bringing the total grass/forb habitat in Management Area 3B in the AA to about 31 acres under Alternatives B & C and 27 acres under Alternative D. The total percentage of grass/forb habitat in Management Area 3B in the AA would be 0.72% under Alternative B &


35

C and 0.62% under Alternative D, achieving Forest Plan standards of at least 0.5%. Prescribe burning 2,985 acres within the next 10 years under Alternative C should result in development of some grass/forb habitat as well as an increase in future oak composition.

Private lands were analyzed using aerial photography. It appears there is limited pasture or grass openings on approximately 10% of the private land; however, like 0-10 year age class habitat on private lands, these areas provide limited and lower quality grass/forb habitat due to continual human disturbance to wildlife. Past wildfires have resulted in an open, regenerating condition on 1,040 acres. However, little grass or forbs were seen growing within the 2007 wildfire, presumably due to the severe fire effects of eliminating most grass seed sources.

3.2.1.5 Hard Mast Production

Alternatives B & C would harvest approximately 135 acres (12%) of higher quantity mast producing stands and approximately 32 acres (2%) of lower quantity mast producing stands. The marking guidelines would retain hard mast species as residual trees, where they occur, mitigating some of the hard mast production lost. The proposed timber stand improvement (TSI) scheduled in both Alternatives B and C would improve the amount of hard mast species within the AA over time. The prescribed burning proposed with Alternative C would also increase hard mast production within 10 years. Alternative D does not propose to remove many hardwoods and the canopy reduction by removing 91 acres of white pine will likely result in larger crowns on the remaining hardwoods, increasing hard and soft mast production over Alternatives B & C.

The proposed Chimney Gap prescribe burn would result in the persistence of hard mast regeneration.

While the majority of private land is forested, it is broken up by housing and paved roads decreasing the quality of the hard mast producing habitat due to continual human disturbance to wildlife.

3.2.1.6 Large Woody Debris

Alternatives B, C, & D would not change the amount of large woody debris available within the riparian areas since harvesting is not proposed within them, but an increase is expected within units where harvesting occurs due to logging slash. Each of the alternatives would increase the amount of stumps and remnant lengths of downed, large woody debris; however under Alternative D white pine stumps and logging debris are not expected to be as long lived or utilized by species such as grouse, bear, and salamanders that depend on long-term woody debris when compared to Alternatives B & C with more hardwood stumps and logging debris.

The increased large woody debris from past timber sales and wildfires greater than 15 years old is of limited use by wildlife. Prescribe fires do not affect large woody debris other than scorching log surfaces. Wildfires are seldom severe enough to damage the integrity of large woody debris with the exception of the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire. The past mortality of yellow pine caused by southern pine beetle and the current death of hemlock and white pine, especially between Units 3 & 4, has resulted in numerous dead snags and downed trees. White pine trees remain as downed woody debris for a relatively short time compared to hardwoods. Hemlock mortality resulting from hemlock wooly adelgid infestations would create long-lasting, large woody debris for grouse and salamanders, especially within riparian areas where hemlock is prevalent. Private residences and farms are virtually void of downed large woody debris as owners clean them up quickly or utilize them as firewood.


36

3.2.1.7 Cumulative Effects

There are no other known activities within the wildlife AA that could be added to the action alternatives to cause adverse cumulative effects.

3.3 Non-native Invasive Plants _____________________________________ 3.3.1 Existing Condition

The botanical AA or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the total area within 2 kilometers of any proposed unit (activity area) or known EO (Element occurrence) of any plant TES, and FC species (see also Definition section of BE, Appendix A). The botanical AA consists of 11,591 acres. All potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to botanical resources in the botanical AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The botanical AA definition was selected because it is analogous to the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy’s plant delineation guidelines of an EO.

The persistence of most non-native invasive plant species is not considered desirable to natural ecosystem health. There are primarily two ways in which non-native plant species may persist in the forested ecosystems: (1) non-native plant species may persist by the introduction of an “invasive non-native species” to the ecosystem or (2) by modification of the ecosystem in such a way that an invasive species becomes dominant. Out of the 124 species of non-native plants known to occur on the Pisgah Nantahala National Forest, 25 are currently recognized as having aggressive invasive qualities that can dominate local communities (Danley and Kauffman, Regional Foresters, May 2001, List of Invasive Exotic Plant Species).

Surveys for invasive species were conducted (2008) within the activity areas and around roads to the activity areas. Eleven species on the Regional Forester’s invasive non native plant species are known within the AA (Table 3-9). It is recommended that the known populations of Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Ligustrum sinense, Spirea japonica, and Ailanthus altissima be controlled to mitigate possible adverse effect of invasive plant species to this proposal. The invasive plants Microstegium vinineum, Lonicera japonica, and Allium vineale are so well established in parts of the AA that control by any currently known method is impractical.

The populations of Lespedeza cuneata, Lolium arundinaceum and Coronilla varia are not known to be invasive within natural forested communities within the mountains. While Lespedeza cuneata, Lolium arundinaceum, and Coronilla varia may be invasive in Coastal Plain, Piedmont regions, and rare natural areas (i.e. serpentine glades), they are not expected to be a concern in this proposal and/or the botanical AA as they are not known to be invasive within natural forested communities within the mountains. Therefore, it is not recommended that these species be controlled.

Table 3-9: Non-native Invasive Species Summary

Species Regional Category

Location in Activity Areas Recommendation

Ailanthus altissima

Tree of Heaven

1 FSRs 118, 210 Control populations along FSRs 118 & 210 prior to disturbance on NFS land

Rosa multifora 1 FSRs 118, 210, Alluvial forest along

Control populations along FSRs 118 &


37

Species Regional Category

Location in Activity Areas Recommendation

Multi-flora rose Back creek 210 prior to disturbance on NFS land

Spirea japonica

Japanese meadowsweet

FSRs 118, 210, stream sides

Control populations along FSRs 118 & 210 prior to disturbance on NFS land

Lespedeza cuneata

Sericea

1 Wildlife Fields, roadsides

This species does not display invasive tendencies. Not recommended to control.

Paulownia tomentosa

Princess tree

1 FSRs 118, 210 Control populations prior to disturbance on NFS land

Lolium arundinaceum

Tall fescue

1 Wildlife Fields This species does not display invasive tendencies. Not recommended to control.

Lonicera japonica

Japanese honeysuckle

1 Alluvial Forests, Roads, etc.

No practical effective control method known. No recommendation to control.

Microstegium vimineum

Japanese stiltgrass

1 Mostly in Alluvial Forests and coves. Very well established bottoms.

No practical effective control method known. No recommendation to control.

Miscanthus sinensis

Plume grass

2 FSRs Control population prior to disturbance on NFS land

Allium vineale

Filed gralic

1 Wildlife Fields This species does not display invasive tendencies. Not recommended to control

Coronilla varia

Crown vetch

2 Found only along system roads

This species does not display invasive tendencies. Not recommended to control

The following summarizes the effects analysis on non-native plant species. Additional information and effects analyses on TEE and MIS plant species is disclosed in Sections 3.8, 3.9, and Appendix A.

3.3.2 Alternative A – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Existing conditions and trends continue. Under this alternative no actions are proposed. There would be no potential increase in non-native invasive plant species as a result of ground disturbing actions. However, there would also be no control measures implemented to reduce the continued spread of these species. It is expected that non-native invasive plant species would continue to increase with or without planned activities. There are no other known activities in the botanical AA that could affect spread or control/management of non-native invasive plants.

3.3.3 Alternatives B, C, and D – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Non-native invasive plants may persist in the area by continual disturbance. For example, a maintained road shoulder or wildlife field often has persistent ruderal and non-native plant species. These areas are often maintained in an early successional state for wildlife or human benefit. Therefore, it is expected that this proposal could slightly increase the persistence of non-native vegetation in the analysis area. To mitigate this effect, it is recommenced that native plants be utilized in wildlife improvement and roadside erosion control plantings. It is recognized that erosion control and wildlife production are the primary goals of seeding areas and some non-native plant species may be highly beneficial to accomplish these goals. However, a presidential executive order [Executive Order 11987, Title 3- The President]


38

recognizes the need to reduce the impact of non-native species by reducing the amount in which non-native plant species are planted on federal property. All the goals of erosion control, wildlife production, and encouragement of native plant species may be met by planting native plant species or a suitable mixture of native and non-native mixture of species.

The action alternatives all propose to treat non-native invasive plants. The following table displays the maximum potential of non-native invasive habitat that may be developed under the proposal:

Table 3-10: Non-native Invasive Species Effect Summary by Natural Community

Natural Community Associated Species Potential Creation of New Habitat

Acidic Cove Forest Celastrus orbiculatas, Rosa multiflora

Up to 42 acres of potential habitat 8 years after harvest

Rich Cove Forest Celastrus orbiculatas, Rosa multifora, Celastrus orbiculatas, Lespedeza cuneata, Paulownia tomentosa, Lonicera japonica, Microstegium vinineum, Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa,

None. The proposal does not affect this community

Pine Oak Heath/ Chestnut Oak Forest

Paulownia tomentosa, Ailanthus altissima

Up to 125 acres of potential habitat 8 years after harvest and up to 10 acres within permanent wildlife fields

Montane Oak Hickory Ailanthus altissima, Celastrus orbiculatas Rosa multifora, Lespedeza cuneata, Paulownia tomentosa, Lonicera japonica, Microstegium vinineum, Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa,


Alluvial Forest Celastrus orbiculatas Rosa multifora, Lespedeza cuneata, Paulownia tomentosa, Lonicera japonica, Microstegium vinineum, Miscanthus sinensis, Paulownia tomentosa, Ailanthus altissima


Water Fall Spray Zones & wet rocks

none


The proposal has potential to develop up to 167 acres of habitat for non-native invasives in the 8,608 acre Roses Creek AA (less than 2%). To reduce potential for non-native invasives becoming permanently established within these 167 acres, herbicide application would occur following project implementation as well as periodic monitoring and retreatment as necessary under Alternatives B & C. Alternative D would employ manual treatments for addressing non-native invasive plant habitat developed by activities (see also Section 2.4.2, Chapter 2).

There are no other known activities in the activity areas that could be added to the action alternatives to cause adverse cumulative effects.


39

3.4 Pesticides ___________________________________________________ The potential effect of pesticide use is analyzed within the 8,608 acre Roses Creek AA boundary.


Under this alternative, there would be no adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to wildlife, water quality, and humans from pesticide use because none would be applied. The existing condition would remain the same; non-native invasive plant species would be expected to continue to spread in the AA. Pesticide use on private lands would continue in the AA. There are no other known foreseeable actions in the activity areas that could affect resources in the AA due to pesticide use.

3.4.2 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Herbicides are proposed to control/manage existing non-native invasive plant species along haul routes and haul routes adjacent to existing and proposed harvest stands in Alternatives B & C. Herbicides would not be used in Alternative D – non-native invasive plants would be treated manually. Treatment under Alternatives B & C would occur prior to harvest with follow-up treatments should monitoring determine necessity (see also Section 2.4.2, Chapter 2 above). Herbicides would also be used following harvest activities for site preparation and timber stand improvement activities under Alternatives B & C. Sporax is proposed to control/manage annosus root rot from spreading out of infected white pine stands to adjacent stands with white pine in them not harvested under Alternative D.

The following table displays expected maximum acreages of herbicide (Glyphosate or Triclopyr) and Sporax treatment that may occur – additional treatments within these acres may be necessary as site specific monitoring determines, especially for management of non-native invasives:

Table 3-11: Maximum Acres of Pesticides Applied Manually by Alternative1

Pesticide Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Triclopyr or Glyphosate (ac)2 0 ac 5453 ac 5453 ac 0 ac Sporax 0 ac 0 ac 0 ac 78 ac

1 – Not all acreage is treated, i.e. buffers along streams and “non-target” species would not be treated. Herbicides are applied manually and would not be applied aerially (see also Appendix F). Herbicides are primarily applied to stems during release and to foliage on non-native invasives plants.

2 – Acres include treatment for site preparation and non-native invasive plants. 3 – 314 acres would be treated before and during project implementation and 231 acres would be treated 1-3 years

after project implementation.

Use of pesticides is not expected to have measurable adverse effects on wildlife, water quality, and humans due to proper application as per Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs); product labels; risk assessments; fact sheets; mitigation measures contained in the Vegetation Management in the Appalachian Mountains (VMAM) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), issued in July 1989; design features disclosed in Appendix F; and standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan including Requirements For Vegetation Management In The Appalachian Mountains listed in Appendix I of the Forest Plan (pages I-10 – I-14). Any pesticides applied would be done according to the labeling information, at the lowest rate effective at meeting project objectives in accordance with guidelines for protecting the environment, and manually (not aerially). Risks of adverse effects are further reduced by requiring the applicator to be trained in safety precautions, and proper use and handling of


40

pesticides. Other factors reducing risk are the low level of active ingredient per acre and placement of notice signs in areas where herbicides have been applied. The signs include information on the pesticide used, when it was applied, and who to contact for additional information.

Herbicide with the active ingredients Glyphosate and Triclopyr are not considered soil active (mobile). In addition, with the provision of riparian buffer strips on stream zones, the risk of herbicide spills or movement into stream zones is further reduced. Due to project design, effects of the treatment would be limited to individual trees/plants that are treated and the immediate area near them and is not expected to adversely affect private residences downstream. All applicable mitigation measures contained in the VMAM FEIS and Forest Plan standards and guidelines would be followed. A complete discussion of the effects of herbicides is contained in this FEIS, to which this analysis tiers to. Current pesticide information for Glyphosate, Triclopyr, and Sporax may be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml.

Impacts of pesticide use to wildlife, water quality, and humans are expected to be low due to proper handling and application. The use of pesticides would have no measurable impact on water quality because according to the VMAM FEIS: No herbicide is aerially applied within 200 horizontal feet, nor ground-applied within 30 horizontal feet, of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams. No herbicide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (which require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them (VMAM FEIS, page II-67). There would be no adverse effects (direct, indirect, or cumulative) of the usage of pesticides associated with the action alternatives if no spills occur within riparian areas—no pesticide would be applied within at least 30 feet of riparian areas. According to the VMAM FEIS: The greatest hazards to surface and ground water quality arise from a possible accident or mishandling of concentrates during transportation, storage, mixing, and loading, equipment cleaning, and container disposal phases of the herbicide use cycle. Pesticides would be mixed at the pesticide storage building at the Grandfather Ranger District Work Center and not in the field, and applicators do not carry concentrated amounts of pesticide in the field. There are no other known foreseeable applications of pesticides on NFS lands in the AA that could affect pesticide use with this proposal—the last measurable pesticide use on NFS lands in the AA was 11 years ago in Compartment 298. The Forest Service is unaware of any large-scale quantities of pesticide being applied on adjacent non-NFS lands within the watershed that could cause adverse cumulative effects. Individual home owners are expected to use pesticides on their properties; however, determining measurable amounts, formulations, locations, frequency, and timing of their use would be speculative. Additional project design features are listed in Appendix F below.

There are no other actions occurring on NFS lands that could cumulatively be added to the Roses Creek proposal to cause adverse cumulative effects. There is likely pesticide use occurring on private lands in the AA, but the actions on NFS lands are not expected to cumulatively be added to those uses because of the design of the project (Section 1.2, Chapter 1; Section 2.4, Chapter 2; project design features listed in Appendix F; and implementation of BMPs & Forest Plan standards). Estimating amounts and types of herbicides used on private lands would be speculative.


41

3.5 Soil Resources _______________________________________________ The soils AA boundary of effects is the activity areas for the Roses Creek proposal.

The following is an analysis of the soil map units that would have logging or road construction activities occur on them. Any new roads constructed (temporary or system) would occur on existing old road prisms that were constructed in the past for timber harvesting (see Analysis Area 509 Transportation Analysis in the project record). The following table displays soil map units found by stand number:

Table 3-12: Primary Soil Map Units by Harvest Unit by Alternative

Primary Soil Map Unit Name (Series)1 Units/Access Route

Alternative A (acres

analyzed)

Alternative B (acres

analyzed)2

Alternative C (acres

analyzed)2

Alternative D (acres

analyzed)2 Ashe-Chestnut-Buladean (F) 6 0 12 12 12 Braddock (D) 5 0 6 6 6 Colvard (A) 7, 8, 9, 10 0 4 4 2 Edneytown-Pigeonroost (E) 3, 4, 5 0 55 55 55 Evard-Cowee (D&E) 1, 2, 3, 6 0 71 71 71 Fairview (C) 4, 7, 8, 9, 103 0 44 44 16 Fontaflora-Ostin (B) 1, 6 0 9 9 9 Greenlee-Tate-Ostin (C) 4, 6 0 13 13 13 Rhodhiss (D&E) 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 0 152 152 91 Soco-Ditney (E) 6 0 13 13 13 Unison (C) 7, 8 0 6 6 3 Total Acres 0 3854 3854 2914

1 Portions of soil map units make up each stand. Average slope percent ranges are for soil map units from NRCS data and are not necessarily the average slope within the stand (A = 0% - 2%, B = 2% - 8%, C = 8% - 15%, D = 15% - 30%, E = 30% - 50%, and F = 50% - 95%)

2 Acres analyzed are greater than proposed acres harvested due to roads analyzed and GIS database 3 Includes 0.3 mile of new system road to access Unit 10 4 Harvesting would include developing about 15½ acres total of log landings and skid roads for both Alternatives B and C and

about 12 acres total for Alternative D (about 1 acre of log landings and skid roads for each 25 acres harvested)

The following table displays characteristics of each soil map unit:

Table 3-13: Comparison of Soil Map Units1

Map Unit Name (Series) Characteristics

Ashe-Chestnut-Buladean

The Ashe series consists of moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are somewhat excessively drained; moderately rapid permeability; medium internal drainage. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance. The Chestnut series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; moderately rapid permeability. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest cover is intact. The Buladean series consists of deep, well drained soils with moderately rapidly permeability. They are well drained; slow runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed, and medium to rapid runoff where litter is significantly disturbed or removed; moderately rapid permeability.

Braddock The Braddock series consists of very deep, well drained, and moderately permeable soils. They are well drained; slow to moderately slow permeability in the subsoil and


42


moderate to moderately rapid in the substratum. Runoff class is low to moderate on nearly level slopes to very high on steep slopes.

Colvard The Colvard series consists of very deep well drained soils. They are well drained; slow surface runoff; moderately rapid permeability; flooding is occasional.

Edneytown-Pigeonroost

The Edneytown series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils. Well drained, permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately rapid in the underlying material. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance. The Pigeonroost series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; moderate permeability. Runoff class is high on strong or moderately steep slopes and very high on steeper slopes. Runoff is lower where forest litter has not been disturbed.

Evard-Cowee

The Evard series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately rapid in the underlying material. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance. The Cowee series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; moderate permeability. Runoff class is low on gentle slopes, medium on strong or moderately steep slopes, and high on steeper slopes. Runoff is much lower where forest litter has little or no disturbance.

Fairview The Fairview series consists of very deep well drained soils on ridges. They are well drained, with moderate permeability and moderate runoff.

Fontaflora-Ostin

The Fontaflora series consists of very deep, well drained soils with moderately rapid or rapid permeability in the upper part and rapid or very rapid permeability in the lower part. They are well drained and runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately rapid or rapid in the upper part and rapid or very rapid in the lower part. These soils are occasionally or frequently flooded. The Ostin series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well and moderately well drained soils. They are on flood plains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They are well drained and moderately well drained. Runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid in the upper part and rapid to very rapid in the lower part. Most areas are occasionally flooded but flooding ranges to frequent.

Greenlee-Tate-Ostin

The Greenlee series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on benches, fans, and foot slopes in coves in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They are well drained; very little runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed or is only partly disturbed; medium to very rapid runoff where litter has been removed; moderately rapid permeability. The Tate series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes in coves in the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; saturated hydraulic conductivity is moderately high or high, permeability is moderate in the subsoil and moderately rapid permeability in the underlying material. Index surface runoff is negligible to medium. These soils receive surface and subsurface water from surrounding uplands, and seeps and springs are possible. The Ostin series consists of nearly level to gently sloping, very deep, well and moderately well drained soils. They are on flood plains in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. They are well drained and moderately well drained. Runoff is slow. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid in the upper part and rapid to very rapid in the lower part. Most areas are occasionally flooded but flooding ranges to frequent.

Rhodhiss The Rhodhiss series consists of well drained, very deep soils on ridges. They are well drained, with moderate permeability and moderate runoff.


43


Soco-Ditney

The Soco series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately rapid permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; very little runoff where forest litter has not been disturbed. Medium to very rapid runoff where litter has been removed; moderately rapid permeability. The Ditney series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Blue Ridge. They are well drained; moderately rapid permeability; moderately high or high hydraulic conductivity.

Unison The Unison series consists of very deep and well drained soils on mountain foot slopes. They are well drained, medium or rapid runoff; moderate permeability.

1 Information obtained from USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) website


There would be no adverse effects to soils with this alternative because no activities are proposed. Any areas with current erosion would not be corrected. Soil displacement and compaction related to temporary road construction and landing construction would not occur. There are no other known activities within the soils AA that could be added to the existing condition to cause adverse cumulative effects to the soils resource.

3.5.2 Alternatives B and C Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

3.5.2.1 Soil Productivity

There would be some soil compaction in harvest areas as a result of heavy equipment accessing log landings, skid roads, and skid trails. This compaction can increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air, and water holding capacity of the soils. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree of compaction depends on the number of equipment passes over the soil and the moisture content of the soil at the time of equipment use. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well-drained soils until three or more passes have occurred. Areas less susceptible to compaction are where the organic surface material remains intact and where surface rocks are present. Areas of concentrated use such as log landings and skid roads are most affected. These areas are designed to concentrate affected areas to reduce potential for compaction throughout a given stand and receive mitigation such as seeding to reduce long-term compaction. Other areas where harvest-related activities will occur are expected to revegetate naturally with existing root systems, organic matter accumulation, and soil bio-activity are expected to alleviate long-term compaction.

Changes in soil productivity are determined to be significant when more than a 15 percent change in project area soil productivity can be identified (Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, Chapter 2.05, and R8 supplement). Significant changes in soil productivity are indicated when changes in soil properties are expected to result in a reduced productive capacity over the long-term (beyond the planning horizon or 10-15 years) and these changes in soil properties are more than 15 percent from pre-existing undisturbed conditions in the analysis area.

The estimated extent of ground disturbance and associated estimated short and long-term effects (considered cumulatively with potential residual long-term effects from past harvesting) to soils are summarized below:


44

Table 3-14: Estimated Effects on Soil Productivity in AA Alternatives B & C since 1994 (this planning horizon)

Direct and Indirect Estimates

Alternative B Alternative C Activity Area of Disturbance Activity Area of Disturbance

Log Landings/Skid Roads 15½ acres Log Landings/Skid Roads 15½ acres New System Road ½ acre New System Road ½ acre Roses Creek Alt B Affected 16 acres Roses Creek Alt C Affected 16 acres Proposed Harvest Acres 307 Proposed Harvest Acres 307 % of Harvest Acres Affected 5.21% % of Harvest Acres Affected 5.21% % of AA Affected 3.75% % of AA Affected 3.75%

Cumulative Estimates Past Timber Sales1 Past Timber Sales1

Log Landings/Skid Roads 25½ acres Log Landings/Skid Roads 25½ acres Analysis Area Acreage 8,608 acres Analysis Area Acreage 8,608 acres % of AA Affected 4.05% % of AA Affected 4.05%

1 Includes log landings and skid roads in the Roses Creek, Simpson Creek, Gingercake, South Table Rock, Bandy Cove, Back Creek Ice Salvage, Back Creek, Rich Cove, Roses Creek Salvage, and Irish Creek Timber Sales from <20 years ago. Does not include harvest acres from these timber sales because they have since revegetated.

As disclosed in the preceding table, significant impacts to soil productivity are not expected because the 15 percent threshold of ground disturbance in the AA would not be exceeded by either the Roses Creek proposal itself nor when cumulatively added to past timber harvest activities from 20 years ago.

In addition, adverse effects to soil productivity with these alternatives is not expected because almost all the soil types are very deep and well drained (reducing potential for compaction); only ½ an acre would be taken out of production through permanent system road construction; and project design features (Section 2.4, Chapter 2) and Forest Plan standards (BMPs) would be applied to further reduce potential for compaction and long-term damage.

Alternatives B & C propose about 0.3 miles of new system (classified) road construction on an old woods road that would be closed with a gate following project implementation. About 15½ acres of skid roads and log landings would be developed within harvest units under these alternatives to facilitate harvest activities. Skid roads and log landings would be closed and seeded following harvest activities to reduce potential for long-term compaction and erosion (see definitions at end of Appendix A). Following harvest activities and for wildlife purposes, constructed log landings would be seeded with a clover and wildflower seed mix and on smaller landings an old variety species of apple or other fruit trees would be planted. Skid trails would also be used within harvested stands to facilitate log removal, but since equipment is used to drag logs on specified routes to log landings (typically over branches, brush, and other similar vegetation) and not to use a blade to break new ground, long-term compaction to soil resources is not expected to occur (see definitions at end of Appendix A). There are no other known activities in the soils AA that could be added to these alternatives to cause adverse cumulative effects to soil productivity.

3.5.2.2 Nutrient Cycling

An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened. The increase in soil moisture, surface soil temperatures, and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition and increased soil biotic activity. This


45

in turn would result in an increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems on-site, along with new plant germinations are expected to take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients and moisture, and a surge of growth would occur. Possible losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching and through volitization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient rich leafy material and small woody debris left on-site after harvest, plus additions by the atmosphere and precipitation. Thus there would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on nutrient cycling, either through nutrient removal or nutrient leaching as a result of the proposal.

3.5.3 Alternative D Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

3.5.3.1 Soil Productivity

There would be some soil compaction in harvest areas as a result of heavy equipment accessing log landings, skid roads, and skid trails. This compaction can increase the bulk density of the soils and result in a decrease in pore space, soil air, and water holding capacity of the soils. These effects are considered detrimental to plant growth. The degree of compaction depends on the number of equipment passes over the soil and the moisture content of the soil at the time of equipment use. Changes in pore space do not normally occur on well-drained soils until three or more passes have occurred. Areas less susceptible to compaction are where the organic surface material remains intact and where surface rocks are present. Areas of concentrated use such as log landings and skid roads are most affected. These areas are designed to concentrate affected areas to reduce potential for compaction throughout a given stand and receive mitigation such as seeding to reduce long-term compaction. Other areas where harvest-related activities will occur are expected to revegetate naturally with existing root systems, organic matter accumulation, and soil bio-activity are expected to alleviate long-term compaction.

Changes in soil productivity are determined to be significant when more than a 15 percent change in project area soil productivity can be identified (Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, Chapter 2.05, and R8 supplement). Significant changes in soil productivity are indicated when changes in soil properties are expected to result in a reduced productive capacity over the long-term (beyond the planning horizon or 10-15 years) and these changes in soil properties are more than 15 percent from pre-existing undisturbed conditions in the analysis area.

The estimated extent of ground disturbance and associated estimated short and long-term effects (considered cumulatively with potential residual long-term effects from past harvesting) to soils are summarized below:

Table 3-15: Estimated Effects on Soil Productivity in AA Alternative D since 1994 (this planning horizon)

Direct and Indirect Estimates

Alternative D Activity Area of Disturbance

Log Landings/Skid Roads 12 acres New System Roads 0 acre Roses Creek Alt D Affected 12 acres Proposed Harvest Acres 231 % of Harvest Acres Affected 5.19% % of AA Affected 2.82%

Cumulative Estimates Past Timber Sales1


46

Direct and Indirect Estimates Log Landings/Skid Roads 25½ acres Analysis Area Acreage 8,608 acres % of Analysis Area Affected1 3.12%

1 Includes log landings and skid roads in the Roses Creek, Simpson Creek, Gingercake, South Table Rock, Bandy Cove, Back Creek Ice Salvage, Back Creek, Rich Cove, Roses Creek Salvage, and Irish Creek Timber Sales from <20 years ago. Does not include harvest acres from these timber sales because they have since revegetated.

As disclosed in the preceding table, significant impacts to soil productivity are not expected because the 15 percent threshold of ground disturbance in the AA would not be exceeded by either the Roses Creek proposal itself nor when cumulatively added to past timber harvest activities from 20 years ago.

In addition, adverse effects to soil productivity with this alternative is not expected because almost all the soil types are very deep and well drained (reducing potential for compaction); no soil would be taken out of production through permanent system road construction; and project design features (Section 2.4, Chapter 2) and Forest Plan standards (BMPs) would be applied to further reduce potential for compaction and long-term damage.

About 12 acres of skid roads and log landings would be developed within harvest units under this alternative to facilitate harvest activities. Skid roads and log landings would be closed and seeded following harvest activities to reduce potential for long-term compaction and erosion (see definitions at end of Appendix A). Following harvest activities and for wildlife purposes, constructed log landings would be seeded with a clover and wildflower seed mix and on smaller landings an old variety species of apple or other fruit trees would be planted. Skid trails would also be used within harvested stands to facilitate log removal, but since equipment is used to drag logs on specified routes to log landings (typically over branches, brush, and other similar vegetation) and not to use a blade to break new ground, long-term compaction to soil resources is not expected to occur (see definitions at end of Appendix A). There are no other known activities in the soils AA that could be added to Alternative D to cause adverse cumulative effects to soil productivity.

3.5.3.2 Nutrient Cycling

An initial surge of available plant nutrients would occur as the vegetative canopy is opened. The increase in soil moisture, surface soil temperatures, and organic debris would produce ideal conditions for accelerated organic matter decomposition and increased soil biotic activity. This in turn would result in an increased availability of nutrients in the upper part of the soil profile. The existing root systems on-site, along with new plant germinations are expected to take advantage of the increased availability of nutrients and moisture, and a surge of growth would occur. Possible losses of nutrients to groundwater through leaching and through volitization are expected to be offset by additions of nutrient rich leafy material and small woody debris left on-site after harvest, plus additions by the atmosphere and precipitation. Thus there would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on nutrient cycling, either through nutrient removal or nutrient leaching as a result of the proposal.

3.6 Cultural Resources ___________________________________________ The cultural resources AA boundary of effects is the activity areas for the Roses Creek proposal.


47

3.6.1 Existing Condition

A total of 23 archeological sites were located and recorded during the survey on areas proposed for treatment in the Roses Creek proposal. All sites are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria D (36 CFR 60.4).

3.6.2 Alternative A – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There are no expected adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources with this alternative because no ground disturbing activities are proposed.

3.6.3 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

The 23 archaeological sites are not eligible to the NRHP and may be affected by the proposed activities. One of these not eligible sites contains a small historic cemetery; however, due to its distance from the nearest proposed activity no adverse impacts are expected. Future management in the area would also avoid and protect this Forest Heritage Resource.

There would be no adverse cumulative effects to cultural resources because the proposed Roses Creek project undertaking is not supplementary to past undertakings in the project area. This conclusion is based on past and present Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliant inventory and evaluation (by archaeologists) of all proposed activity areas (ground disturbing), and the subsequent completion of a report-of-findings that was submitted to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office.

There are no other known activities with the cultural resources AA that could be added to the action alternatives to cause adverse cumulative effects.

3.7 Scenery Resources ___________________________________________ 3.7.1 Existing Condition & Scenery Analysis

The Roses Creek project area lies southeast of Linville Gorge and west of NC 181 (Pisgah Loop Scenic Byway). Viewpoints (scenic resources AA) considered in the project area include open roads, trails, public use areas, and water bodies. Potential viewpoint locations considered in and around the analysis area include:

Shortoff Trail (Mountains to Sea Trail) Table Rock Picnic Area Table Rock Mountain trails Hawksbill Mountain trails NC 181 & SR 1240 (Pisgah Loop Scenic Byway) Forest Service Road (FSR) 118 & FSR 210 Back Creek, Reedys Fork & Simpson Creek

Proposed activities would not be visible from most of these locations; but would be seen in the foreground from FSR 118, FSR 210, and segments of area streams mentioned above. All proposed activities are in Management Area 3B and are required to meet a Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) in all Distance Zones and Sensitivity Levels. Modification VQO allows activities to be seen as dominate features in the landscape, but they must borrow from elements of line, form, color, and texture of the surrounding landscape. This VQO must be met within three growing seasons.


48

3.7.2 Alternative A – Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative A, the assigned Modification VQO would be met or exceeded. There are no other known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that could be combined with this alternative to cumulatively reduce the existing Modification VQO.

3.7.3 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct and Indirect Effects Under these alternatives, all proposed activities would meet the assigned Modification VQO with implementation of Visual Management Standards and Guidelines for MA 3B, as cited in the Forest Plan (pages III-72 and III-73).

3.7.4 Alternatives B, C & D – Cumulative Effects

Proposed activities would be seen in combination with existing effects of recent wildfires, past vegetation or wildlife management projects, and other activities proposed in each Alternative. Modification VQO would be met even where proposed activities would be seen in conjunction with these existing and other proposed landscape modifications. No other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities or effects to scenic resources are known that could cumulatively reduce the existing Modification VQO.

3.8 Management Indicator Species _________________________________ The Forest-wide list of MIS was considered as it relates to the Roses Creek AA (MIS AA). Only those MIS that occur or have habitat within the MIS AA and may be affected by any of the alternatives were carried through a site-specific analysis. The documentation below shows which MIS were and were not analyzed along with the reasons.

Consistent with the Forest Plan and its associated FEIS (Volumes I and II), the effects analyses focus on changes to MIS habitat. These project-level effects are then put into context with the Forest-wide trends for populations and habitats. Additional MIS information is within the Wildlife, Aquatics, and Botanical resource reports located in the project record.

To process and document the information efficiently, a series of tables are used as follows:

1) Table 3-16: This table displays biological communities and associated MIS, and reasons species were, or were not selected for analysis in the project. The source of these tables is Amendment 17 to the Nantahala and Pisgah Land and Resource Management Plan effective October 1, 2005, and the associated environmental assessment (EA) and project record.

2) Table 3-17: This table displays the habitat components and associated MIS, and reasons species were, or were not selected for analysis in the project.

3) Table 3-18: This table displays by MIS the Forest-wide population trend along with the associated biological community or habitat component. The information in this table is taken from the MIS Report for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests.

4) Table 3-19: This table compares effects (expressed as changes in habitat) by alternative to the Forest-wide estimates of habitats for each biological community and habitat component considered in the project-level analyses. This table explains how effects to communities and habitats affect Forest-wide population trends for the species considered.


49

Table 3-16: Biological Communities, Associated MIS, and why Species were Chosen or Eliminated from Analysis

Biological Community MIS Analyzed Further/ Evaluation Criteria*

Fir dominated high elevation forests Fraser fir No/1

Northern hardwood forests Ramps No/1

Carolina hemlock bluff forests Carolina hemlock No/1

Rich Cove forests Ginseng No/1

Xeric yellow pine forests Pine warbler No/2

Reservoirs Largemouth bass No/1

Riparian forests Acadian flycatcher No/2

Coldwater streams Wild brook trout, wild brown trout, wild rainbow trout, blacknose dace (lower tropic levels of streams)

No/1

Coolwater streams Smallmouth bass Yes

Warmwater streams Smallmouth bass No/1 *1 Biological Community and its represented species do not occur within the activity areas; therefore, this biological

community would not be affected by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the community, the alternatives in this project would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this community.

2 Biological Community and its represented species would be protected in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Populations would not be affected by management activities because the associated habitat would not be entered by the proposed activities, pursuant to forest plan direction; therefore, there would be no change to forest-wide population trends.

Table 3-17: Habitat Components Associated MIS and why Species were Eliminated from Analysis

Habitat Components MIS Analyzed Further/

Evaluation Criteria* Early successional (0-10 years old) Rufous-sided (eastern) towhee Yes

Early successional (11-20) Ruffed grouse No/2

Soft mast producing species Ruffed grouse Yes

Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs) Black bear Yes

Large contiguous areas with low levels of human disturbance

Black bear No/2

Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest Ovenbird Yes

Permanent grass/forb openings White-tailed deer Yes

Downed woody debris Ruffed Grouse No/2

Snags Pileated woodpecker No/2 *1 Habitat and its represented species do not occur within the project area; therefore, this special habitat would not be affected

by any of the alternatives. Given no effects to the habitat, the alternatives in this project would not cause changes to forest-wide trends or changes in population trends of species associated with this habitat.

2 Habitat and its represented species would be protected in accordance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Populations would not be affected by management activities; therefore, there would be no change to forest-wide population trends.

Table 3-18: MIS Estimated Population Trend and Biological Community or Habitat Component

Species Estimated Population

Trend Biological Community and/or Habitat Component

Rufous-sided (eastern) towhee Decreasing Early successional (0-10 years old)


50

Species Estimated Population

Trend Biological Community and/or Habitat Component

Ruffed grouse Static to decreasing Soft mast producing species & Downed woody debris Black bear Increasing Hard mast producing species (>40 yrs) Smallmouth bass Static Coolwater, Warmwater streams Ovenbird Slight decrease Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest White-tailed deer Static to decreasing Permanent grass/forb

Table 3-19: Habitat Component, Forest-wide Estimates, and Expected Changes resulting from the Alternatives

Habitat Component

Forest-wide Estimate

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Early successional (0-10 years old)

26,800 acres, 5 year average of 2,040 acres Forest-wide, downward trend

No change 231 acre habitat increase (two-age harvest stands)

231 acre habitat increase (two-age harvest stands)


Soft mast-producing species

13,144 acres early seral, highest potential on 5,800 acre, downward trend

No change 231 acre habitat increase (two-age harvest stands)

231 acre habitat increase (two-age harvest stands) and 2,315 acre habitat improvement (prescribed burning)


Hard mast-producing species (>40 yrs)

681,000 acres, increasing trend

No change

231 acre reduction of 8,608 total acres in AA (marking guidelines would include retaining white oak, chestnut oak, shortleaf pine, and pitch pine where they occur)



Large contiguous areas of mature deciduous forest

279,000 acres No change




Permanent grass/forb openings

3,000 acres No change 12 acre increase 12 acre increase 10 acre increase

Coolwater Streams

400 miles No Change

About 22 to 26 linear feet of Back Creek (0.015% of AA coolwater streams) impacted by new road to Unit 10. About 1.2 miles of Back Creek streambank rehabilitated.

About 22 to 26 linear feet of Back Creek (0.015% of AA coolwater streams) impacted by new road to Unit 10. About 1.2 miles of Back Creek streambank rehabilitated.

About 1.2 miles of Back Creek streambank rehabilitated.


51

There are no other known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that could be added to the proposed activities that could cause adverse cumulative effects to MIS in the Roses Creek AA.

3.9 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Forest Concern Species _____ This section discloses the determination of effects the proposal may have on threatened and endangered (T&E); Regional Forester’s sensitive (S); and Forest Concern (FC) aquatic, wildlife, and botanical species—see Appendix A, Biological Evaluation (BE) for more complete disclosure of surveys, habitat, species, and effects/impacts analyses. The potential effects to TES and FC species is analyzed within the 8,608 acre Roses Creek AA boundary.

3.9.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

3.9.1.1 Wildlife, Botanical & Aquatic Species

Alternative A There would be no effect/impact to any TES species under Alternative A as no actions are proposed—current conditions would be maintained. There are no other know activities within the TES AA that could be added to the existing condition to cause adverse effects to TES species.

Alternatives B, C, and D None of the actions alternatives would adversely affect/impact TES wildlife, botanical, or aquatic species or their habitat as disclosed in the BE because the species or their habitat do not occur within the activity areas. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. There are no other know activities within the TES AA that could be added to the action alternatives to cause adverse effects to TES species.

3.9.2 Forest Concern Species

The following table discloses FC species documented in the Roses Creek AA and potential effects by alternatives:

Table 3-20: Forest Concern Species Documented Within the Roses Creek AA and Potential Effects by Alternative

Species Occurrence Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Wildlife FC Species Alleghany woodrat (mammal)

No habitat within activity areas

No habitat within activity areas

No effect – no habitat within activity areas



Black-billed cuckoo (bird)

Not recorded within activity areas

Not recorded within activity areas

No effect – not recorded within activity areas



Red-crossbill (bird) No record within the AA and no habitat within the vicinity of the activity areas

No record within the AA and no habitat within the vicinity of the activity areas

No effect – no record within the AA and no habitat within the vicinity of the activity areas



Botanical FC Species Calystegia May occur in May occur in No effect – may No effect – may No effect – may


52


catesbiana ssp. Sericata (vascular plant)

botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.

botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.

occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.



Symphyotrichum shortii (vascular plant)

May occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.

May occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.

No effect – may occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements, but not known to occur.



Thermopsis mollis (vascular plant)

Known to occur in several scattered areas within botanical AA. Not known to occur in activity areas.

Known to occur in several scattered areas within botanical AA. Not known to occur in activity areas.

No effect – known to occur in several scattered areas within botanical AA. Not known to occur in activity areas.



Aquatic FC Species

Aeshna tuberculifera (dragonfly)

Not likely to occur.


No effect – not likely to occur.



Gomphus adelphus (dragonfly)

May occur. May occur. * * *

Gomphus borealis (dragonfly)






Gomphus consanguis (dragonfly)


Gomphus descriptus (dragonfly)


Gomphus lineatifrons (dragonfly)






Gomphus ventricosus (dragonfly)






Gomphus viridifrons (dragonfly)






Ophiogomphus aspersus (dragonfly)


Ophiogomphus mainensis (dragonfly)


Stylurus amnicola (dragonfly)


Stylurus scudderi (dragonfly)


Sympetrum obtrusum (dragonfly)






Cyprinella zanema Does not occur. Does not No effect – No effect – No effect –


53


(fish) occur. does not occur. does not occur. does not occur. Micropterus coosae (fish)

Does not occur. Does not occur.

No effect – does not occur.



Barbaetis benfieldi (mayfly)


Villosa constricta (mussel)





Villosa delumbis (mussel)





* The implementation of this project may impact or stress individuals, if they exist, within the un-named tributaries to Back Creek and Irish Creek where stream restoration is proposed. None of these species were found during field surveys; however, due to variable life cycles of aquatic insects they have been included in this analysis because their habitat exists in the AA. The habitats for these benthic macroinvertebrate species are common across their range. Even if an individual is lost during project implementation there would be no risk to the population viability across the Forest because the overall affected habitat is small in comparison to overall habitat on the Forest.

There are no other known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that could be added to the proposed activities that could cause adverse cumulative effects to TES and FC species in the Roses Creek AA.

3.10 Old Growth _________________________________________________ The Forest Plan describes the purpose of retaining old growth: [T]he desired future condition for old growth across the forest is to have a network of small, medium, and large sized old growth areas, representative of sites, elevation gradients, and landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians and on the Forests, that are well dispersed and interconnected by forested lands. Areas to be managed for old growth would be selected considering the following criteria: 1. Priority consideration for areas currently exhibiting high quality old growth characteristics, including areas in the initial inventory of possible old growth; 2. Areas with unique species diversity; 3. Community, soil type, aspect, and elevation; 4. Other resource concerns and management objectives (Forest Plan, page III-26).

Currently, 2,606 acres of the 23,800 acre designated Forest Plan Large Old Growth Patch #28 are within the 8,604 acre Roses Creek AA. There is currently no Forest Plan medium and small patch old growth designated in the Roses Creek AA. There are also 10 timber stands (1,149 acres) within the Roses Creek AA currently identified as Forest Plan initial inventory old growth; two of which (293-5 and 298-11) are already incorporated within Forest Plan Large Old Growth Patch #28 and one (298-14) that has been previously harvested. Compartments 294, 299, and 300 currently do not have large, medium, or small patch old growth designated within them.

The Continuous Inventory of Stand Condition (CISC) stand age and other available data are used for comparison and selection. Stand age can be used to compare old-growth condition and evaluate alternatives. Within the southern Appalachian mountains, most natural forest communities may have minimum old-growth characteristics at about the 120-140 years old and may be considered for old-growth (Guidelines for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in Southern Region, USFS). Other disciplines may employ slightly different age definitions. See also additional analysis on old growth communities disclosed in Appendix C below.


54


Under this alternative, there would be no harvesting and the existing condition of not meeting Forest Plan standards for designated small patch old growth community habitat in the three compartments would continue. Existing stands would remain intact. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 3-1 above would not have measurable adverse cumulative effects on old growth communities in the project area because no action is proposed with this alternative that could be cumulatively added to them.

3.10.3 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects No adverse effects to old growth habitat are expected because no Forest Plan designated old growth habitat or initial inventory old growth habitat would be harvested and about 186 acres would be designated as small patch old growth habitat and would not be scheduled for future harvest. The 186 acres of old growth proposed for designation is in addition to the current 2,606 acres of designated old growth habitat in Forest Plan Large Old Growth Patch #28. The following table summarizes age-classes for the Roses Creek Project AA by alternative along with old growth disclosures and natural communities in the AA and old growth designations:

Table 3-21: Age-Class for the Roses Creek AA by Alternative and Old Growth Communities Disclosures

Measurement Alternative A current

Alternative B post harvest

Alternative C post harvest

Alternative D post harvest

Roses Creek AA Age Classes Non-forested*

0-10 years old** 11-20 years old 21-39 years old

40-100 years old 101+ years old

138 ac (2%)

1,040 ac (12%) 519 ac (6%) 579 ac (7%)

5,663 ac (66%) 667 ac (7%)

150 ac (2%)

1,312 ac (15%) 519 ac (6%) 579 ac (7%)

5,432 ac (63%) 667 ac (7%)

150 ac (2%)

1,312 ac (15%) 519 ac (6%) 579 ac (7%)

5,432 ac (63%) 667 ac (7%)

148 ac (2%)

1,179 ac (14%) 519 ac (6%) 579 ac (7%)

5,524 ac (64%) 667 ac (7%)

Acres of existing Forest Plan designated old growth or initial inventory old growth communities proposed for harvest

0 0 0 0

Acres of existing Forest Plan designated old growth in the Roses Creek AA

2,606 2,606 2,606 2,606

Acres of newly designated small patch old growth

2,606 186 186 186

Total old growth designated in the Roses Creek AA

2,606 2,792 2,792 2,792

* Includes shrub and permanent grass/forb habitat ** 0-10 year habitat developed by 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire

There are no other known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that could be added to the proposed activities that could cause adverse cumulative effects to old growth habitat in the Roses Creek AA.


55

3.11 Other Areas of Concern ______________________________________ 3.11.1 Alternative A – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Since no action is proposed under this alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

3.11.2 Alternatives B, C, & D – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects There would be no measurable direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from any of these alternatives because none of them propose actions within park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands (as per 1977 Executive Orders 11988 and 11990), wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. It also would not violate local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. There are no other known foreseeable actions in the activity areas that could adversely affect park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.


56

CHAPTER 4 – CONSULTATION WITH AGENCIES AND OTHERS

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

4.1 ID Team Members ____________________________________________ Scott Ashcraft - Archaeologist Sandy Burnet - Wildlife Biologist Eric Crews - Landscape Architect Jason Combs - Acting Timber Management Assistant David Danley - Botanist Brady Dodd - Hydrologist Dave Dyson - Archaeologist Cleve Fox - Fire/Fuels Michael Hutchins - Team Leader Barry Jones - Engineer David McFee - Recreation Ted Oprean - Project Leader/Silviculture Lorie Stroup - Fisheries Biologist Amber Vanderwolf - GIS Greg Van Orsow - Timber Management Assistant (since relocated to Chippewa NF)

4.2 Government Agencies and Elected Officials Contacted _____________ Caldwell County; Catawba Indian Nation; Congressman Heath Shuler; Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians; NC Department of Administration; NC Department of Natural Resources; NC Division of Parks and Recreation; NC Department of Transportation; NC Division of Water Quality; NC Forest Service; NC Natural Heritage Program; NC Office of the Governor; NC State Historic Preservation Office; NC Wildlife Resources Commission; Town of Blowing Rock; United Keetowah Band of Cherokees; US Fish and Wildlife Service

4.3 Others Contacted _____________________________________________ Over 110 members of the public were contacted and/or provided comments on the proposal during the scoping period that was initiated on April 4, 2008; at the April 29, 2008, open house; and during the scoping period that was initiated on April 2, 2009. A complete list of individuals and their comments is located in the project record.


57

APPENDIX A – BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Biological Evaluation National Forest in North Carolina

Grandfather Ranger District Roses Creek Project

I. INTRODUCTION This report documents the impacts of the proposal for the “Roses Creek Timber Sale” (Grandfather Ranger District) and associated improvements to the biological resources. The potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects on Endangered, Threatened (T&E), Regional Forester’s Sensitive (S) species are evaluated. Potential direct and indirect effects to T&E and S species were analyzed in the areas where timber harvest or ground disturbance is proposed and these areas is referred to as the activity area. This document also analyzes the effects to species potential habitat by the proposal. The possible activity areas are shown on the project map in appendix of the environmental assessment. The Forest Plan analysis area is in Burke County, North Carolina. Activities considered in this analysis are (See EA project description for a detailed and complete description of activities): Approximately 4,823 NFS acres of the 8,608 NFS acres (56%) in the Roses Creek AA are within management areas suitable for timber harvesting and approximately 3,785 NFS acres (44%) are within management areas unsuitable for timber harvesting. The Roses Creek restoration proposal is within Management Area 3B (suitable for timber harvesting).

An analysis for controlling/managing non-native invasive plant species across the Forest is being completed under a separate decision-making process—a decision has been completed during the winter of 2009. This decision would allow herbicides use across the Grandfather Ranger District, including locations within this AA that may not have been treated with this proposal.

Proposal The Roses Creek Restoration Proposal is described in detail in Section 1.2, Chapter 1 above. II. SURVEYS AND ANALYSIS METHODS Potentially affected Threatened, Endangered (T&E), Regional Forester's Sensitive (S) species were identified by: 1. Reviewing the list of T&E or S species of the Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests and

their habitat preferences; 2. Consulting element occurrence (EO) records of T&E or S species as maintained by the

North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs; 3. Consulting with individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of

the area and its flora and fauna; and 4. Conducting field surveys in areas designated as proposed activities.


58

Wildlife Surveys of the proposed action areas were completed on May 2, 6, 7, and 12, 2008. Snail and salamander surveys found only common species occurred within the proposed units. Bird surveys were completed as part of the R8 bird strategy and were not necessarily within the proposed unit boundaries but represented several forest types and ages, similar to the proposed units. No T&E or S species or their habitat was found to occur within these proposed unit boundaries or the surrounding area. Although there is a spring within proposed unit 4, no bog turtle habitat occurred. No T&E or S species or their habitat was found within the proposed; daylighting, temporary road or road construction site, Outward Bound fuel break, or the Chimney Gap prescribed burn area. Botanical The field surveys were conducted by a meander search pattern to survey all the variation in habitat within the unit. The survey was conducted until all of the habitats within the unit were surveyed. After no new plant species were added to the unit species list after a minimum of 20 minute's search was made (timed meander search), the survey was considered complete. Focused attention was given during the surveys to habitats within the units that may be associated with plant TES, and FC species, i.e., rock outcrops, seeps, etc. The intensity of the coverage varied depending on the extent of any likely TES, and FC species habitat, complexity of vegetation, and/or presence of indicator species. Some areas were virtually devoid of herbaceous vegetation and required very little intensive survey while other areas required considerably more time to adequately survey. Although the search was focused on the possibility of occurrences of the TES, and FC plants listed on Table 1; all TES and FC plant species were searched for during the survey. Some species may have been over looked; however, the survey was conducted so that a TES, and FC plant species would not be overlooked due to phrenology or time of the year that the species could reasonably be detected. Table 2 summarizes the habitats and/or communities in the activity area specified and the occurrence of plant TES, and FC species. The proposed activity areas were surveyed by David M. Danley, Forest Botanist on April 11, 14, 15; May 1, 2; June 3; and July 10, 2008. All proposed units or activity areas were visited at least once during this time Other relevant Botanical surveys include: Ginger Cake Timber sale (2000, Burke Co), Upper Creek Timber Sale (2002, Burke/Avery Co.) and a field report/review of the proposed Roses Creek project by Josh Kelly of WildLaw. Aquatics Project information was obtained from Greg Van Orsow, US Forest Service (USFS) Forester. Lorie Stroup, USFS Fisheries Biologists, Kerri Lyda-Taylor, USFS Biological Technician and Savannah, Student Volunteer, conducted aquatic habitat and aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys of the proposed aquatic project and analysis areas in the summer (2008) and winter months of 2009. Fish survey information was collected from prior surveys that were conducted in cooperation with the District 8 fisheries biologists and fisheries technicians of the NC Wildlife


59

Resources Commission’s Inland Fisheries Division. Most of these surveys were conducted in the 1990’s so personal communication with Bob Brown and Jake Rash, NCWRC Fisheries Biologists updated the existing records for the analysis area streams. Irish Creek (2006) and Simpson Creek (2008) surveys were conducted recently by the NCWRC. Back Creek was randomly sampled (early 2000s) by Bob Brown, NCWRC Fisheries Biologist, and found that there were no trout and only blacknose dace. Reedys Fork has not been surveyed recently for trout because there have historically not been any in that stream. According to cooperating fisheries biologists there are likely some non-game species (none rare) that move up into this stream during spawning seasons and for refuge. All fish surveys were conducted by using an electrofishing back pack shocking device. Other surveys consisted of examining streams within the aquatic activity area, noting habitat quality, quantity, and suitability for rare aquatic and management indicator species (MIS), as well as existing impacts and their source. Virginia Commonwealth University, under contract by the USFS, conducted odonate surveys across the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (2004). There is a sample site within Roses Creek Aquatic Analysis area in Irish Creek. Surveys were conducted during May, June and September of 2004. This site is located in the aquatic analysis area and is a good representation of what odonate species occupy riverene habitat within this area. Twenty-one different species of odonates were collected during the surveys, none of which were uncommon or listed as rare. Additional information specifically addressing aquatic species was obtained from North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Quality aquatic biologists, and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) biologists. See Definitions section at end of BE for description of biologic analysis areas. III. THREATENED, ENDANGERED (T&E), AND REGIONAL FORESTER’S SENSITIVE (S) SPECIES A. Wildlife The following table lists those wildlife species found within Burke County: Table A-1: Wildlife TES Species in Burke County

Species Type & Status Potential of Occurrence

Bog Turtle Reptile (T) Habitat could occur in wildlife AA, but no records documented. No records or habitat within proposed activity areas

Rafinesque’s big-eared Bat Mammal (S) Habitat could occur in wildlife AA, but no records documented.


60

No records or habitat within proposed activity areas

Bald Eagle Bird (T) No habitat or records in wildlife AA. No records or habitat within proposed activity areas

Peregrine Falcon Bird (S) Peregrine falcons have historically nested in the wildlife AA; however, there is no habitat within the affected proposed activity areas

No T&E or S species or their habitat, listed as occurring within Burke County, were found in the harvest activity areas. No T&E species or their habitat was found during field surveys of the additional activity areas, no consultation with USDI FWS is required. No Regional Forester’s Sensitive wildlife species or their habitat was found within the activity areas. B. Botanical No T or E and one S (Thermopsis fraxinifolia) plant species is known to occur within the botanical AA. No other TES plant species are known to occur within the botanical AA. Of the total of 66 plant TES and Forest Concern (FC) species known to occur in Burke County, North Carolina (Appendix), all but 8 S, 3 FC and all T&E plant species (Table A-1) were dropped from the list for further consideration and discussion for one of the following reasons: 1) lack of suitable habitat for the species in the botanical AA, 2) the species has a well-known distribution that does not include the analysis area or 3) based on field surveys no habitat was seen in the activity areas. Habitats, community types and ranges of plant T&E, S, and FC species are derived from information in Classification of the Natural plant Communities of North Carolina, the Natural Heritage Program's List of Rare Plant of North Carolina or information obtained through other botanist. Based upon habitat model information (Simon 2005), 8 plant S and 2 FC species have apparently suitable habitat and could occur in the botanical AA. One S plant species (Thermopsis fraxinifolia) and one FC (Thermopsis mollis) species is known to occur within the botanical AA. No other TES or FC plant species are known to occur within the botanical AA. A list of plant TES and FC plants that occurs in Burke Counties is found in Appendix 1. A list of TES and FC plants that potentially could occur in the project or activity areas is listed in Tables A-2 thru A-5 and summarizes the list of TES and FC plant species that are: known to occur or has apparently suitable habitat in the botanical AA.

“Apparently suitable habitat” used within in this document (same as the Natural Heritage program definition) to mean “surveyed or unsurveyed areas not known to be occupied by an element, but which appear capable (under natural conditions) of supporting viable individuals of that element, based on one or more observed or mapped factors (soils, geology, hydrology, vegetation topography, aspect, elevation, etc.) known to delimit or predict other occurrences of the same element.


61

Table A-2: Potential & Known T&E Plant Species in the Roses Creek Botanical AA

Species Type Natural Community or Habitat Occurrence

None N/A N/A N/A Table A-3: Potential & Known S Plant Species in the Roses Creek Botanical AA


Diplophyllum apliculatum var. taxifolioides

Liverwort Road bank, moist soil or rocks. Natural community not determined

Not known to occur within activity or botanical AA. May occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements. Surveyed for with activity areas.

Drepanolejeunea appalachiana

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


Fothergilla major Vascular plant

Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Roadside


Juglans cinerea Vascular plant

Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest


Monotropsis odorata Vascular plant

Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Xeric Oak-Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest


Nardia lescurii Liverwort Acidic Cove Forest, near streams Not known to occur within activity or botanical AA. May occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements. Surveyed for with activity areas.

Thermopsis fraxinifolia

Vascular plant

Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath

Thermopsis fraxinifolia (S) is known to occur within 50 ft. of FSR going to the Outward Bound School. However, the population of Thermopsis is not within proposed activity areas.

Tsuga caroliniana Vascular plant



Table A-4: Potential & Known FC Plant Species in the Roses Creek Botanical AA


Calystegia catesbiana Vascular Open areas in Serpentine Woodland, Not known to occur within activity


62

ssp. sericata plant Serpentine Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside

or botanical AA. May occur in botanical AA based on known habitat requirements. Surveyed for with activity areas

Symphyotrichum shortii

Vascular plant

Roadside, openings in Montane Oak-Hickory Forest

Thermopsis mollis Vascular plant

Openings in Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath

Known to occur in several scattered areas within botanical AA. Not known to occur in activity areas

Table A-5: Natural Communities and plant S or FC Species by Unit

Unit #1 Comp./stand#

Natural Communities or Habitat (Approx. Acres) Occurrence of Plant TES or FC Species

Unit 1,

300/12

300/13

Chestnut Oak Forest ( with white pine) (20)

No TES or FC plant species known.

Unit 2

300/13

300/21

300/23

Chestnut Oak Forest (30) , Pine-Oak Heath (10)

No TES or FC plant species known

Unit 3

295/09

Chestnut Oak Forest (4), Acidic Cove Forest (10)


Unit 4

295/8



Unit 5

295/12



Unit 6

295/12



Unit 7

294/10

Chestnut Oak Forest (22), Acidic Cove Forest (4), pine-Oak Heath (8)


Unit 8

294/12

Acidic Cove Forest (5) , Chestnut Oak Forest (24), Pine-Oak Heath (6)

No TE S or FC plant species known.

Unit 9

294/23

Chestnut Oak Forest (30), Acidic Cove Forest(5)


Unit 10

294/21

Chestnut Oak Forest (35) No TES or FC plant species known.

Site Preparation,

release

Same communities as above No TES or FC plant species known

Fuel break around

Outward Bound

Chestnut Oak Forest No TES or FC plant species known

Stream restoration

Acidic Cove/ Alluvial Forest No TES or FC plant species known.

New, temporary & existing roads

Various, mostly Chestnut Oak Forest and Acidic Cove Forest.

No TEFC plant species known.

Daylighting Various, mostly Chestnut Oak Forest Thermopsis mollis (FC) is known to occur


63

Unit #1

Comp./stand#

Natural Communities or Habitat

(Approx. Acres) Occurrence of Plant TES or FC Species

System Road FSR 118 (existing)

and Acidic Cove Forest. within 50 ft. of FSR 118. However, the population of Thermopsis is excluded from the activity by project design. See discussion of Thermopsis mollis. No other T&E S or FC plant species known.

Creation of Wildlife Fields

Mostly Chestnut Oak Forest (1) No T&E S or FC plant species known.

Plant Communities and Habitats Found in the Roses Creek Botanical AA The Roses Creek botanical analysis can be characterized by low-mid elevation Mountain region plant communities. The area has several southeast to south trending drainages through the analysis area. The major streams are Irish Creek, Reedy’s Creek, Back Creek and Roses Creek.. A succession of south trending, interlinking ridges is found between drains. The highest points of these ridges are about 2600 ft. on the west towards Shortoff Mt (Chestnut Mt.). The drainage flows downward to about 1100 feet to the south towards Little Roses Creek and Boone Fork. The analysis area exhibits many typical natural communities of the low to mid elevation southern Appalachian mountains. Three common community types are characteristic within the analysis area. These communities are: Pine-oak Heath Forest, Chestnut Oak Forest, and Acidic Cove Forest. A Montane Alluvial Forest and Rocky Shore and Bar communities are associated with the low elevation areas directly adjacent to major stream but are best developed along Back Fork and Roses Creek. Small habitat areas such as small rock outcrops and forested seeps and streams can be imbedded within these comminutes. Natural communities often grade together and definite boundaries usually difficult to see. However, there is often a pattern to these comminutes on the landscape. Within the analysis area, the Acidic Cove Forest often occupies areas near streams, lower cove slopes and northern aspects. Higher cove slopes, south and western slopes are often dominated by the Chestnut Oak Forest. Pine Oak Heath Community is found on dryer Ridges and slopes. The Montane Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Alluvial Forest and anthropogenic communities have the most diverse herbaceous component of the communities found within the analysis area. However, taken in whole, the analysis area has a very poor herbaceous diversity. All of the communities are very common community types and have a relatively low probability of occurrences for Forest TES, and FC plant species (See Schafale and Weakley for a detailed description and discussion of these communities). Thus, the habitat has a general low potential for plant TES, and FC species to occur in the potential activity areas. The primary natural communities affected by this proposal are the Chestnut Oak Forest and Acidic Cove Forest. Using 1) the natural vegetation predictive model (S. Simon, USFS); 2) CISC data (USFS); and 3) field experience, the acres of natural communities are estimated in Table A-5 within the botanical AA.


64

Table A-6: Estimated Quantity of Communities within Botanical AA

Community Est. Acres/% of Total Habitat in AA Acres over 30 years old

Acidic Cove Forest 7125 acres / 61 % 6995 acres Chestnut Oak Forest/Pine Oak Heath 3098 acres/ 26 % 2966 acres Alluvial Forest (mostly on private lands converted to pasture

80 acres/ >1% unknown

Montane Oak-Hickory Forest 920 acres/ 8 % 920 acres White Pine Forest 296 acres/ 4 % 283 acres Totals 11,591 acres 11,136 acres State Natural Heritage Areas, Research Natural Areas (RNA), Special (botanical) Areas There are no RNAs, proposed State Natural Heritage Areas, or Botanical Special Interest Areas recognized by the current Forest Plan within the Botanical AA; therefore, this proposal will have no effect to any of these areas. Past Actions within the Botanical AA (Considered in Cumulative Effects) Timber harvest (<30 years old), Large wildland Fires (> 100 acres), agricultural conversion are the only activities sufficient to have a measurable effect upon habitat for plant populations. Approximately 670 acres of the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire burned within the Roses Creek botanical AA. C. Aquatics Existing data for aquatic resources within the aquatic AA is used to the extent it is relevant to the project proposal. This data exists in two forms: 1) general inventory and monitoring of Forest aquatic resources; and 2) data provided by cooperating resource agencies from aquatic resources on or flowing through the Forest. Both of these sources are accurate back to approximately 1980 and are used regularly in project analyses. Data collected prior to 1980 is used as a historical reference. Project-specific surveys are conducted to obtain reliable data where none exists.

Substrate within the activity area waters (Table A-6) was evaluated and visually estimated. The three primary types of substrate that exist were documented at each macroinvertebrate sample site. This information is valuable for determining the amount of habitat available for proposed endangered, threatened, and sensitive (TES) species, MIS, as well as other aquatic organisms. Unnamed tributaries are listed as (UT). Table A-7: Forest Plan Watersheds 54 (Roses Creek) & 20 (Steels Creek Watershed) – USFS only

Stream Name Unit Project Area

(mi) Analysis Area

(mi) Simpson Creek 1 0.2 4.1

2 0.4 Roses Creek 1.8

UT 1 0.2 UT 2 0.1


65

Stream Name Unit Project Area

(mi) Analysis Area

(mi) Reedys Fork 3 0.6 1.2

4 0.5 UT 1 5 0.4 1.2

6 0.3 UT 2 5 0.45 1.15


UT1 1.3 UT 2 0.8

Back Creek 7 0.6 3 8 0.6 9 0.2 10 0.6

UT 1 0.2 1.2 UT 1 Steels Creek

2 0.1 0.2

UT 2 Steels Creek

2 0.1 0.3

Table A-8: USFS and Private Property to Give Total Length of Stream with Stream Restoration

Stream Name Unit Project Area Analysis Area

Simpson Creek 1 0.2 4.1 2 0.4

Roses Creek 1.8 Private 5.8 UT 1 0.2

Private 1.0 UT 2 0.1

Private 0.65 Reedys Fork 3 0.6 1.2

4 0.5 Private 1.2 UT 1 5 0.4 1.2

6 0.3 Private 0.1 0.5 UT 2 5 0.45 1.15


Private 3.3 UT1 1.3 UT 2 0.8

Private 0.2 Back Creek 7 0.6 3.0

8 0.6 9 0.2 10 0.6

Private 0.4 Stream Restoration

1.0

UT 1 0.2 1.2


66

Stream Name Unit Project Area Analysis Area

Stream Restoration

0.2

Steels Creek 2 0.5 Total 6.65 32.1

In the Roses Creek aquatic AA, landforms can be characterized as Valley Types I, and II using the Rosgen (1996) classification. Typical for these valley types, the area has predominantly stable stream types characterized as "A" and "B", depending on the valley type that they occur. Occurring less frequently are "F" and "G" stream types depending on local stream and riparian conditions. These two stream types are typically unstable due to high bank erosion rates (Rosgen, 1996), and are having adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. Within the Back Creek drainage where unstable channel conditions occur, stream rehabilitation is proposed within approximately 1.1 miles of stream to improve channel stability and aquatic habitat. Implementation of this work is expected to reduce sediment loading to near background (undisturbed) levels. Rates of erosion from stream banks following this type of work are estimated to decrease by 91 percent, based on forest monitoring of storm recovery work implemented during 2006 and 2007. Existing old roads and skid trails in the analysis area are existing threats to the streams and drainages within the Roses Creek AA. Impacts from these sources are limited to down slope movement of sediment from road runoff and culvert fills. In most cases, it is suspected that a majority of sediments from these sources are deposited in the natural vegetative filters before they reach areas of perennial streams. In surveying the Roses Creek activity areas, the roads were generally in good, stable condition. Aquatic TES and FC Species Evaluation Twenty-two rare aquatic species have been listed by NCWRC, USFWS, or NCNHP as occurring or potentially occurring in Burke County. Of these 22 species, there are no Threatened (T) or Endangered (E) fish species, four Sensitive (S) invertebrate species, and 18 Forest Concern (see Attachment 2 below). Attachment 2 contains occurrence information for rare aquatic species on the Pisgah National Forest. Of the 22 aquatic species included on the original list for analysis, 13 were dropped as a result of a low likelihood of occurrence evaluation based on preferred habitat elements and field survey results. The following table lists aquatic species for Burke County and indicates their occurrence within the activity and/or analysis area. Table A-9: Aquatic TES and FC Species in Burke County

Species Type Habitat Occurrence

Federally T&E Species NONE

2005 Region 8 S Species List Ophiogomphus edmundo (Edmund’s snaketail)

Dragonfly Lotic-fast, clean substrate rivers

Not Likely to Occur.

Macromia margarita (mountain river cruiser)

Dragonfly Lotic-streams and rivers Not Likely to Occur.

Ophiogomphus howei Dragonfly Lotic-rivers Not Likely to Occur.


67

Species Type Habitat Occurrence (Pigmy snaketail) Alasmidonta varicosa (brook floater)

Mussel Lotic-clean, swift waters with stable gravel, or sand and gravel substrates

Does not occur within activity analysis areas may occur well below the aquatic analysis area in the lower reaches of Steels Creek and Wilson Creek.

IV. EFFECTS ANALYSIS A. Wildlife No alternative considered will have an effect to Federally Listed or Regional Sensitive species or their habitat as none were found within the activity areas. The potential effects to wildlife species in the immediate activity area is the direct negative effects of exposure to logging activities such as moving heavy equipment, skidding logs, and road construction that causes disturbance or displacement of species the daily activities will be short term negative effects. However, the resulting habitat developed, early successional, will be utilized by the majority of wildlife species throughout their lifecycle. This is the case for all harvest activity, daylighting, road and temporary road construction, Outward Bound fuel break, site preparation and timber stand improvement (TSI) actions. Potential Effects to TE or S Wildlife Species No Action Alternative (A) No Action alternative has no potential for effect to TES Species. Timber Harvest, Daylight about 7 acres along Back-Irish Creek Road, FS Road 118 There are no TES wildlife species that are known to occur within proposed activity areas. Therefore, no TES wildlife species will be affected by these activities. Site Preparation and Timber Stand Improvement (TSI) The TSI will improve the hard mast component of the newly growing stand, therefore the TSI work will improve habitat for all species in the long term that require hard mast species during their lifecycle. As there are no TES wildlife species present within the activity areas, this action will have no effect to TES wildlife species.


68

Chimney Gap Prescribed Burn (Alternative C) A peregrine falcon nest site is within the potential smoke dispersal area of the prescribed burn. The nest site is approximately 1/3 of the way down from the top of the cliff face and outside the actual burn area. Smoke that may linger on areas of the cliff face are not expected to be very dense and will disperse quickly, therefore any young present would not be affected. B. Botanical The potential effects to plant species including TES and FC plant species that are direct negative effects of exposure to logging activities such as moving heavy equipment, skidding logs, and road construction that damages individual plants and the indirect effects of modifying the habitat. Some of the expected indirect effects of timber removal will initially produce an increase in light, temperature, reduction in humidity, and a decrease in soil surface moisture. These effects may have a positive effect or negative effect depending upon the particular plant species. Some weedy and early succession species, such as Rubus, are expected to increase in the activity area. Forest Concern plant species may be negatively affected by the competition of these woody species. The long-term effect of rotational logging practices upon the general plant communities is poorly understood. There is some evidence that the repopulation of some herbaceous plant species in mixed mesophytic communities may take more than a hundred years after logging. Most species are expected to recover faster than that because of various biologic factors such as growth rate, dispersal, and current species distribution. See the Forest Plan, Standards and Guidelines for a description of these methods. Potential Effects to TES and FC Plant Species No Action Alternative (A) No Action alternative has no potential for effect to Federally Listed, Regionally Sensitive and Forest Concern Species. Timber Harvest, Daylight about 7 acres along Back-Irish Creek Road, FSR 118 There are no TES or FC plant species that are known to occur within proposed activity areas. Therefore, no TES or FC will be affected by this proposed action. Temporary Road Construction and Maintenance/ repair of Existing Roads, Creation of fuel break around Outward Bound School There are no Federally Listed, Regionally Sensitive, or Forest Concern plant species that are known to occur within proposed activity areas. Therefore, no TES or FC will be affected by this proposed action.


69

Site Preparation and TSI There are no known plant TES and FC species that would be affected by site preparation and TSI because no TES and FC species are known to occur within the proposed activity areas. Site preparation and TSI procedures will have an insignificant effect on non target species. The procedures, using chain saws or herbicide, select individual plants for treatment and generally do not indirectly adversely affect adjacent individual plants. For example, during a controlled demonstration of herbicide use for TSI and advanced oak treatments on the Grandfather Ranger District, the indirect effect of herbicide use seemed to have a positive effect on herbaceous plant species. Evidently, the effect of the increase in light (produced by killing the target tree) outweighed possible toxic effect of residual herbicides and increased the kinds and numbers of herbaceous species near the target tree. Site preparation and TSI procedures will change tree composition (the desired effect) of the community to favor oak species. Wildlife Fields No plant T&E, or S species are known to be affected by wildlife field creation and planting because no T&E, or S species are known to occur within the proposed activity areas. This action will maintain a small amount of acreage to early successional species and community type. Treat Exotic and Invasive Plant Species with Herbicides No plant TES, and FC species are known to be affected by herbicide use because no TES, and FC species are known to occur within the proposed activity areas. This action will reduce the spread of Miscanthus sinensis, Rosa multiflora and Ailanthus altissima. Not treating invasive exotic plants would result in continued spread along system roads and wildlife fields. Chimney Gap Prescribed Burn (Alternative C) There are no elemental occurrences for TES or FC plants within the proposed 2,315 acre Chimney Gap prescribed burn. Therefore, there would be no effect/impact as a result of the burn. Specific Effects to TES and FC Plant Species Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to TES, and FC Plants Both Regionally sensitive Thermopsis fraxinifolia and the Forest Concern Thermopsis mollis are known to be present within the botanical AA. Both species are not within the activity areas. Therefore, they will not be affected by the any alternatives. Thermopsis fraxinifolia and Thermopsis mollis are discussed individually below. See Ivey 2002 for an excellent recent discussion of both species. There are no other known TES. or FC. plant species in the proposed activity areas or botanical AA. Specific effects to all other TES, or FC plant species not analyzed further because there is no evidence that populations exist or will be affected by the proposed actions.


70

Thermopsis fraxinifolia Status: Federal; none; NC State, significantly Rare, S2; Global G3; Forest, Sensitive. Known Forest occurrences: 25 populations are known from recent sightings from Buncombe, Burke, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Mc Dowell, Polk, Strokes, Slurry, Transylvania and Yancey Counties. It is known within the botanical AA by a recent (2008) sighting by David Danley along the road to the Outward Bound Camp. The population is about 25 individuals scattered along the roadside. Thermopsis fraxinifolia is a glabrous, erect perennial herb about 1 meter high. The leaves are alternate each other along the stem in three large leaflet with clasping stipules. Thermopsis fraxinifolia can be separated from T. mollis by: relative lengths of pedicles and bracts , length of calyx lobes, leaflet size,, rhizomes and lateral inflorences. (See Radford et al, 1968 and Fernald, 1987 for technical descriptions and keys). Thermopsis fraxinifolia is a very distinct species and is seldom confused with any other species of Thermopsis. Thermopsis fraxinifolia prefers open areas (roadsides, burned areas, tree gaps) in dry ridges typically at higher elevation than T. mollis. Possible effects (Direct, Indirect and Cumulative) to Thermopsis fraxinifolia in the analysis area: The known population of Thermopsis fraxinifolia is not within an activity area. Therefore, I conclude that there will be no effect (direct, indirect or cumulative) to this species. Thermopsis mollis Status: Federal; Concern; NC State, Significantly Rare, S2; Global G4; Forest Conern. Known Forest occurrences: 26 populations are known from recent sightings from 25 North Carolina Counties. There are three known populations of Thermopsis mollis within the botanical AA.: one along road FSR 118, one on the edge of the Linville Gorge Wilderness west of Russel Creek and one along an unnamed ridge west of road 118. Possible effects (Direct, Indirect and Cumulative) to Thermopsis mollis in the analysis area: The known population of Thermopsis mollis is not within an activity area. Therefore, I conclude that there will be no effect (direct, indirect or cumulative) to this species. Effect on Potential Habitat for TES and FC Plant Species Direct Effects/Indirect Effect to Potential Habitat for TES and FC Plants This discussion summarizes the possible effect on potential, or “apparently suitable habitat” for all potentially occurring and known to occur TES, and FC plant species within the botanical AA. This analysis is based upon current knowledge of species habitat parameters. Usually, these parameters are very broad habitat concepts. This discussion does not imply species occupancy in those areas. It examines potential suitable habitat based upon a predictive model of general Forest communities and current knowledge of species habitat parameters within the AA. Species occupancy could be none or a very small percentage of these potential habitat acres. For example, Carex pedunculata is known to occur from only one small (<2 acres) population on the Forest. Since this population is found within Rich Cove Forest, the potential habitat is all known Rich Cove Forest within the Forest (56,223 acres). The known Forest occupancy for this species


71

is then three one thousandths of a percent (0.003%). This example is typical of many TES, and FC plant species with broad habitat definitions. As habitat definitions and botanical surveys become more complete, estimation of potential habitat may become more precise. Table 4 summarizes the results of this analysis within the 11,591 acre botanical AA. Table A-10: Effect (Alternative B) Upon Potential Habitat for TES and FC Plant Species within Botanical AA

Species Natural Community or Habitat

Predicted Potential Acres Existing condition

Acres of Potential Habitat Impacted, % of Area Total

Federally Threatened or Endangered plant species (T &E)

None N/A None None

2002 Region 8 Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant species (S) Drepanolejeunea appalachiana

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

7,441 Acres 42 Acres impacted, > 1%

Fothergilla major

Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Roadside

4,018 222 Acres impacted, ½%

Juglans cinerea Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest

81 Acres No acres impacted.

Monotropsis odorata

Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Xeric Oak-Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest

4,018 Acres 222 Acres impacted, ½%

Nardia lescurii Acidic Cove Forest, near streams

Streams with Acidic Cove Forest buffered 50 ft. = 623 acres

No impact because of project design of riparian buffer

Thermopsis fraxinifolia

Openings in Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath


Tsuga caroliniana



FC Plant Species Calystegia catesbiana ssp. sericata

Open areas in Serpentine Woodland, Serpentine Forest, Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest, Roadside

81 Acres No acres impacted.

Symphyotrichum shortii

Roadside, openings in Montane Oak-Hickory Forest

4,018 Acres, acres in “open” habitat unknown

222 Acres of habit created by action ½%

Thermopsis mollis

Openings in Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-

4,018 Acres 222 Acres of habit created by action ½%


72

Species Natural Community or Habitat

Predicted Potential Acres

Existing condition

Acres of Potential Habitat Impacted, % of Area Total

Oak/Heath Potential Habitat Cumulative Effects The cumulative effect to potential habitat is the total affect of past, current, and foreseeable actions within the botanical AA that have directly or indirectly affected TES, and FC plant species potential habitat. Within the botanical AA, only timber harvest and controlled burns are thought to have important influence on habitat. All other activities are minor and not analyzed (Hurricane and Storm road repair, special forest product permits, hemlock woolly adelgid control, public recreation etc.). Past timber harvest and clearing activities greater than 30 years old are thought to be recovered for forest species requiring more mature habitat conditions and unsuitable for species requiring early successional habitat. The following summarizes these effects of proposed harvest actions and past harvest actions less than 20 years old. Table A-11: Summary Cumulative Effect of Past & Future Timber Harvest Upon Potential Suitable Habitat for TES and

FC Plant Species within Botanical AA

Habitat Total

Acres in AA

Associated Species

Past impact(s) (<20 years old)

Proposed impact(s)/ % of total

Future impact(s)

Total Impact/ % of Total Habitat in

AA Acidic Cove Forest

6,521 None 200 Acres 42 Acres impacted.

None known 242 acres/ <1%

Rich Cove Forest

1 acre None none None proposed

None known Not affected

Pine Oak Heath/ Chestnut Oak Forest

3,098 Thermopsis fraxinifolia

125 acres 222 Acres None Known 347 acres/ 1%

Montane Oak Hickory

920 None none None proposed

None known Habitat not affected

Alluvial Forest 80 None none None proposed


White Pine Forest

398 None None known None proposed


C. Aquatics Introduction Examples of direct effects of a proposed action on aquatic species include, but are not limited to, activities such as crushing individual insects, fish, or redds during stream crossing installation. Such effects are more likely to occur to less mobile aquatic organisms such as aquatic insects, freshwater mussels, and fish eggs and larvae, whereas more mobile species such as crayfish, aquatic salamanders, and juvenile and adult fish are often able to escape direct effects by simply


73

leaving the area. Direct effects may also include changes in the quality, quantity, or diversity of habitat available resulting from sedimentation. It is important to note that effects to aquatic habitats from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions. Examples of indirect effects of a proposed action on aquatic species include, but are not limited to, altered reproductive or foraging success and increased occurrence of disease as a result of sedimentation, degraded water quality, and altered community structure as a result of migration. Indirect effects may also include changes in the quality, quantity, or diversity of habitat available resulting from changes in riparian vegetation. Specifically, the transport of LWD, an integral component of aquatic habitat diversity, to stream channels is a function of riparian vegetation structure and composition. The Forest Plan does not allow vegetation management within riparian zones for perennial streams unless it is specifically for the enhancement of riparian values (page III-181). This standard was designed to allow vegetation along streams to become old and decadent and to serve as a long-term source of LWD to stream channels. However, areas exist across the Forests where vegetation can be managed within designated riparian areas to facilitate LWD transport and to serve as a short-term source of habitat improvement. Cumulative effects on aquatic species and habitat are the integration of any direct or indirect effects into the existing condition—and include past, present, and future actions, including those not occurring on National Forest System (NFS) lands. Most often, cumulative effects are seen as either a degradation or improvement of an already impacted situation, but they can also be the first step in the degradation or improvement process. Cumulative effects on aquatic habitats and populations from management activities can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions and site-specific conditions.

Aquatic S Species

There are eighteen aquatic sensitive species are either known to occur or may occur on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests (Attachment 2). The North Carolina Natural Heritage Database was queried for occurrences of sensitive species in Burke County. There are three sensitive aquatic species that could potentially occur in Burke County and thus remained after this initial filter. Ophiogomphus edmundo is an odonate (or dragonfly or damselfly) species that inhabits streams within the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This species has been evaluated and monitored for by several agencies including the Natural Heritage Program and according to personal communication with Sara McCrae, Ophiogomphus edmundo is found in the lower reaches of Wilson Creek. Therefore, based on site specific surveys and surveys by cooperating agencies, Ophiogomphus edmundo was dropped from further analysis. Ophiogomphus howei is also a sensitive odonate species that exists within Burke County. The habitat preference for this species is “rivers.” Since no “riverene” habitat exists within the Roses Creek AA, Ophiogomphus howei has been dropped from further analysis. Alasmidonta varicosa is a mussel species that exists in the lower reaches of Steels Creek and Upper Creek which are well outside of the aquatic analysis area. There may be opportunities to


74

expand the existing populations of this species into the analysis area. The USFS plans to cooperate with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s non-game aquatic biologist, Steve Fraley to determine if any habitat exists. Because there are no existing populations within the aquatic AA and no existing Alasmidonta varicosa will impacted by the implementation of this project, it has been dropped from further analysis. As a result of no aquatic TES in the activity areas, there would be no adverse effects to aquatic TES as a result of the proposed action. V. REQUIRED MITIGATION There is no required mitigation for the proposed Roses Creek project. VI. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT No T&E plant, wildlife, or aquatic species or their habitat will be affected by this proposal; no consultation with USDI FWS is required. The known population of S species, Thermopsis fraxinifolia is not within an activity area. Therefore, there will be no impact (direct, indirect or cumulative) to this species. No other Regional Forester’s S plant, wildlife, or aquatic species or their habitat will be impacted. Prepared by: /s/Sandy Burnet September 1, 2009 Sandy Burnet, Pisgah NF Wildlife Biologist Date Contributors: Dave Danley, Pisgah NF Botanist Lorie Stroup, Pisgah NF Fisheries Biologist VII. REFERENCES Wildlife Behler, John L. and F. Wayne King. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York. 743 pp.

Burch, John B. 1962. The Eastern Land Snails. Wm. C. Brown Co., Iowa. 214 pp. Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1958. The Peterson Field Guide Series - A

Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 450 pp.


75

Hamel, Paul B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to Birds of the South. The Nature

Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 437 pp. Hubricht, Leslie. 1985. The Distribution of the Native Land Mollusks of the Eastern United States. Fieldiana, Zoology; New Series, No. 24. Field Museum of Natural History. 191 pp. Hunter, William C., David A. Buehler, Ronald A. Canterburs, John L. Confer, and Paul B. Hamel. 2201. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America.Wildlife Society Bulletin 2001, 29(2):440-445. 16 pp. Opler, Paul A. and Vichai Malikul. 1992. The Peterson Field Guide Series - A Field Guide to Eastern Butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 396 pp.

Patton, David R. 1992. Wildlife Habitat Relationships in Forested Ecosystems. Timber Press. Portland, Oregon. 392 pp. Sauer, John R., Grey W. Pendleton, and Bruce G. Peterjohn. 1995. Evaluating Causes of Population Change in North American Insectivorous Songbirds. Conservation Biology. Vol. 10, No. 2, April 1996. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD Tuttle, Merlin D. and Daniel A. R. Taylor. 1994. Bats and Mines. Bat Conservation International, Inc., Resource Pulication No. 3. 41 pp. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook 688, 1991, 625 pp.

Final Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II, Nantahala And Pisgah National Forests, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. page L-10.

Land and Resource Management Plan - Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. 1987.

National Forests in North Carolina. Asheville, NC U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Birds of Conservation Concern,

. pp 43-45.


76

Botanical Anderson L. & Zander 1973. The mosses of the Southern Blue Ridge Province and their Phytogeographic Relationship. Jour. Of the Elisha Mitchell Society,82: 15-60. Anderson L. & Crum. 1981. Mosses of Eastern North America. Columbia University Press. New York, New York.

Bartlow, Judith et. al.(1995). Tennessee Exotic Plant Management Manual. Tennessee Pest Plant Council. Britton N. L. and Brown A, 1970, An Illustrated Flora of the United States and Canada. Dover Publications Inc., New York, New York. Danley, David and Kauffman G, 2000. “A List of Vascular Plants of the Nantahala And Pisgah National Forests”. US Forest Service, Asheville, North Carolina.

Danley, David, 1995. “Botanical Analysis of the Globe Mt Timber Sale” Unpublished report, USDA. Forest Service, Hot Springs, North Carolina. Danley, David, 2000. “Botanical Analysis of the Sand Mountain Timber Sale” Unpublished report, USDA. Forest Service, Hot Springs, North Carolina Duffey and Meyer, 1997. Do Forests Ever Recover from Logging?, Conservation Biology. Franklin, Misty. 2004. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plants of North Carolina and North Carolina Watch List. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Fuller, T.C., Barbe D. 1990. The Bradley method of eliminating exotic plants from natural reserves. Fremontia. 24-25. Gaddy L. 1987. A Review of the Taxonomy and Biogeography of Hexastylis (Aristolchiaceae). Castanea 53(3). Gillium F. 2007. The Ecological Significance of the Herbaceous Layer in Temperate Forest Ecosystems. Boiscience, Vol.57 No.10 pages 845-858.

Goff, Glen F. Dawson, Gary A. and Rochow, John J. 1982. Site Examination for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Environmental Management, Vol.6 No. 4. Hicks, M., 1992. Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina. Duke University Press, Durhan, North Carolina.


77

Ivey, M. 2002. “The Genus Thermopsis in the Southeastern United States, A summary of Findings for use by land and field biologist” Unpublished report, Western Carolina University. Kartesz, John, 1994. A Synonymized Checklist of the Vascular Flora of the United States, Canada, and Grrenland. Timberland Press, Portland Oregon. Kauffman Gary, 2003. “Report of Exotic Invasive Species of Vascular Plant in the Steels Creek Watershed”. Unpublished report, USDA. Forest Service Asheville North Carolina. Lorimer, C., 1980. Age Structure and Disturbance History of a Southern Appalachian Virgin Forest. Ecolgy, 61 (5), pp. 1169-1184. Newell Claire and Peet R. , 1995. Vegetation of Linville Gorge Wilderness, North Carolina. Unpublished report, Dept. of Biology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Radford, Albert E., et al., 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. Ruggiero, Leonard F. Haywood, Gregerory D. and Squires John R, 1994. Viability Analysis in Biological Evaluations: Concepts of Population Viability Analysis, Biological Population, and Ecological Scale. Conservation Biology Vol. 8, No. 2 Runkle, J. 1981. Gap Regeneration in Some Old-Growth Forests of the Eastern United States. Ecology, 62(4). Schafale, M. and Weakley A, 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. Strausbaugh P. D. and Core E. L., 1977. Flora of West Virginia. Seneca Books Inc., Morgantown, West Virginia. Simon, S et. Al.2005. Ecological Zones in the Southern Appalachians: First Approximation. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station (SRS-41). United States Forest Service, National Forests of North Carolina. 1994." List of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Plants List". National Forests of North Carolina. Unpublished. Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Guild to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia, a working draft. Unpublished, The Nature Conservancy, Southern Resource Office, Durham, North Carolina.

Wofford, B. Eugene. 1989. Guild to the Vascular Plants of the Blue Ridge. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia.


78

Aquatics Benfield, E.F. and J. R. Webster. (1985) Shredder abundance and leaf breakdown in an Appalachian Mountain stream. Freshwater Biology 15:1, 113–120. Berner, L. and R.K. Allen. 1961. Southeastern species of the mayfly subgenus Serratella (Ephemerella:Ephemerellidae). Florida Entomology 44:149-158. Bonner, W.R. 1983a. Survey and classification of state-managed trout streams: District 9.

Mountain Fisheries Investigations Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F24-S. 313pages. Brigham, A.R., W.U. Brigham, and A. Gnilka (editors). 1982. Aquatic insects and olioghaetes of North and South Carolina. Midwest Aquatic enterprises, Mahomet, Illinois. 837 pages. Bryan, S.A., J.D. Riley, and D.M Hill. 1999. NFMA Monitoring Report for Aquatic

Resources of the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests, FY98 unpublished). Cantrell, Mark. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa St., Asheville, NC, 28801. Clarkin, Kim. 2006. Low Water Crossings: Geomorphic, Biological, and Engineering Design Considerations. San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 350 pages. Clinton, B.D. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Differences in surface water quality draining four road surface types in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 27: 100-106. Dillon, R.T. 1992. Status survey of the knotty elimia, Goniobasis interuptald.) North

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission contract No. 92-Snai-01. 20 pages. Douglass, J.E. and W.T. Swank. 1972. Streamflow modification through Management of eastern Forests. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SE – 94. 15 pp. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University Of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee. 681 pages. Georgian, T.J. and J.B. Wallace. 1993. Seasonal production dynamics in a guild

Or periphyton-grazing insects in a southern Appalachian stream. Ecology 64:1236-1248. Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID technique: a new method for evaluating downstream effects of forest practices on riparian zones. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-220. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 pages.


79

Hillis, R.E. and E.D. Bellis. 1971. Some aspects of the ecology of the hellbender, Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis, in a Pennsylvania stream. Journal of Herpetology 5(3-4):121-126. Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1989. An illustrated checklist of the American crayfishes Decapoda: Astacidae, Cambaridae, and Parastacidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Number 480. 236 pp. Huryn, A.D. and J.B. Wallace. 1987. The exopterygote insect community of a mountain stream in North Carolina, USA: life histories, production, and functional structure. Aquatic Insects 9:229-251. Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pages. Kohler, C.C. and W.A. Hubert, editors. 1993. Inland fisheries management in North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 594 pages. Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey, Publication #1980-12. 867 pages. McAfee, W.R. 1966. Eastern brook trout. Pages 242-260 in Calhoun, A. (editor), Inland

fisheries management. California Fish and Game Publication. 546 pages. MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Water Division, EPA910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA. 166 pages. Meehan, W.R. (editor) 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Special Publication #19, Bethesda, Maryland. 751 pages. Menhinick, E.F. 1991. Freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Publication, Raleigh, North Carolina. 227 pages. Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1996. An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America, third edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 962 pages. The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA Forest Service under Grant no. 97-CCS-230.


80

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Biological Conservation Data. Computerized database. Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States: protozoa to mollusca. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. 628 pages. Raleigh, R.F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.24. 42 pages. Raleigh, R.F., T. Hickman, R.C. Soloman, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.60. 53 pages. Raleigh, R.F., L.D. Zuckerman, and P.C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: brown trout. USFWS Biological Services Program Publication FWS/OBS-82/10.124. 42 pages. Ridout, S. 2002. Unpublished data. Department of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University. Richmond, Virginia. Rosgen, Dave. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. pages 4-9 - 4-17. Scientific Council Report on Freshwater Fishes. 1991. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater fishes. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. 17 pages plus appendices. Scientific Council Report on Terrestrial and Molluscan Fauna. 1990. A report on the conservation status of North Carolina’s freshwater and terrestrial molluscan fauna. Annual report prepared in accordance with Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statues of North Carolina. 246 pages plus appendices. Stone, M.K. and J.B. Wallace. 1998. Long-term recovery of a mountain stream from Clear-cut

logging: the effects of forest succession on benthic invertebrate community structure. Freshwater Biology. 39: 151-169. Swift, L.W. 1985. Forest road design to minimize erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of forestry and water quality: a mid-south symposium. Monticello, Arkansas: University of Arkansas. 141-151. Terwilliger, K. (editor). 1991. Virginia’s endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia. 672 pages.


81

USDA Forest Service, National Forests in North Carolina. 2004. Management indicator species habitat and population trends – Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. 829 pp. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pages. APPENDIX TES botanical species of Burke County Federally Listed Plant Species (Burke County)

Species Status Habitat Criteria

Geum radiatum Endangered High Elevation Rocky Summit 4

Hexastylis naniflora Threatened Rich deciduous woods bluffs 4

Hudsonia montana Threatened High Elevation Rocky Summit, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest

4

Liatris helleri Threatened High Elevation Rocky Summit, Montane Acidic Cliff

4

1 = Found in activity area 2 = Found within botanical analysis area but not activity area 3 = Possibly may be found with botanical analysis area (based on broad habitat concepts); 4 = No known occurrences or habitat known within botanical analysis area, (not further analyzed) Regional Sensitive Plant Species (Burke County)

Species Community/Habitat Criteria

Botrychium jenmanii Rich Cove Forest 4 Cephalozia macrostachya ssp. australis

Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge 4

Chelone cuthbertii Southern Appalachian Bog 4 Cleistes bifaria Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Pine-Oak Woodland 3 Diplophyllum apliculatum var. taxifolioides

Roadbank 3

Diplophyllum obtusatum Spruce-Fir Forest 4 Drepanolejeunea appalachiana Acidic Cove, Montane Oak-Hickory, Serpentine

Woodland, Serpentine Forest 3

Fothergilla major Pine-Oak/Heath Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Roadside

3

Juglans cinerea Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Montane Alluvial Forest

3

Liatris turgida High Elevation Granitic Dome, Montane Oak Woodland

4

Lophocolea appalachiana Spray Cliff 4 Marsupella emarginata var. latiloba Spray Cliff 4 Metzgeria fruticulosa High Elevation Forest 4 Monotropsis odorata Rich Cove Forest, Mesic Oak-Hickory, Xeric Oak- 3


82

Species Community/Habitat Criteria

Hickory, Pine-Oak/Heath Forest Nardia lescurii Acidic Cove Forest, near streams 3 Penstemon smallii rock outcrops, woodlands 4 Plagiochila caduciloba Spray Cliff, Streamside, Rock Outcrop in Acidic

Cove Forest in Gorge 4

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

4

Plagiochila sullivantii var. spinigera Spray Cliff 4 Plagiochila sullivantii var. sullvantii Spray Cliff, Spruce-Fir Forest 4 Polytrichum appalachianum Rocky Summits, mid to high elevation 4 Porella wataugensis Rock Outcrop in Acidic Cove Forest in Gorge 4 Robinia viscosa var. viscosa High Elevation Granitic Dome, woodlands 4 Saxifraga caroliniana Northern Hardwood Forest, Montane Acidic Cliff,

High Elevation Rocky Summit 4

Scutellaria saxatilis Northern Hardwood Forest, Boulderfield Forest, Rich Cove Forest

4

Thermopsis fraxinifolia Xeric Oak-Hickory Forest, Montane Oak Woodland, Pine-Oak/Heath

2

Trillium rugelii Rich Cove Forest, low elevation 4 Trillium simile Rich Cove Forest 4 DEFINITIONS Threatened, or Endangered (T&E) is a species that has been listed or is proposed for listing by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These species are included in every BE conducted for projects where the species is known to, likely to, or may occur. These species are also included in projects where the species occurred historically but hasn’t been found during recent surveys. Sensitive species (S) is a species appearing on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southern Region (August 7, 2001). These species are included in every BE conducted for projects within an area where the species is known to, likely to, or may occur. Known to occur: those species in which there are records that they exist within a specified area, or it was found in the area during project specific surveys. High Potential for Occupancy: those species in which there is no documentation of the species occurring in a specified area but are expected to occur based on documentation of very similar habitat to known populations. For purposes of the BE, it should be assumed that the species does occur in specified area until presence/absence of the species is verified.

Potential for Occupancy: the species probably occurs in a specified area in the broadest sense. Only very general habitat preferences and species distribution are used to determine if a species may occur. This does not imply their existence in an area, but that their general habitat description is found in the area, so therefore the species may occur. See the attached resource reports for “may occur”. Forest Plan Analysis Area (AA): 4th order watersheds as determined by the Forest Plan.


83

Biological AA: The maximum geographic boundary where cumulative biological effects of analyses from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are expected to be combined with effects from the proposal. Analysis areas are specific to individual resources and may be different boundaries. The wildlife biologic AA was evaluated over the estimated 8,615 acres for the Roses Creek Forest Plan Analysis Area which comprises of compartments 293-295 and 297-300. The Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Plan, Amendment 5, identified inventoried roadless area on the western side of the AA, made up of approximately 3,767 acres and 4,901 acres of Interior Habitat Patch 35. A portion of the wildlife AA (733 acres) is within the Linville Gorge Wilderness. During the spring/summer of 2007, a wildfire (Linville Gorge) consumed approximately 3,000 acres; it was estimated through aerial photography to have eliminated vegetation over 1,040 acres west of the Back-Irish Creek road within this AA. The botanical biologic AA or “boundary of effects” used for this proposal is defined as: the total area within 2 kilometers of any proposed unit (activity area) or known EO (Element Occurrence) of any plant TES, and FC species. The botanical AA consists of 11,591 acres. All potential effects (direct, indirect and cumulative) to botanical resources in the botanical AA were analyzed using this “boundary”. The botanical AA definition was selected because it is analogous to the Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy’s plant delimitation guidelines of an EO. Other resource disciplines may employ different definitions to analyze this proposal. The aquatic biological AA addresses activity area waters and AA waters. Treatment area waters are defined as those in the area of potential site-specific impacts to aquatic habitat and populations. The AA encompasses waters downstream that potentially could be impacted by project activities, in addition to treatment area waters. The aquatic AA is larger than the treatment area. Management Area: Forest Plan designated areas with specific management objectives, standards, and guidelines. Project Area: The general location identified by the Responsible Official where actions are proposed. Treatment Area: The geographic boundary where direct effects of the proposal would specifically occur, i.e. specific timber stands, haul routes, temporary roads, linear wildlife fields, trails, prescribed fire, areas where invasive exotic species would be treated, etc. and would change by alternative. Coldwater Streams: Are usually defined as those with maximum temperatures of 68 degrees F or less. In North Carolina, these streams are largely ground-water fed, have relatively stable flows and generally elevations of 1,100 feet or more. They have gradients that are steep with stable banks. Boulder-rubble dominates their bottoms, and their turbidity is low. Productivity is usually limited. Coolwater Streams: Represent the transitional community between coldwater streams and warmwater streams. Components of the community may include elements of both coldwater and warmwater habitats.


84

Warmwater Streams: Are characterized by having annual maximum temperatures greater than 68 degrees F.

Classified (system) Road: Roads wholly or partially within or adjacent to National Forest System Lands that are determined to be needed for long-term motor vehicle access, including State roads, county roads, privately owned roads, National Forest System roads, and other roads authorized by the Forest Service.(36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705)

Log Landing (log deck): a cleared area to which logs or stems are yarded to, a processing operation is performed, and loading of logs onto a transport vehicle for haul to a mill occurs.

Unclassified (non-system) Roads: Roads on National Forest System Lands that are not managed as part of the forest transportation system, such as unplanned roads, abandoned travelways, and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been designated and managed as a trail; and those roads that were once under permit or other authorization and were not decommissioned upon the termination of the authorization. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705)

Temporary Road: Road authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, or emergency operation not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term resource management. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705)

Haul Road: A road capable of accommodating the transport of logs or products loaded onto a highway legal motor vehicle (a motor vehicle travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail). A road may be classified, unauthorized, or temporary. (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705)

Skid Road: Road cut through the woods for skidding. This is usually assumed to be a skidding pathway that has had excavation of material in order to facilitate the safe passage of the skidding operation.

Skid Trail: Skidder path through the woods. This is usually assumed to mean a pathway made by the skidding of a turn(s) in which no excavation of material was performed to facilitate the skidding operation.


85

APPENDIX B – AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION

Forest vegetation within the Roses Creek project area consists of upland and cove hardwood species such as oaks, yellow poplar, hickories, red maple, black gum, and black locust. White pine, pitch pine, shortleaf pine, and hemlock occur in varying degrees throughout the area. Understory vegetation includes rhododendron, mountain laurel, red maple, white pine, hemlock, blackgum, sourwood, oak and various other shrubs and herbs. Most overstory oaks are scarlet oak or chestnut oak with areas of white oak, black oak and northern red oak. (All stand ages discussed below were determined for the year 2010.)

Within the 8,606 acre Roses Creek Analysis Area (AA), approximately 69 percent of forested acres are 71 years old or older. Twelve percent is in the 0-10 year age-class mostly due to recent wildfire activity, and 5 percent is in the 11-20 year age-class. Within the 3,124 acre project area (compartments 294, 295, 300 where harvesting is proposed), approximately 58 percent of the forested acres are 71 years old or older. Ten percent (310 ac) is in the 0-10 year age-class due to the 2007 wildfire suppression activities, and 14 percent is in the 11-20 year age-class.

The 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire burned about 1,040 acres within the Roses Creek Analysis area severely enough to be included in the 0-10 year age class. This represents about 12.3 percent of the analysis area considered early successional habitat. The percentage of land considered early successional within the analysis area is greatest in compartments 293 and 295, 39.7% and 17.0% respectively. No harvesting is proposed in compartment 293. Alternatives B and C propose harvesting in compartments 294 and 295 that raise the levels of 0-10 year age class over Forest Plan Standards of 15%, as discussed below.

This analysis determines the minimum and maximum harvest levels for Analysis Area 509 according to the Forest Plan. All action alternatives would help to balance the age-class distribution. Alternatives B, C and D would result in bringing the 0-10 year age-class in the analysis area 509 up to 15.0 percent, 15.0 percent and 13.9 percent in 2010, respectively. All stands proposed for harvest range from 50 to 97 years old.

Forest Plan Direction for Distribution of Early Successional Habitat The Forest Plan contains specific desired conditions for the amount of 0-10 year age-class in MA’s with timber production (Forest Plan, pages III, 29-31). Regulation is at three scales: the Analysis Area (AA) or topographic level; the Management Area (MA) within the AA or topographic area; and the Compartments within the analysis area. The tables below summarize the existing 0-10 year age-class and regeneration goals for these areas and for the Roses Creek project compartments within each AA. (Wildlife food plots, inclusions and non-forested areas are not considered as 0-10 year old regeneration.)

Analysis Area 509 Roses Creek Compartments 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300

For every AA with at least 250 acres in MAs 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A and/or 4D, the number of acres in each MA is multiplied by the maximum percent allowed and then summed to determine the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in the AA, or 215 to 644 acres in Roses Creek AA. For every MA with at least 250 acres in the AA, the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in the MA is calculated by multiplying the number of acres in each management area in the AA by the


86

maximum percent allowed. Each result is the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in that MA. In Roses Creek AA there is a maximum of 602 acres allowed in MA’s 1B and 3B (Table B-1). Table B-1: Forest Plan Allowed 0-10 Year Age-Class for Roses Creek AA 0-10 YEAR AGE-CLASS HARVEST GOALS

Mgmt. Area Forested Acres Min. Desired

Max. Allowed

Existing 0-10 Yr.

Min. Max.

1B, 3B 4,293 215 644 42 173 602 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 4C & 7 4,164 998

Total 8,457 215 644 1040 173 602 Summary: In Roses Creek, harvest 173 to 602 acres in MA’s 1B & 3B. The 2006 and 2007 wildfires created approximately 998 ac. of 0-10 age class in the unsuitable base (MA 4C & 7) and 42 ac in the suitable (MA 3B). On March 20, 2009 the Forest Supervisor signed a letter allowing the 0-10 age class distribution to exceed Forest Plan levels by 6% in Compartment 294 and 4% in Compartment 295.

Roses Creek Management Area and Compartment Area Analysis For every compartment with at least 250 acres in MAs 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and/or 4D, the amount of 0-10 year age-class allowed in each compartment is calculated by determining which of the MA’s has the most acres in the compartment (1B, 3B, 2A, 4A, or 4D). If MA’s 1B and 3B have the most, then the maximum allowed in the 0-10 year age-class is 15 percent of all acres in the compartment. If MA’s 2A, 4A, or 4D have the most acres, then the maximum amount allowed in the 0–10 year age-class is 10 percent of all acres in the compartment. The following tables display the age-class by compartment and Forest Plan standards (harvest goals):

Table B-2: Roses Creek AA, Compartment 293, 0-10 Year Age-Class

0-10 YEAR AGE-CLASS HARVEST GOALS


Max. Allowed

Existing 0-10 Yr.

Min. Max.

1B, 3B 0 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 1347 535 Total 1347 0 0 535 0 0

Summary: In Compartment 293, harvest 0 acres for Timber Management.



Mgmt. Area Forested Acres Min.

Desired Max.

Allowed Existing 0-

10 Yr. Min. Max.

1B, 3B 929 68 285 0 68 285 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 426 136 -136 -136 Total 1355 68 285 136 0 149

Summary: In Compartment 294, harvest 0 to 149 acres in MA’s 1B & 3B. The allowable acres of 0-10 age class in Table B34 are based on 21% instead of the Plan Standard of 15% for MA3B as approved by the Forest Supervisor in a letter signed March 20, 2009.


87




Desired Max.

Allowed Existing 0-

10 Yr. Min. Max.

1B, 3B 546 51 195 18 33 177 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 478 156 -156 -156 Total 1024 51 154 174 0 21

Summary: In Compartment 295, harvest 0 to 21 acres in MA’s 1B & 3B. The allowable acres of 0-10 age class in Table B-4 are based on 19% instead of the Plan Standard of 15% for MA3B and approved by the Forest Supervisor in a letter signed March 20, 2009. Table B-5: Roses Creek AA, Compartment 297, 0-10 Year Age-Class



Desired Max.

Allowed Existing 0-

10 Yr. Min. Max.

1B, 3B 485 94 281 24 70 257 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 1388 171 -171 -171 Total 1873 94 281 195 0 86

Summary: In Compartment 297, harvest 0 to 86 acres in MA’s 1B, 3B. Table B-6: Roses Creek AA, Compartment 298, 0-10 Year Age-Class



Max. Allowed

Existing 0-10 Yr.

Min. Max.

1B, 3B 1124 79 237 0 79 237 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 455 Total 1579 79 237 0 79 237




Desired Max.

Allowed Existing 0-

10 Yr. Min. Max.

1B, 3B 534 27 80 0 27 80 2A 0

4A & 4D 0 Other 0 Total 534 27 80 0 27 80


0-10 YEAR AGE-CLASS HARVEST GOALS Mgmt. Area Forested Acres Min. Max. Existing 0- Min. Max.


88

Desired Allowed 10 Yr. 1B, 3B 675 37 112 0 37 112

2A 0 4A & 4D 0

Other 70 Total 745 37 112 0 37 112

Summary: In Compartment 300, harvest 37 to 112 acres in MA’s 1B, 3B. Comparison of Alternatives for Early Successional Habitat

The Forest Plan Amendment 5 General Direction for 0-10 age-class distribution states “Assure a regular and sustained flow of habitats across the Forests through space and time for diversity and viability of plant and animal populations.” (Forest Plan III-29)

This analysis will compare the action and no-action alternatives to see which alternatives will best meet the desired future conditions for early successional habitat (0-10 age class) for acres at the 3 geographic scales and through time based on a 10 year entry cycle as directed by Forest Plan Amendment 5 Standards, Page III-75. Table B-9 shows the acres of proposed regeneration by alternative with respective % by geographic scale. In compartments 293 and 295, all alternatives, including the no action alternative, result in acreages of 0-10 year age class that exceed Forest Plan Standards as a result of the 2007 Linville Gorge Wildfire. In compartment 294, alternatives B, C, and D result in acreages of 0-10 year age class that exceed Forest Plan Standards of 15%. In all other compartments, all alternatives do not exceed Forest Plan Standards for early successional habit. At the MA 1B & 3B scale, the no action alternative results in levels of early successional habitat (1%) that fall short of the desired range, 5% – 15%. Alternatives B (8.1%), C (8.1%), and D (6.4%) fall within the desired range. At the Analysis Area scale, alternatives A (12.3%) and D (15.0%) result in levels of early successional habitat that fall within the desired range, 5% - 15%. Alternatives B (15.9%) and C (15.9%) exceed Forest Plan Standards by .9%, or 76 acres.

Tables B-9: Percent of 0-10 Age-Class Distribution By Alternative Of Proposed Timber Harvest- Base Year 2010

Alternative

Existing 0-10 Age Class Acres, Acres Proposed For Harvest & Total % 0-10 At Compartment Scale

C 293 1347 Acres C 294 1355 Acres C 295 1024 Acres 297 1873 Acres A 535 Ac 0 Ac 39.7% 136 Ac 0 Ac 10.0% 174 Ac 0 Ac 17.0% 195 Ac 0 Ac 10.4% B 535 Ac 0 Ac 39.7% 136 Ac 154 Ac 21.4% 174 Ac 16 Ac 18.6% 195 Ac 0 Ac 10.4% C 535 Ac 0 Ac 39.7% 136 Ac 154 Ac 21.4% 174 Ac 16 Ac 18.6% 195 Ac 0 Ac 10.4% D 535 Ac 0 Ac 39.7% 136 Ac 78 Ac 15.8% 174 Ac 0 Ac 17.0% 195 Ac 0 Ac 10.4%

Alternative


C 298 1579 Acres C 299 534 Acres C 300 1024 Acres A 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% B 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 61 Ac 6.0%


89

Alternative


C 298 1579 Acres C 299 534 Acres C 300 1024 Acres C 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 61 Ac 6.0% D 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 0 Ac 0.0% 0 Ac 61 Ac 6.0%

Alternative

Acres Proposed For Harvest & Total

Acres Proposed For Harvest & Total

% 0-10 At MA 1B & 3B Scale % 0-10 At Analysis Area Scale 4293 Total Acres 8457 Total Acres 42 Existing 0-10 Age Class 1040 Existing 0-10 Age Class

A 0 Ac 1.0% 0 Ac 12.3% B 307 Ac 8.1% 231 Ac 15.0% C 307 Ac 8.1% 231 Ac 15.0% D 231 Ac 6.4% 139 Ac 13.9%

Note- Sanitation thinning is not included in calculations of 0-10 year age class. Desired range (5%-15%) 0-10 year age class at MA 1B & 3B scale is 215 to 644 acres. Desired range (5%-15%) 0-10 year age class at Analysis Area scale is 423 to 1,269 acres.

Age Class Distribution over Time

In addition to meeting Forest Plan Standards for 0-10 age class distribution spatially at 3 geographic scales the project must also meet the 0-10 age class distribution over a time frame. The time frame for maintaining the minimum 234 acres in Management Area 3B is 10 years into the future. Tables B10, B11, B12, and B13 demonstrate the effects of each alternative on the 0-10 age-class distributions in Roses Creek Analysis Area over a 10 year period:

Table B-10: Alternative A - 0-10 Year Age-Class Distribution Over 10 Year Period in Roses Creek Analysis Area (Must maintain 423 - 1269 acres (5-15%) of analysis area over a 10 year period)

Year - 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Total 0-10 Acreage 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 1040 0 0 0 0 % Of Analysis Area 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 12.3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Compartment 293 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 535 0 0 0 0 % Compartment: 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 39.7% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Compartment 295 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 0 0 0 0 % Compartment 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 17.0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Compartment 297 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 0 0 0 0 %Compartment 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 10.4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Compartment 298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % Compartment 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%




90

Alternative A, No Action Alternative, meets Forest Plan Standards for early successional habitat through 2017, but drops below standards after 2017.

Table B-11: Alternative B - 0-10 Year Age-Class Distribution Over 10 Year Period in Roses Creek Analysis Area (Must maintain 423 - 1269 acres (5-15%) of analysis area over a 10 year period)

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021









Alternative B exceeds Forest Plan Standards for early successional habitat through 2017, after which the % 0-10 year age class drops to 3% of the analysis area, 2% less than minimum desired levels of early successional habitat.

Table B-12: Alternative C - 0-10 Year Age-Class Distribution Over 10 Year Period in Roses Creek Analysis Area (Must maintain 423 - 1269 acres (5-15%) of analysis area over a 10 year period)

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021










91

Alternative C exceeds Forest Plan Standards for early successional habitat through 2017, after which the % 0-10 year age class drops to 3% of the analysis area, 2% less than minimum desired levels of early successional habitat. Table B-13: Alternative D - 0-10 Year Age-Class Distribution Over 10 Year Period in Roses Creek Analysis Area (Must maintain 423 - 1269 acres (5-15%) of analysis area over a 10 year period)

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021









Alternative D meets Forest Plan Standards for early successional habitat through 2017, after which the % 0-10 year age class drops to 2% of the analysis area, 3% less than minimum desired levels of early successional habitat.


92

APPENDIX C – OLD GROWTH ANALYSIS

Forest Plan Direction for Old Growth Restoration Patches

The Forest Plan contains specific directions for designating large, medium, and small old growth restoration patches (Forest Plan, pages III-26 – III-28). The desired future condition for old growth across the forest is to have a network of small, medium and large sized old growth areas, representative of sites, elevation gradients and landscapes found in the Southern Appalachians and on the Forests, that are well dispersed and interconnected by forested lands.

Areas to be managed for old growth will be selected considering the following criteria:

1. Priority consideration for areas currently exhibiting high quality old growth characteristics, including areas in the initial inventory of possible old growth:

2. Areas with unique species diversity: 3. Community, soil type, aspect and elevation: 4. Other resource concerns and management objectives.

Large Patches

Evaluate the 30 large patches identified in Appendix K (Forest Plan, Appendix K) for future old growth management potential.

The purpose of the large patches is to serve as permanent reservoir of biological diversity and to provide preferred habitats for forest interior birds across the landscape. The intent is to allow the restoration of functional old growth ecosystems at the sub-regional, Forest, and landscape scales.

Medium Patches

In each administrative watershed containing more than 2,500 acres of National Forest System lands and not containing a portion of a designated large patch area for old growth management, select a medium patch for future old growth management.

The purpose of the medium patches is to serve as permanent reservoirs of biological diversity. The intent is to allow for the restoration of functioning old growth ecosystems at the landscape and Forest scales.

Small Patches

In each compartment containing more than 250 acres of national forest land, select a small patch for future old growth management. If 5% of the compartment acres are already part of a large or medium patch, and additional small patch is not needed. Whenever possible, areas should incorporate some riparian habitat to enhance old growth values.

The purpose of the small patches is to increase biological diversity and provide structural components of old growth at the stand and landscape levels.

Select the small patches prior to the first ground disturbing project of at least 5 acres proposed in the compartment.

Select a contiguous area at least 5% the size of the national forest land in the compartment or at least 50 acres, whichever is greater.


93

Acres in the Initial Inventory of Possible Old Growth

Select inventory areas exhibiting high quality old growth characteristics for old growth management whenever possible.

Roses Creek Old Growth Inventory

The requirements for the Roses Creek project are as follows: (1) check for large old growth patches in Roses Creek analysis area (AA); (2) check for medium old growth patches in Roses Creek AA; (3) select small old growth patches for Compartments 293, 294, 295, 297, 298, 299 and 300; and (4) field check stands in the initial inventory of old growth that would be directly affected by this project.

Large Patch Old Growth in the Roses Creek Analysis Area (AA)

Old Growth Large Patch #28 is found in the Roses Creek AA. Parts of the estimated 23,800 acre large patch are found in Compartments 293, 295, 297 & 298.

Medium Patch Old Growth in the Roses Creek AA

There are no medium old growth patches in the Roses Creek AA.

Small Patches Old Growth in the Roses Creek AA

There are no designated small old growth patches in the Roses Creek AA.

Initial Inventory of Old Growth

There are 10 patches of initial inventory old growth identified by the Forest Plan within the Roses Creek AA Compartments 293, 294, 295 & 295.

Table C-1 Designated Old Growth in the Roses Creek AA Grandfather Ranger District

Comp # Total Acres

MA 1B

MA 3B

MA 4C

MA 7 MA 18

Initial Old Growth

(Stand # - Acres)

Large Patch Old Growth

(O/G # -Acres)

Small Patch Old

Growth 293 1,347 569 712 66 S05 – 712** 28A – 1,347 0 294 1,355 929 311 115 S02 - 75*

S04 - 24 S05 - 29 S36 - 16

0

295 1,024 205 341 392 86 S06 - 30 S13 -109

28A - 164 0

297 1,873 485 1,204 184 none 28A – 1,004 0 298 1,579 1,124 288 167 S04 – 40

S11 – 91** S14 – 23***

28A – 91 0

299 534 534 none 0 300 745 675 70 none 0 Total 8,457 205 4,088 2,764 712 688 2,606 0 * Initial Old Growth Stand recommended to be designated as a Small Patch Old Growth Stand ** Initial Old Growth Stand already incorporated into an existing Large or Small Patch *** Initial Old Growth Stand already harvested


94

Small Patch Designation in the Roses Creek AA

The inventory (Table C-1) shows that Compartments 293, 295, 297, and 298 all contain acres of Large Old Growth Patch #28 sufficient to meet Forest Plan objectives; therefore, establishment of small old growth patch are not needed in them. Compartments 294, 299, and 300 do not contain any stands within Large Old Growth Patch #30 and would require establishment of a small patch of at least 50 acres or more to meet Forest Plan direction. The following stands are to be designated as small patches for long-term old growth retention to meet Forest Plan standards:

Table C-2: Designated Old Growth Small Patches in the Roses Creek AA (Compartments 294, 299, & 300)

Comp. Comp. Acres

Minimum Acres

Selected Acres

Stand No(s)

Age (Year)

Initial Inventory Community Type

294 1,355 68 (5%) 75 (5.5%) 02 1920 Yes Yellow Pine 299 534 50 (9.4%) 61 (11.4%) 02 1925 No Upland Oak/Yellow Pine

300 745

50 (6.7%) 50 (6.7%) 01 &

02 1920 No

Cove Hardwood & Upland Oak/ Yellow Pine

Total 2,634 168 186

The selected stands for small patch old growth restoration areas all exceed Forest Plan Standard of 5% of the Compartment acres.

Table C-3: Total Designated Old Growth Small & Large Patches in the Roses Creek AA

Comp. Comp. Acres

Minimum Acres

Needed

Large Patch

Small Patch

Acres of Initial

Inventory Included

Total Designated

Acres

Percent of Roses Creek

AA

Meets Forest Plan

Standard?

293 1,347 67 (5%) 1,347 712 1,347 100% Yes 294 1,355 68 (5%) 75 75 7 5.5% Yes 295 1,024 51 (5%) 164 139 164 16% Yes 297 1,873 94 (5%) 1,004 1,004 54% Yes 298 1,579 79 (5%) 91 91 91 5.8% Yes 299 534 50 (9.4%) 61 61 11.4% Yes 300 745 50 (6.7%) 50 50 6.7% Yes Total 8,457 459 (5.4%) 2,606 186 2,792 33%

The proposed old growth designations in the Roses Creek AA exceed Forest Plan standards in all Compartments. Overall the Roses Creek proposal would ensure 32% of the AA is designated as old growth habitat.


95

APPENDIX D – APPROPRIATENESS OF HARVEST ANALYSIS

Regeneration methods are discussed at length in Appendix E of the FEIS for the Forest Plan, and on pages E1-E2 in Amendment 5 of the Forest Plan. Choices include shelterwood cutting and clearcutting (even-aged management system), shelterwood with reserves (two-aged system), and group selection (uneven-aged system). At this time, single-tree selection (uneven-aged management) is not being considered as appropriate in meeting long-term regeneration needs to sustain productive stands of desirable tree species except in northern hardwood (beech-birch-sugar maple) or hemlock stands (all shade tolerant species). This is because regeneration objectives would not be met and single-tree selection does not work with the shade intolerant species that occur in the Roses Creek Project Area. Thinning and sanitation cutting may also occur, but they are intermediate treatments and will not establish regeneration.

With any method, there must be enough quantity and quality of timber to be removed to make a sale operable, i.e. economically feasible to log at a given stumpage price (stumpage is the price paid for standing timber). The minimum quantity would generally be three thousand board feet of sawtimber per acre, although markets may develop for lower value products. Sawtimber would be defined as trees that are large enough, less than 25% defect, and of commercially valuable species which could be sawed into grade 3 or better lumber. Some species like scarlet oak seldom contain any grade 3 logs because of defect. Other species like sourwood seldom reach large enough diameter to become sawtimber. Changes in markets may change operability standards in a local area as well as affecting stumpage price.

Operability and stumpage price are also affected by transportation cost, logging cost, and size of the area being logged. Costs of getting logs from the stump to the mill are higher for timber in remote areas, where haul roads must be built, or for timber logged with specialized logging equipment, e.g. with cable systems or with a helicopter. As costs increase, prospective timber purchasers lower their bid prices on stumpage to compensate. If the price they can pay becomes less than the minimum acceptable stumpage price, the timber becomes inoperable (no one will buy it).

Each logging crew, depending on the size of their operation and the value of the timber to be logged, would have a minimum amount of timber that would be economical for them to move in and cut. For instance, in a given stand, it might be economical for a given logging crew to harvest a clearcut as small as 10 acres to obtain 50 MBF. If group selection is chosen, where only about 25 percent of the area is regenerated per entry, 40 acres would be needed to provide the crew with the same amount of sawtimber. Therefore, operability becomes an important factor in determining which regeneration methods are appropriate.

Much concern has been expressed over clearcutting as a management tool. Other regeneration methods will be used when management objectives can be met and when the other methods are economically feasible. In a memo to Regional Foresters dated June 4, 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service stated that "Clearcutting would be limited to areas where it is essential to meet forest plan objectives and involve one or more of the following circumstances:

1. To establish, enhance, or maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.


96

2. To enhance wildlife habitat or water yield values, or to provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors, facility sites, reservoirs, or similar development.

3. To rehabilitate lands adversely impacted by events such as fires, windstorms, or insect or disease infestations.

4. To preclude or minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts or insect or disease infestations, windthrow, logging damage, or other factors affecting forest health.

5. To provide for the establishment and growth of desired trees or other vegetative species that are shade intolerant.

6. To rehabilitate poorly stocked stands due to past management practices or natural events. 7. To meet research needs.”

These circumstances will be referred to on a site-specific basis when showing that clearcutting is optimum for a given stand.

Regeneration using the group selection method is appropriate where logging costs are relatively low and where there is enough volume and value in the stands to make selection cutting operable. Group selection is not traditionally done in very small stands or on slopes greater than 40 percent where cable logging is necessary, where timber volume or value is low, or in stands where insect or disease hazards are high and widespread. It is also not appropriate where partial cutting and leaving a white pine seed source would result in conversion of mixed pine/hardwood stands to almost pure pine stands, if the accompanying long-term loss of mast production would be detrimental to local wildlife populations.

The shelterwood method of regeneration has been traditionally used where a residual seed source was needed for stand establishment or where new seedlings developed best with partial shade or protection from exposure. In the Appalachian Mountain region, seed from reserve trees (or "leave trees") are usually not needed to establish a new stand, but visual concerns often make shelterwood desirable. Leave trees must be those that would not likely be windthrown after having the adjacent trees cut. The residual overstory of a new shelterwood cut would look more park-like with the biggest and best trees evenly distributed across the landscape, rather than having a denuded appearance like a fresh clearcut might have. Regeneration would become established under the residual overstory. Then, at some later time depending on objectives, all or part of the overstory may be removed so it will not hinder further growth and development of the new stand. Some damage to the regeneration would occur during the overstory removal. Shelterwood is not appropriate on slopes greater than 40 percent where cable logging is necessary unless timber volume and values are very high. Shelterwood is not appropriate in stands where leaving an overstory would make the stands inoperable, or in stands where insect or disease hazards are high and widespread. It is also not appropriate where partial cutting and leaving a white pine seed source would result in conversion of mixed pine/hardwood stands to almost pure pine stands, if the accompanying long-term loss of mast production would be detrimental to local wildlife populations.

The shelterwood with reserves is a two-age regeneration method that is similar to the shelterwood method except the overstory removal is deferred until mid rotation (40-60 years for cove hardwoods) or indefinitely. In many cases it would remain until a new age class reaches rotation. With the development and growth of a new age class in the understory along with the continued growth of the overstory, the stand takes on a two-aged structure. Since leave trees will not have to support a future operable sale, they do not have to be


97

merchantable and not as many need to be left. The type of leave trees retained would depend on site-specific objectives. Basal area of leave trees should not exceed 30 sq ft/acre fifteen years following harvest in order not hinder further growth and development of the new stand. More than one harvest entry may be used to reduce basal area to this level. For example, a shelterwood removal could reduce basal area from 35 sq ft/ac to 15 sq ft/ac, thus perpetuating a two-aged stand. The two-age method is appropriate in operable stands on slopes greater than 40 percent and whenever there are enough suitable trees to leave that will live to be a part of the stand for 40-60 years into the future. Two-age would be appropriate to meet objectives other than timber production, e.g. if continuous acorn production is needed within a stand, if den trees are scarce, or if aesthetics is a consideration. Two-age would be appropriate on slopes greater than 40 percent if timber value is high enough to offset increased costs of skyline logging systems, and if visual concerns or wildlife habitat objectives cannot be met by clearcutting. Two-age is not appropriate in stands where leaving an overstory would make the stands inoperable or in stands that require full sunlight for propagation of the management species.

The following table describes factors to be considered in determining appropriateness of regeneration methods for each stand:

Table D-1: Factors Considered in Determining Appropriate Regeneration Methods

Unit

Acres Acres Acres Vol./ac 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ for for For (CCF) Timber Leave Future Access Special

Alt B Alt C Alt D Quality Trees Removal Concerns 300-1 22 22 22 13.9 M Y N G

300-2 39 39 39 21.8 H Y N G V

295-3 30 30 30 13.0 M Y Y G

295-4 28 28 28 21.4 H S Y G

295-5 18 18 18 20.6 H Y Y G

295-6 16 16 16 18.4 M Y N G

294-7 36 36 0 15.2 L Y N G I/D

294-8 39 39 39 24.3 H Y N G V

294-9 39 39 39 24.0 M Y N G

294-10 40 40 0 33.5 H S Y G I/D

1/ Timber Quality: Very High = ave dia > 20” - Northern Red Oak, White Oak, Black Cherry High = ave dia > 18” - Northern Red Oak, White/Chestnut Oaks, Yellow-poplar, White Pine Medium = ave dia < 18” - Small Diameter Sawtimber, Mixed Oak Low = ave dia does not come into play - Small Roundwood, Scarlet Oak, Chestnut Oak 2/ Leave Trees: Y = Well distributed, long-lived, meet objectives Spotty = Available in clumps; not well distributed N = Scarce, scattered, or high mortality risk 3/ Future Removal: Yes = Potential for operable removal of overstory No = Removal will not be operable within 10 years Cable = Slopes >40 percent require cable logging systems 4/ Access: Good = Less than 0.5 mile from existing haul road Fair = 0.5-1.0 mile from existing haul road Poor = Greater than 1.0 mile from existing haul road 5/ Special Concerns: Conversion = Risk that oak component be lost to pine Wildlife = Modify to provide needs for wildlife Visual = Modify to mitigate aesthetic concerns Insect/Disease = High risk of loss due to SPB and/or loss due to oak decline Heritage = High risk, existing sites or mitigate needed Botanical = Modify to mitigate botanical concerns


98

The following table summarizes appropriate regeneration methods for each stand and what is proposed in each alternative:

Table D-2: Appropriate Regeneration Method by Stand by Alternative

Acres Acres Acres Forest Type Age

Method Sanitation Selection Two-

Age No

Harvest Unit for for for Of Thinning Alt B Alt C Alt D Logging

300-1 22 22 22

White Pine / Upland

Hardwood 50 WP / 90 UH

RTS *

Alt B, C & D

300-2 39 39 39

White Pine / Upland

Hardwood 90 RTS Alt B, C

& D

295-3 30 30 30

White Pine / Cove


& D

295-4 28 28 28

White Pine / Upland


& D

295-5 18 18 18

White Pine / Upland


& D

295-6 16 16 16

White Pine / Upland

Hardwood 82 RTS Alt D Alt B &

C

294-7 36 36 0

Upland Hardwood /

Shortleaf Pine 90 RTS Alt B &

C Alt D

294-8 39 39 39

White Pine / Upland


& D

294-9 39 39 39 White Pine 90 RTS Alt B, C

& D

294-10 40 40 0 White Pine 91 RTS Alt B &

C Alt D

Totals- 307 307 231 * RTS – Rubber-tired Skidder

Timber Cutting Methods Considered

The following is a list of timber cutting methods which were considered in this analysis. A brief description is provided to help the reader understand these terms as they are used in this document:


99

Cutting for Even-aged or Two-aged Regeneration

Clearcutting

Regeneration or harvest method that removes essentially all the trees in a single operation to establish a new stand in a fully exposed microclimate. All merchantable trees on an area are harvested, and remaining trees are treated in site preparation. This method will be used only when no other method is feasible.

Shelterwood Cutting

The cutting of most trees, leaving those needed to produce sufficient shade to produce a new age class in a moderated microenvironment. Removal of the overwood is done in a sequence of treatments that can include three types of cuttings: (a) an optional preparatory cut to enhance conditions for seed production, usually 50-60 square feet per acre of basal area is left after this cut, (b) an establishment cut to prepare the seed bed and to create a new age class, usually 20-40 sq ft/acre of basal is left, and (c) a removal cut to release established regeneration from competition with the overwood. Normally, only healthy, wind-firm trees are left as overwood. The usual time frame for the preparatory cut, establishment cut to the removal cut falls within a 10 year period.

Two-Age Cutting

Similar to shelterwood cutting except fewer overstory trees are left in place, and they are not subsequently removed, so that two distinct ages of trees are maintained on the same site. Trees left as overwood should be long-lived since they may be expected to live 120 years or more (Beck 1986).

Cutting for Uneven Aged Regeneration

Uneven-aged (selection) methods regenerate and maintain a multi-aged structure by removing some trees in all size classes either singly, in small groups, or in strips. (The Dictionary of Forestry, 1998).

Group Selection Cutting

Cutting small openings between 0.2 and 1.0 acre each, distributed over a stand size area, with the intent to establish three or more distinct age-classes within a prescribed rotation. Width of an individual opening would be 1.5 - 2 times the average height of trees adjacent to the opening. Small trees having good growth potential may be left standing within openings, and priority for openings would be where mature timber occurs. The number of openings would depend on the size of the area where selection would be used, the frequency of timber sale entry, and the desired age of the oldest trees. Intermediate harvests to improve the condition of the residual stand or to establish advance regeneration may be done between openings when needed.

Intermediate Harvest

Cutting to anticipate mortality and improve the growth and vigor of the remaining trees without regard for the establishment of regeneration

Free Thinning

The removal of trees that are crowding desirable trees without regard to crown position as in selection thinning. The best trees in terms of species, size or quality are left to grow. Some minimum basal area is usually set using this type of cultural treatment.


100

Sanitation Thinning

Cutting trees that have been attacked or appear in imminent danger of attack from injurious agents (such as disease or insects) other than competition between trees. The best trees in terms of species or vigor are left to grow. No minimum basal area is set using this type of cultural treatment.

Selection or Crown Thinning

The removal of trees from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes in order to improve the growth of the remaining trees, but leaving enough desirable, healthy trees to recapture the potential of the site and develop into larger merchantable trees themselves in a reasonable time. This may be done with yellow-poplar on a good site, but only once during a rotation (Beck 1988).

Other Terms Used

Advance Reproduction

Young trees, usually seedlings and saplings, growing in the understory of existing stands.

Rotation

The time between regeneration and final harvest.

Stand

A community of trees sufficiently uniform in composition, age, site productivity, spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities, thereby forming a silvicultural or management entity.


101

APPENDIX E – FINANCIAL EFFICIENCY

Purpose The purpose of this financial efficiency analysis is to present the estimated costs and revenues of the alternatives considered in the Environmental Analysis for the Proposed Roses Creek Project on the Grandfather Ranger District, Pisgah National Forest. As per Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, each timber sale in the project proposal expected to exceed $100,000 in advertised value requires a financial analysis to determine financial efficiency. Assumptions For the purpose of this analysis, the following assumptions will apply: 1. Discount Rate is 4%. 2. Inflation rate is 0% throughout the analysis period (60 years plus). 3. Estimated timber revenues for pine and poletimber were calculated using base prices from

the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests 1st Quarter Adjustment Sheet for Fiscal Year 2008 and base prices for hardwood species from the Base Price Calculation Worksheet dated 08/13/2009 prepared by Forest Timber Staff at the Supervisor’s Office National Forests in North Carolina, Asheville, North Carolina.

4. Sale preparation costs and timber harvest administration costs were obtained from Fiscal Year 2009 budget figures for the National Forests in North Carolina. Sale preparation costs (layout, cruising and marking) are funded at $8.80/CCF and $2,900.00 per sale package prepared. Timber harvest administration costs are funded at $5600.00 per year of Sale (generally sales run 1-3 years depending on size and complexity).

5. Reforestation treatment costs are taken from current KV Plans that are similar in size and type of reforestation activities. Current overhead cost (Washington, Regional and Supervisors Offices) of 53.32% is included in this figure.

6. Road construction is estimated at an average of $45,000/mile and road reconstruction costs at an average of $15,000/mile. These are based on current road repair costs.

7. A 60-year long-term projection was used for comparison basis only. Many of these stands will be carried for a longer rotation period.

Limitations of Analysis Any financial analysis must draw limitations on the amount of data to be included or the entire process would quickly become a mix of different alternatives and expected yields or losses. For instance, inflation rate is assumed to be 4% over the entire analysis period; a situation rarely encountered in the real world. The differences between the economic values of the alternatives remain the same, regardless of the inflation rate, so constant dollars were used for comparisons between alternatives. The following tables are an estimate of total project-related costs directly associated with a timber sale (sale preparation, essential reforestation and logging costs) and are used to determine timber sale financial efficiency.


102

Financial Analysis Worksheets Table E-1: Sale Revenue Estimates for all Alternatives

Alternative Timber Volume (CCF)

Revenues

A 0 $0

B 6,581 $336,182

C 6,581 $336,182

D 4,346 $235,770

Table E-2: Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative B

Activity Units Number Cost/Unit Total Costs

Sale Preparation CCF 6,581 $9.24 $60,808

Harvest Administration Year 3 $5,600 $16,800

Analysis, Documentation, Other Resource Support Each 0 $85,000 $0

Site Preparation Natural – Herbicide & Handtools Acres 101 $350 $35,350

Site Preparation Artificial – Slashdown, Herbicide, Prescribed Burn

Acres 130 $380 $49,400

Road Engineering and Design – Construction Miles 0.3 $45,000 $13,500

Road Engineering and Design – Reconstruction Miles 1.00 $15,000 $15,000

Temporary Road – Construction Miles 2.30 $20,000 $46,000

Total Costs $236,858

Table E-3: Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative B

Year Discount

Factor Revenue Cost PNV BCR

0 0 $336,182 $236,858 $99,324 1.42

60 4% $13,447 $9,474 $3,973 1.42

PNV – present net value BCR – benefit cost ratio


103

Table E-4: Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative C







Acres 130 $380 $49,400

Road Engineering and Design – Construction Miles 0.3 $45,000 $13,500

Road Engineering and Design – Reconstruction Miles 1 $15,000 $15,000



Table E-5: Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative C

Year Discount


0 0 $336,182 $236,858 $99,324 1.42

60 4% $13,447 $9,474 $3,973 1.42

PNV – present net value BCR – benefit cost ratio

Table E-6: Sale Cost Estimates – Alternative D







Acres 78 $380 $29,640

Road Engineering and Design – Construction Miles 0 $45,000 $0


104


Road Engineering and Design – Reconstruction Miles 0.5 $15,000 $7,500



Table E-7: Benefit Cost Ratio – Alternative D

Year Discount


0 0 $235,770 $148,447 $87,323 1.59

60 4% $9,431 $5,938 $3,493 1.59 PNV – present net value BCR – benefit cost ratio


105

APPENDIX F – PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES FOR PESTICIDE USE AND PRESCRIBED FIRE

Pesticide Application Project Design Features (see also Forest Plan, Appendix I, pages I-10 – I-14)

1. Pesticides are applied according to labeling information and the site-specific analysis done for projects. This labeling and analysis are used to choose the herbicide, rate, and application method for the site. They are also used to select measures to protect human and wildlife health, non-target vegetation, water, soil, and threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species. Site conditions may require stricter constraints than those on the label, but labeling standards are never relaxed.

2. Only pesticide formulations (active and inert ingredients) and additives registered by EPA and approved by the Forest Service for use on National Forest System lands are applied.

3. Public safety during such uses as viewing, hiking, berry picking, and fuelwood gathering is a priority concern. Method and timing of application are chosen to achieve project objectives while minimizing effects on non-target vegetation and other environmental elements. Selective treatment is preferred over broadcast treatment.

4. Areas are not prescribed burned for at least 30 days after pesticide treatment. 5. A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains

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

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

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

8. Notice signs (FSH 7109.11) are clearly posted, with special care taken in areas of anticipated visitor use.

9. Triclopyr is not ground-applied within 60 feet of known occupied gray, Virginia big-eared, or Indiana bat habitat. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

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

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

12. No pesticide is ground-applied within 30 horizontal feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams. No pesticide is applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (which require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled pesticides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent major environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them.


106

13. During transport, pesticides, additives, and application equipment are secured to prevent tipping or excess jarring and are carried in a part of the vehicle totally isolated from people, food, clothing, and livestock feed.

14. Only the amount of pesticide needed for the day's use is brought to the site. At day's end, all leftover pesticide is returned to storage.

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

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

Prescribed Fire Project Design Features

1. Slash burns are done so they do not consume all litter and duff and alter structure and color of mineral soil on more than 20 percent of the area. Steps taken to control soil heating include use of backing fires on steep slopes, scattering slash piles, and burning heavy fuel pockets separately.

2. On severely eroded forest soils, any area with an average litter-duff depth of less than l/2 inch is not burned.

3. Where needed to prevent erosion, water diversions are installed on firelines during their construction, and the firelines are revegetated promptly after the burn.

4. Firelines which expose mineral soil are not located in filter strips along lakes, perennial or intermittent springs and streams, wetlands, or water-source seeps, unless tying into lakes, streams, or wetlands as firebreaks at designated points with minimal soil disturbance. Low-intensity fires with less than 2 foot flame lengths may be allowed to back into the strip along water bodies, as long as they do not kill trees and shrubs that shade the stream. The strip's width is at least 30 feet plus 1.5 times the percent slope (Forest Plan, page III-183).

5. When wetlands need to be protected from fire, firelines are used around them only when the water table is so low that the prescribed fire might otherwise damage wetland vegetation or organic matter. Where practical, previous firelines are reused, and firelines must cause minimal soil disturbance.

6. Smoke management guidelines are used to reduce smoke emissions. When feasible, backing and flanking fires are used instead of heading fires, and burning is done when duff and large fuels are moist and small fuels are dry. Slash piles are not burned unless relatively free of soil. All burns are completed during the active burning period and mopped up as soon as practical after completion (Forest Plan, page III-29).

7. Smoke management guidelines are also used to enhance smoke dispersion. Burning is done when the atmosphere is thermally neutral to slightly unstable, not during pollution alerts, stagnant or humid weather, or inversions (Forest Plan, page III-29).

8. Prescribed fires are conducted under the direct supervision of a burning boss with fire behavior expertise consistent with the project's complexity. All workers must meet health, age, physical, and training requirements in FSM 5140, and use protective clothing and equipment.


107

ROSES CREEK PROJECT MAPS

"NC Outward Bound

118

107

9

2

6

8

34

1

5

293

300

295

297

294

298

299

298

118

99

210

210A4077

210B

4095

Roses Creek - Alternative B

LegendRoses Creek Proposed Units

Compartment Boundary

Roses Creek Seral Area

Existing System Roads

New Road Construction

Existing Road - Add To System

Stream Stablization

Linville Wilderness Boundary

National Forest Lands0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125Miles

¯

Prepared by: AWV, 08/09

"NC Outward Bound

118

107

9

2

6

8

34

1

5

293

300

295

297

294

298

299

298

118

99

210

210A4077

210B

4095

Roses Creek - Alternative C

LegendRoses Creek Proposed Units

Compartment Boundary

Roses Creek Seral Area

Existing System Roads

New Road Construction

Existing Road - Add To System

Stream Stablization

Chimney Gap Burn

Linville Wilderness Boundary

National Forest Lands0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125Miles

¯


"NC Outward Bound

118

9

2

6

8

34

1

5

293

300

295

297

294

298

299

298

118

99 210

210A4077210B

Roses Creek - Alternative D

LegendRoses Creek Proposed UnitsCompartment BoundaryRoses Creek Seral AreaExisting System RoadsExisting Road - Add To SystemStream Stablization Linville Wilderness BoundaryNational Forest Lands0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15

Miles

¯


294_8

294_9

300_2

295_4

294_7294_10

295_3

300_1

295_5

295_6

3b

7 4c

4d

3b

2c 3b

4c4d

4c

3b

1b

2c

1b

3b

PVT

2a

PVT

1b

118

99

SR

181

SR1240

210A

496

228

210

SR1261

SR126

98298

6

4077

987

SR1263

210B

9999

985

4095

954A

197

SR1241

SR

1258

210C

4210

9999 99

99

9999

9999

9999

9999

9999

Old Growth Roses Creek Project

Grandfather Ranger District

£

1 inch equals 3,000 feet

LegendState and Forest Roads

Management Area

Existing Designated Old Growth

New Small Patch Old Growth

!

!

!

!

!!

Roses Creek Proposed Harvest Units

Private Land

tmoiii 08/31/2009

1 inch equals 3,000 feet

roses creek ea -...

Documents