Louisiana Pearlshell Conservation Environmental Assessment

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Kisatchie National Forest March 2020 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, sex, religious creed, disability, age, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.), should contact the Agency (State or local) where they applied for benefits. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, (AD-3027) found online at: How to File a Complaint, and at any USDA office, or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

(1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410;

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or

(3) email: [email protected].

This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Proposed Project Location ...... 3 Background ...... 3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 8 Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ...... 8 Proposed Action ...... 8 No Action ...... 9 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 9 Environmental Impacts ...... 9 Issues ...... 9 Introduction ...... 10 Impacts ...... 10 Soil and Water ...... 10 Fish and Aquatic Organisms ...... 11 Heritage ...... 18 Agencies and Persons Consulted...... 19 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 19 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 19 Tribes ...... 19 Others ...... 19 Literature Cited ...... 19

List of Tables Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives ...... 9 Table 2. Endangered Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis...... 12 Table 3. Threatened Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis...... 12 Table 4. Sensitive Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis...... 13 Table 5. Conservation Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis...... 13 Table 6. Aquatic Management Indicator Species by Stream Habitat ...... 16

List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed action watersheds, Catahoula Ranger District ...... 4 Figure 2. Proposed action watersheds, Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu Ranger District ...... 5 Figure 3. Current and Historical Distribution of the Louisiana pearlshell mussel ...... 7

Introduction The Forest Service is proposing various management actions to enhance Louisiana pearlshell mussel (LPM), Margaritifera hembeli, habitat and populations. Planning of the project will occur in a manner which incorporates the strategic purposes of the Kisatchie National Forest’s 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) and the Louisiana Pearlshell Recovery Plan (LPRP). The primary purpose of this proposal is to maintain and/or improve LPM habitat and populations.

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This project implements the KNF RLRMP and is subject to the predecisional objection process at 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B, as published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Kisatchie National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Pineville, Louisiana. This EA tiers (40 CFR 1502.20) to the FEIS for the Kisatchie National Forest RLRMP. The Plan and FEIS are on-line at https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/kisatchie/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5391441. Proposed Project Location Project work would occur on Forest Service lands within the sub-watersheds (12-digit 6th level) and township ranges where the LPM currently or historically occurred. The locations are as follows: Black Creek, Gray Creek, Bayou Rigollette-Walden Bayou, Hudson Creek sub- watersheds in T7N R2W & T6N R2W & T6N R1W of the Catahoula Ranger District (RD) and Bayou Cocodrie-Bayou Rapides, Kincaid Reservoir-Bayou Boeuf, Middle Bayou-Bayou Boeuf, Bayou Clear-Bayou Boeuf sub-watersheds in T4N R3W & T3N R3W & T3N R2W & T2N R3W & T2N R2W & T2N R1W of the Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu RD (Figures 1 and 2). Background The Louisiana pearlshell mussel is a federally threatened species of bivalve mollusk in the family Margaritiferidae and is endemic to central Louisiana. Existing populations are known from headwater streams in Rapides and Grant Parishes.

The mussel was first classified as endangered on February 5, 1988, under the Endangered Species Act (Act). At the time of listing, the LPM was thought to be restricted to 11 streams in the Bayou Boeuf and Bayou Rapides drainages of Rapides Parish, Louisiana. After the initial listing, the mussel was discovered in the Bayou Rigolette drainage of Grant Parish, Louisiana, in 1991. The LPM is currently distributed across four management watersheds: Bayou Rapides and Bayou Boeuf south of the Red River in Rapides Parish and Black Creek and Bayou Rigolette north of the Red River in Grant Parish (Figure 3). Occupied streams are found in drainage areas that cross both privately owned and publicly owned lands in both parishes. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reclassified the mussel from endangered to threatened on September 24, 1993 (USFWS 2017). Currently, there is a Revised Recovery Plan for Louisiana Pearlshell (USFWS 2019) that contains a recovery strategy. The recovery strategy is to eliminate or

Figure 1. Proposed action watersheds, Catahoula Ranger District

Figure 2. Proposed action watersheds, Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu Ranger District

minimize threats in order to promote population stability and growth to ensure the long-term viability of the species. The recovery objectives are to protect, restore, and manage habitat to provide conditions necessary to recover and ultimately remove the LPM from the list of protected species.

This species typically lives partially buried in small, perennial, shallow creeks having stable substrate such as gravel bottoms or sandy bottoms with rocky outcroppings. They are often associated with riffle run stream complexes and not typically found in deep sandy areas or deep pools. Streams are spring-fed, relatively narrow, clear, and moderately swift-flowing. Water is slightly acidic, high in dissolved oxygen and low in calcium/nutrients. The diet is likely similar to that of other freshwater bivalves, including food items such as detritus, algae, diatoms, and bacteria. Populations number from a few individuals to several hundred thousand. Mussel populations on Forest Service lands have experienced years of stability in Rapides parish but the same cannot be said for mussels in Grant parish. Mussel populations in Grant parish have been on a downward trend since 2006 (USDA 2019). Several streams went completely dry during an extreme drought in the summer of 2011 and many mussels perished (USDA 2012); also, high depredation was noted during this survey, as abundant shell fragments were observed. Although not proven, predation is thought to be from otters (USDA 2012 report). The suspected predation could also be from hogs and raccoons. It’s possible that higher than normal predation was a result of drought conditions. Presently, mussel populations in Grant parish are at the lowest levels ever observed.

Little was known of the life history of this mussel until research was conducted by the Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery (NNFH). Since 2009, reproductive timing and the host fish have been determined. Mussels were successfully propagated and juveniles are currently being held at the hatchery. Like many other mussel species, the LPM rely on a host fish to complete its complex life cycle. During the spawning period, males discharge sperm into the water and females collect the sperm. The fertilized females release developed larvae into the water column where they attach to the gills of the host fish. The larvae remain attached to the gills until they develop into juvenile mussels and drop into the stream substrate.

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 4, Conservation Genetics Lab, Warm Springs, Georgia, is currently developing a Genetics Management Plan for the Louisiana pearlshell mussel. The genetics plan along with the Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Plan (CPRP), which is also currently being developed, will be used in making management decisions. The Natchitoches National Fish Hatchery is currently working on captive rearing and reintroduction techniques. Throughout the mussel’s geographical range, major threats include loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, water quality degradation (mainly sedimentation), inundation by beaver dams, impacts to stream morphology, drought, predation, and unauthorized use of motorized vehicles in and around streams.

Figure 3. Current and Historical Distribution of the Louisiana pearlshell mussel

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of this initiative is to ensure that viable populations of LPMs are able to persist on the Kisatchie National Forest (KNF). This action is needed because of the vulnerability of the mussel in the wild. Due to the survival and reproductive obstacles faced by the mussel, it is highly unlikely that reproduction in the wild will ever achieve reproduction rates adequate for meeting Recovery Objectives for the species. If obstacles can be overcome, the mussel has the potential to become the self-sustaining population needed to move the species toward recovery. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Kisatchie National Forest Revised Forest Plan (USDA 1999, p. 2-1) and the LPM Recovery Plan (USFWS 2019).

Proposed Action and No Action Alternative Proposed Action Under the proposed action LPM habitat would be enhanced by creating gravel stream beds, rehabbing riparian areas, and restoring streambank stability. Glochidial-infested fish, glochidia, or juveniles would be introduced into appropriate habitat to supplement/augment existing populations or to reintroduce into historical locations. If we should find that mussel habitat and/or populations are in such condition that they would not meet our purpose and need then we would implement the appropriate proposed actions. The actions proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need are as follows:

Enhance habitat by creating gravel stream beds, rehabbing riparian areas, and restoring streambank stability. • Creating gravel stream beds – gravel, from the same geolocial formation and of simular makeup, size, and structure, would be placed in streams where gravel substrate is absent. Any beds created in this way would not be located in the vicinity of existing mussel beds. • Rehabbing riparian areas and restoring streambank stability – riparian areas and streambanks damaged by unauthorized use or natural events would be treated. Methods would consist of blocking access, controlling erosion, and reestablishing vegetative cover. Blocking access would be achieved by felling trees and/or installing fences. Erosion contol would be addressed by diverting water, mulching, and reestablishing ground cover. Revegetation would be established by applying any of the following methods in any combination: allowing for natural regeneration to occur, mulching, and fertilizing. Streambanks that are unstable, eroding, and producing stream sedimentation would be treated. Streambanks would be treated by estabishing vegetative cover and controlling erosion. Introduce glochidial-infested fish, glochidia, or juveniles into appropriate habitat to supplement/augment existing populations or to reintroduce into historical locations. • In the event that streams are in need of supplementation and/or augmentation, mussels would be introduced using developed techniques. A Genetics Management Plan and a Captive Propagation and Reintroduction Plan (CPRP) are currently being developed by the USFWS. Juvenile LPMs are currently being propagated at the NNFH and the Alabama Center for Aquatic Diversity facility.

Consolidate scattered mussels into beds in suitable habitat. • If scattered mussels are determined to be in such condition that survival and/or reproduction is of concern, mussels would be consolidated into new beds/aggregates.

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) contains a set of Forestwide Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) (USDA 1999) that define the decision space within which we can operate to work towards achieving goals and objectives. As part of the S&Gs, streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZs) and riparian area protection zones (RAPZs) were established to protect or enhance riparian associated resource values and characteristics. All projects would be designed to be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines of the RLRMP. No Action Under the No Action alternative, habitat enhancement, population supplementation/augmentation, and consolidation of scattered mussels would not be implemented. Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 1 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives Activities No Action Proposed Action Habitat enhancement No new gravel stream beds would Additional habitat would be be established and riparian areas created by establishing gravel would continue to degrade stream beds. Erosion and stream sedimentation would be reduced. Introducing mussels Mussels would continue to decline Self-sustaining mussel populations in some streams. Mussels would could be established. New never be established in historical populations could be established locations because of in historical locations. anthropogenic barriers. Consolidating mussels Scattered mussels could perish Survivability and recruitment could due to poor habitat. Mussels would be enhanced. likely not be able to contribute to recruitment.

Environmental Impacts Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” No issues were identified during the scoping process. Introduction This section summarizes the physical and biological environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also addresses cumulative effects, which are the summation of direct and indirect effects of past, present, and future actions. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions on private and Forest Service lands, over a 1 year time period, are considered in the cumulative effects analysis. This is the timeframe in which the effects of the proposed actions are likely to occur. After a review of the current Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), past, present, and foreseeable projects could occur within the same time period and space of the LPM conservation project. The effects of the proposed actions would be small in scale, short term, and beneficial; cumulative effects are not anticipated.

The Kisatchie National Forest is divided into four major landscape community types, which represent the historical landscapes of the Forest: longleaf pine forests, shortleaf pine/oak hickory forests, mixed hardwood/loblolly pine forests, and riparian forests. The proposed actions would occur in the riparian forests community type. In order to determine the appropriate habitat that could be affected by the proposed actions, it is necessary to assess the area of similar habitat that might be found in the project area. The riparian forest community can be used to make such decisions and will be used to analyze environmental consequences. Resources in the proposed project area that have no nexus with the Proposed Action were not evaluated for potential impacts. Impacts

Soil and Water Riparian Forests: Soils formed in loamy and silty alluvial stream deposits. Soils in the large, level floodplains are variable but generally contain poorly drained loams with plentiful plant- available water. These soils typically have silt-loam surfaces over silty clay-loam subsoils. The associated wide and nearly level stream terrace soils consist of moderately well to poorly drained silts and loams with high-to-moderate plant-available water. Floodplain and stream terraces soils are relatively high in plant nutrients.

Streams are generally characterized by sandy substrates and low gradients typical of coastal plain streams. Ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams are found throughout the project area. Water clarity varies but is predominately clear and turbidity is low. Total dissolved solids are low and pH may be slightly lower in these streams. Annual high winter-spring floods overflow much of the floodplain, thereby contributing beneficial nutrients and woody material.

Alternative 1 – No Action Riparian areas would continue to degrade and contribute to sedimentation to streams.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Enhancement Creating gravel stream beds Larger areas of gravel substrate are absent or infrequent in some streams on the forest. Establishing stable substrate could prevent scouring and reduce sediment movement. Gravel beds could provide in-stream stability and reduce sedimentation. Rehabbing riparian areas and restoring stream bank stability Riparians that lose vegetated cover lose the natural ability to filter sediment. Some disturbed riparian areas and streambanks are eroded and contributing sedimentation within riparian areas and streams. Rehabbing riparian areas would reduce erosion and sedimentation.

Introducing Mussels

Supplement/augment existing populations or reintroduce mussels into historical locations

Adult mussels generally orient themselves on or near the stream surface, and large beds (aggregations) appear to help stabilize the stream substrate. Increasing the population and number of beds could reduce scouring and sedimentation.

Consolidating Mussels

Consolidate scattered mussels

Consolidating scattered mussel into beds would have similar soil and water effects as supplementation/augmentation.

Cumulative effects

Water quality would be improved in watersheds that receive habitat enhancement.

Fish and Aquatic Organisms The major landscape community in the project area is riparian forests. This includes cypress swamp, bottomland hardwood forest, and riparian forests. These areas are moist, rich woods associated with water and dominated by hardwood and hardwood-pine communities. The forest canopy is generally closed and is composed of a variety of oaks, hickories, scattered loblolly pine and other hardwoods. Some pines may be present on small-stream communities within the uplands. Streams are generally characterized by sandy substrates and low gradients typical of coastal plain streams. Ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams are found throughout the project area.

The aquatic communities found within these streams would consist of a variety of fishes and invertebrates typical of small headwater streams. Fish biomass is high and species diversity is exceptional. These organisms are dependent on wood because these environments lack rocky

substrate and cover. The main source of organic matter supporting the community is leaf litter and other materials, such as wood, being introduced into the stream. These aquatic habitats are important to maintaining viable populations of all fish and aquatic organisms, including the Louisiana pearlshell mussel.

The species addressed in this section are categorized into four groups: species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, species listed by the Forest Service as Sensitive, and species listed as Conservation Species or Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Only those species that are associated with the habitat type in the project area were analyzed. Individual species’ habitat associations and the effects of the proposed actions are described in the following section.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Conservation (PETSC) Species All proposed, threatened, endangered, sensitive, and conservation animal species of greatest concern were considered for this project. Species that are included/excluded from analysis were based upon whether they occurred within the proposed project area and/or could potentially be affected. The species considered for this analysis are listed in Tables 2 through 5. Those considered but excluded from analysis were done so because 1) the project areas are not within the species’ range in Louisiana and/or 2) project areas are not appropriate or potentially appropriate habitat for the species. The list is derived from Final EIS, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, KNF, 1999, Resource Management Plan, KNF, 1999, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Feb. 2018, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s Environmental Conservation Online System. The Biological Evaluation (BE) is incorporated by reference (Soileau 2020).

Table 2. Endangered Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis. USFWS Endangered Habitat Occurrence on Catahoula and Included in Species Evangeline Unit of the EA/BE Calcasieu District Analysis? Picoides borealis Open pine forests with large, Many active cluster sites Red-cockaded old trees No2 Woodpecker

Table 3. Threatened Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis. USFWS Threatened Habitat Occurrence on Catahoula and Included in Species Evangeline Unit, of the EA/BE Calcasieu District Analysis? Margaritifera hembeli Small, clear, shallow streams Occur on a select number of Louisiana Pearlshell with moderate current watersheds Yes Mussel Pituophis ruthveni Open pine woods with very Catahoula: no current records Louisiana Pinesnake sandy soil and pocket outside of the reintroduction site No2 gophers Calcasieu: one old record from Evangeline Unit Myotis septentrionalis Mature forests Possible Northern Long-eared No2 Bat

Geocarpon minimum Saline prairies in mostly bare None Earthfruit areas and in sandstone No1, 2 glades

Table 4. Sensitive Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis. USFS Sensitive Global State Rank Habitat Occurrence on Included in Species Rank (*) (**) the Catahoula EA/BE and Evangeline Analysis? Unit of the Calcasieu District Lampsilis satura G2 S2 Usually sandy None Sandbank Pocketbook substrate in No1, 2 mussel flowing water Obovaria G2 S1S2 Sand, sand and None arkansasensis gravel, or sand No1,2 (O. jacksoniana) and silt substrate Southern Hickorynut in flowing water mussel

Pleurobema riddellii G1G2 S1S2 Sand, sand and None Louisiana Pigtoe gravel, or sand No1,2 mussel and silt substrate in flowing water Cordulegaster G1 S1 Breeds in seeps Occurs on both sarracenia along small districts No2 Pitcher Plant Spiketail streams and dragonfly pitcher plant bog seepages Leuctra szczytkoi G2 S1 High-quality Occurs on both Louisiana Needlefly flowing water districts Yes

Somatochlora G2 S2 Probably breeds Evangeline Unit margarita in seeps along No2 Texas Emerald small streams dragonfly and pitcher plant bogs Plethodon kisatchie G3G4 S1 Mesic mixed Catahoula Louisiana Slimy pine-hardwood No1,2 Salamander forests, usually on slopes above drainages

Table 5. Conservation Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis. USFS Conservation Global State Habitat Occurrence on Included in Species Rank (*) Rank the Catahoula EA (**) and Evangeline Analysis? Unit of the Calcasieu District Strophitus undulatus G5 S2 Small to medium Outside of known Creeper mussel streams with mud or distribution No1 mud and gravel bottoms Diplectrona rossi G1 S1 Streams Outside of known A caddisfly distribution No1

Percina macrolepida G5 S2 Streams with Outside of known Bigscale Logperch moderate to swift distribution No1 current and gravel raceways Polyodon spathula G4 S4 Larger streams, No records; no No1,2 Paddlefish oxbows and suitable habitat floodplain lakes Plethodon serratus G5 S1 Associated with Outside of known No1,2 sandstone distribution

USFS Conservation Global State Habitat Occurrence on Included in Species Rank (*) Rank the Catahoula EA (**) and Evangeline Analysis? Unit of the Calcasieu District Southern Red-backed outcroppings in Salamander forests

Notes for Table 2, 3, 4, and 5 (*) Global ranks are established by NatureServe (formerly the Association for Biodiversity Information - ABI). Rankings are based on the number of extant populations. G1= critically imperiled globally typically with 5 or fewer occurrences. G2=imperiled globally typically with 6 to 20 occurrences. G3=vulnerable globally typically with 21 to 100 occurrences. G4=uncommon but not rare and usually widespread typically with more than 100 occurrences. G5=demonstrably secure globally. ?=uncertainty in the numeric rank.. Q=taxonomic status in question. (**) State ranks are determined by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program and are based on extant populations occurring within the state borders. S1=critically imperiled in Louisiana with 5 or fewer occurrences. S2= imperiled in Louisiana with 6 to 20 occurrences. S3=vulnerable in Louisiana with 21 to 100 occurrences. S4=apparently secure in Louisiana with many occurrences. S5=demonstrably secure in Louisiana. S?=unranked. SH=historically occurred in the state. SX=extirpated from the state. SR=reported from the state. W=watch-list. “B” or “N” after a numeric rank indicates whether the rank refers to a breeding or non-breeding population. 1 Project areas are not within the species’ range in Louisiana. 2 Project areas are not appropriate or potentially appropriate habitat for the species.

Threatened or Endangered Species Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli) Mussels typically live partially buried in small, perennial, shallow creeks having stable substrate such as gravel bottoms or sandy bottoms with rocky outcroppings. They are often associated with riffle run stream complexes and not typically found in deep sandy areas or deep pools. Streams are spring-fed, relatively narrow, clear, and moderately swift-flowing. Water is slightly acidic, high in dissolved oxygen and low in calcium/nutrients. The diet is likely similar to that of other freshwater bivalves, including food items such as detritus, algae, diatoms, and bacteria. This species has adapted to small oligotrophic streams (Vidrine 1993) and appears to be sensitive to environmental impacts. Mussel populations on Forest Service lands have experienced years of stability in Rapides parish, but populations in Grant parish have been on a downward trend since 2006 (USDA 2019).

Alternative 1 – No Action Stream gravel beds would not be artificially created, and only those beds naturally created would be available to the mussel. Riparian areas would continue to degrade and contribute sedimentation to streams. Water quality would continue to be negatively affected. Mussel supplementation/augmentation and consolidation would not occur. Mussels could possibly experience local extirpations and decreased reproduction.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Habitat Enhancement Creating gravel stream beds We know that mussel aggregations are associated with gravel substrate (Johnson and Brown 2000, p. 274) and have been observed in great numbers where gravel beds occur. Some streams are lacking suitable gravel beds, mainly due to siltation. Artificially creating gravel beds in stream segments would mimic historical habitats. Gravel beds could be populated by mussels

(either naturally or by stocking practices), thereby ensuring viable populations are able to persist over time. Rehabbing riparian areas and restoring streambank stability Streams that lose riparian vegetation cover lose the natural ability to filter sediment. Louisiana pearlshell mussels have a low tolerance to high silt loads. Rehabbing riparian areas would reduce erosion and sedimentation, thereby improving habitat conditions.

Introducing Mussels

Supplement/augment existing populations or reintroduce mussels into historical locations

Successful reintroductions could be a valuable recovery tool used to prevent local extirpations or reestablish extirpated populations. Stocking mussels could improve self-sustaining populations needed to move the species toward recovery.

Consolidating Mussels

Consolidate scattered mussels

LPM spatial requirements for successful reproduction is not fully understood. Absent such knowledge, one could resort to speculation based on circumstantial evidence and basic mussel reproductive biology. Where we find the LPM in what appears to be the most undisturbed situations, they are usually present in large numbers and very densely packed. One could surmise that in such a situation the probability of successful fertilization is relatively high. Conversely, one could imagine that in a situation where the mussels are fewer and spaced farther apart that the probability of successful fertilization must be relatively lower. Consolidating mussels could increase survivability and reproduction.

Cumulative Effects Several of the streams that run through treatment areas either originate or terminate on private lands. Activities on these private lands could affect mussel habitat. However, the proposed treatment activities would improve water quality and mussel habitat over the long term.

Sensitive Species Louisiana Needlefly (Leuctra szczytkoi) Larvae of this species occurs in small, spring-fed streams with sand, gravel, and abundant woody debris substrates (Dewalt and Stark 1996).

Alternative 1 – No Action Riparian areas could continue to degrade and contribute sediment to streams. Water quality would continue to be negatively affected. Stream habitat that could be utilized by this species would not be improved.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Creating gravel stream beds could provide more suitable stream-channel microhabitat used by this species. Rehabbing riparian areas and restoring streambank stability could reduce erosion and sedimentation, thereby improving water quality. No effects are anticipated from supplementing/augmenting existing populations, reintroducing mussels into historical locations, or consolidating mussels.

Cumulative effects Activities on private lands could affect larval habitat. However, the proposed treatment activities would improve water quality and larval habitat over the long term. Proposed actions would benefit this species.

Conservation Species To determine which species were relevant for the proposed action, we considered the distribution and quality of habitats within the riparian forest community. No species were further analyzed because they were not found within the species’ range and/or not found in appropriate or potentially appropriate habitat for the species.

Aquatic Management Indicator Species for Riparian Landscapes Management Indicator Species (MIS) were selected for each landscape types in the Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Revised Land Resource Management Plan for Kisatchie National Forest (FEIS). In an attempt to monitor the health of these landscape types, species were chosen to represent specific niches within each of these communities. The concept is to use these species to indicate the effects of management actions on each of the communities. Only those species known to occur within the proposed project area and within the riparian landscapes were evaluated. Aquatic MIS species by stream habitat can be found in Table 6.

Table 6. Aquatic Management Indicator Species by Stream Habitat Swift-flowing – Sand / Gravel Bottom Slow-flowing – Silt / Clay bottom Brown madtom (Noturus phaeus) Pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus) Redspot darter (Etheostoma artesiae) Blackspotted topminnow (Fundulus olivaceus) Louisiana pearlshell mussel (Margaratifera hembeli)

Brown madtom, Redspot darter, Pirate perch, and Blackspotted topminnow coexist within streams in the project area. Although they have their own niche, environmental effects are expected to be similar and are addressed as such.

Brown madtom The brown madtom occurs in small streams of the Little, Ouachita, Red, and Sabine River drainages in Louisiana (Douglas 1974). This species predominantly inhabits woody debris and undercut banks associated with areas of high flow (riffles and runs) with sand and gravel substrata (Robison and Buchanan 1992, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Monzyk et al. 1997, Chan and Parsons 2000). The brown madtom is a nocturnal feeder, primarily consuming insect larvae and small crustaceans (Chan and Parsons 2000). Average life-span of this species is unknown, but other madtoms live approximately 3 years (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Relative abundance of the brown madtom has not shown a decline over time on the Kisatchie National Forest (USDA, 2005). In addition, this is a short-lived species with high turnover in age structure from year-to-year. Given its relatively stable abundances over time and life span, viability does not seem to be a concern for populations of brown madtoms on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Redspot darter In Louisiana, the redspot darter is distributed mainly in the northwestern portion of the state. This species inhabits riffles and pools in small to medium-sized streams that have firm sand and gravel substrata (Douglas 1974, Mettee et al. 1996). Spawning occurs from late February to mid- May, and their diet consists of insect larvae and small crustaceans (Mettee et al. 1996). The life span of the redspot darter is unknown, but similar species live up to three years (Bart and Page 1992).

Although there seemed to be somewhat of a decline in abundance of redspot darters over time, the relationship was not statistically significant (USDA, 2005). The lack of significance and its relatively short life span seems to indicate that redspot darter populations are relatively secure on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Pirate perch The pirate perch is a widely distributed species in North America and is found statewide in Louisiana (Douglas 1974). It uses suspended leaves, undercut banks and roots for cover in areas of low flow (Monzyk et al. 1997). The pirate perch prefers soft substrata mixed with lose sand, silt or clay (Mettee et al. 1996; Monzyk et al. 1997). Pirate perch are believed to spawn from January to May (Etnier and Starnes 1993). They are nocturnal feeders, with a diet consisting of crustaceans, insect larvae, and small fishes (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Mettee et al. 1996). Pirate perches maximum life span is four years (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Relative abundance of pirate perch has not declined over time (USDA, 2005). The slight increase in relative abundance coupled with its short life span indicates little viability concern for pirate perch populations in the Forest.

Blackspotted topminnow The blackspotted topminnow is found statewide in Louisiana and inhabits slow to moderately flowing pools with sand and silt substrata (Douglas 1974). Although it is widespread and seems to have broad ecological tolerances, the blackspotted topminnow is absent from very turbid waters (Robison and Buchanan 1992). This would suggest the species would be intolerant of excessive sedimentation from forest management practices. The blackspotted topminnow spawns from May to August, and it preys predominantly on insects and small crustaceans (Etnier and Starnes 1993, Mettee et al. 1996). Its life span is about three years (Etnier and Starnes 1993).

Relative abundance of blackspotted topminnows has not declined over time on the Kisatchie National Forest (USDA, 2005). Protection of the SHPZ and RAPZ has likely allowed this species to increase in abundance.

Alternative 1 – No Action Riparian areas could continue to degrade and contribute sedimentation to streams. Water quality would continue to be negatively affected.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Louisiana pearlshell mussel was discussed in the Endangered and Threatened Species section of this document. For the remaining MIS species (brown madtom, redspot darter, pirate perch, and blackspotted topminnow), creating gravel stream beds could provide more suitable stream- channel microhabitat used by these species for cover, spawning, and feeding. Rehabbing riparian areas and restoring streambank stability could reduce erosion and sedimentation, thereby improving water quality. No effects are anticipated from supplementing/augmenting existing populations, reintroducing mussels into historical locations, or consolidating mussels.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects to MIS species would be similar to that of the Louisiana pearlshell and Louisiana needlefly. Proposed actions would benefit these species.

Heritage If we should find that mussel habitat is in such a condition that would not meet our purpose and need then we would implement the appropriate proposed action. Forest Heritage geographic information system (GIS) and natural resource manager (NRM) databases along with Louisiana Division of Archaeology cultural resource maps will be consulted and all eligible or unevaluated archaeological sites will be identified and avoided if possible. The standard mitigations are outlined and articulated in the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the U.S. Forest Service, Louisiana SHPO, ACHP, and affiliated Tribes. If any cultural resources are discovered during implementation of a project, all ground disturbing activities will cease and the Forest Archaeologist will determine changes to be made before work resumes. Unanticipated discoveries will be handled in accordance with the PA stipulation IX A. The terms of this stipulation do not relieve or substitute the KNFs’ responsibilities under NAGPRA, or other authorities as appropriate.

Alternative 1 – No Action No ground disturbance would take place. No effects resulting from the No Action Alternative are anticipated.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Only ground disturbing activities could affect heritage resources. Little to no ground disturbance actions are being proposed. Forest Archaeologist will be consulted if ground disturbance is to take place. No effects are anticipated.

Cumulative Effects No substantial cumulative impacts to cultural resources are anticipated given KNF’s identification and protection to significant and potentially significant cultural resources.

Agencies and Persons Consulted 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: Interdisciplinary Team Members Tedmund J. Soileau, Natural Resource Specialist (Team Leader) Steve Shively, Wildlife Biologist Emlyn B. Smith, Wildlife Biologist Shanna M. McCarty, Environmental Affairs Coordinator and Planner Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Tribes Others

Literature Cited DeWalt, R. E. and B. P. Stark. 1996. Descriptions of the female, nymph, and variations in male characters of the stonefly Leuctra sczcytkoi (Plecoptera: Leuctridae). Ent. News 107(2): 61-67, March and April 1996.

Douglas, N.H. 1974. Freshwater fishes of Louisiana. Claitor’s Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Etnier, D.A., and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Johnson, P.D., and K.M. Brown. 2000. The importance of microhabitat factors and habitat stability to the threatened Louisiana pearlshell, Margaritifera hembeli (Conrad). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:271-277.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. (n.d.). Rare Animal Species Tracking List and Fact Sheets. Retrieved from http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/rare-animals-fact-sheets accessed 2020 February 10.

Mettee, M.F., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama.

Monzyk, F.R., W.E. Kelso, and D.A. Rutherford. 1997. Characteristics of woody cover used by brown madtoms and pirate perch in coastal plain streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:665-675.

Robison, H.W., and T.M. Buchanan. 1992. Fishes of Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Soileau, Tedmund. 2020. Biological Evaluation Proposed, Endangered, Threatened & Sensitive Species Louisiana Pearlshell Conservation Project.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Summary of new information obtained since the 2011 5 year review. Louisiana Ecological Services Office. Lafayette, Louisiana. 15 pages.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Revised Recovery Plan for Louisiana Pearlshell (Margartifera hembeli). Atlanta, GA. 9 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. August. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Aquatic Management Indicator Species Trend Report. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest. 34 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. 2012 Survey for the Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel (Margaritifera hembeli) on the Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Grant Parish, LA. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 13 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2019. 2019 Survey for the Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel (Margaritifera hembeli) on the Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Grant Parish, LA. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 13 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2019. 2019 Survey for the Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel (Margaritifera hembeli) on the Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Rapides Parish, LA. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 18 pp.

Vidrine, M.F. 1993. The Historical Distributions of Freshwater Mussels in Louisiana. Louisiana State University, Eunice.