Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species & Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District Ouachita National Forest U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE Scott County, AR

James Fork Regional Water District Proposed Rural Water System – Scott County Phase III Highway 80 East, Jones Creek, and Y-City Extensions

October 2011

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Introduction

This Biological Evaluation (BE) documents the likely impacts on proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species from the proposed actions.

This BE has been prepared in accordance with direction given in Forest Service Manual 2672.41 and 2672.42 and addresses only those Federal lands in the project area.

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act decision-making process, the BE provides a review of Forest Service activities in sufficient detail to determine how a Proposed Action would affect any PETS species. PETS species, taken from both state and Federal lists, are species most likely to be put at risk from management actions. The objectives of this BE are as follows:

to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non- native plant or animal species or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species;

to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that actions of Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species and to document the need for consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service;

to provide a process and standard by which to ensure that PETS species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. Decision-makers will consider information in this BE to ensure that no species is placed in jeopardy by management actions;

to address the effects of management activities to the habitat and/or potential habitats of plant and animal species on the PETS list; and

to document the need for mitigation measures specifically addressing any potential impacts from management activities related to known PETS habitat or potential habitat.

Appendix A of the BE includes the list of PETS species documented to occur on the Ouachita National Forest. That list of species was reviewed and eighteen (18) species were selected to be evaluated for the Proposed Action being considered in this document.

Project Location

The proposed James Fork Regional Water District Rural Water System Phase III Extension addressed in this BE is located on lands managed by the USFS on the Poteau/ Cold Springs and Oden Ranger Districts in Scott County, Arkansas.

The Highway 80 East extension is located in the Bee Mountain Area, Compartments 266-268, 288 and 289, the Freedom Mountain Area, Compartments 275, 278, 285-289, 296, and 298-301, and also the Gravelly Area, Compartments 282, 430, 302, 280, 279, 278, and 301. Construction activities within the Compartments total 8.5 miles for this extension and will be conducted for 14 months.

The Jones Creek extension is located in the Hon Area, Compartments 1230, 1226, 1225, 1227, 1225-1227 and 1230, the Peanut Mountain Area, Compartments 1250, 1246, 1235 and 1238, the Cauthron Area, Compartments 1230 and 1235, and the Horseshoe Mountain Area, Compartments 1254, 1239, 1243, 1236, and 1235. Construction activities within the Compartments total 6 miles and will be conducted for a period of 12 months.

The Y-City extension is located on the Poteau District Compartment 1295, 1300-1305 and 1307- 1321. It also is located on the Oden District Compartment 1134, 1133 and 1140. Construction activities within the Compartments total 2.25 miles and will be conducted for a period of 9 months.

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions

The proposed water distribution system would provide proper potable water to the residents of the Highway 80 East, Jones Creek, and Y-city areas. It will replace water obtained from private water wells.

Consultation History

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, outlines the procedures for interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitats.

In 2005, the Ouachita National Forest presented a Biological Assessment (BA) to the Conway office of the US Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS) relating to forest management activities.

This BA concluded findings for Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species on the Ouachita National Forest – those species listed in Appendix A. For eight (8) species and one designated critical habitat, the findings fell into one of the three categories: 1) “No Effect”, 2) “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (Discountable), or 3) “Not Likely to Adversely Modify Critical Habitat” (Discountable). These findings were concurred with by a letter dated August 17, 2005.

The BA made a determination of “likely to adversely affect” for the American burying beetle within the American burying beetle area (ABBA) as it was described at that time. The ONF requested Section 7 formal consultation and received a Biological Opinion (BO) from the USFWS relating to forest management activities as they pertain to the American burying beetle (ABB) in 2005 in conjunction with the Revised Forest Plan.

In 2010, the US Forest Service presented the Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest to the Conway office of the US Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS) relating to conservation and management activities.

The Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest requested Section 7 formal consultation in regard to the 2010 Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan (ABB CP) and received a revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) from the USFWS in May 2010. This PBO applies to forest management activities as they pertain to the American burying beetle in the 2005 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan.

The proposed activities on National Forest lands addressed in this Biological Evaluation comply with all of the resource conservation measures and requirements set forth in the aforementioned 2005 BA, BA concurrence letter and the 2010 ABB CP, Revised PBO.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office (Conway office) is on the district’s mailing lists for scoping on all projects requiring NEPA documentation. Concurrence on the management activities listed in this Biological Evaluation will be requested for all species requiring a concurrence through informal consultation.

Proposed Actions

The USFS proposes to authorize the James Fork Regional Water District to construct and maintain a water distribution system in Scott County, Arkansas. The Scott County Phase III project includes three extensions known as Highway 80 East, Jones Creek and Y-City. Construction activities will be conducted immediately outside of existing highway right-of-ways in an area of 25 feet wide the first year, and a maintenance area of 15 feet wide thereafter.

The three extensions will be done separately. Construction activity will be conducted during the appropriate weather conditions, during all seasons of the year. Pump stations and water tank sites will be fenced and the areas inside the fences rocked.

The Highway 80 East extension will consist of a water tank and approximately 22 miles of new water line to serve the residents along Highway 80 to Blue Ball, as well as several residents along Highway 250 in Scott County, Arkansas. There will be 8.5 miles of construction on USFS property for a period of 14 months. The water tank site will be 100 x 100 feet, and located on USFS property.

The Jones Creek extension will consist of a water tank, a pump station, and approximately 17 miles of new water line to serve residents of the Jones Creek area. There will be 6 miles of construction activity on USFS property for a period of 12 months. The water tank site will be 100x100 ft and located on USFS property. The pump station will be 50x50 feet, located on private property.

The Y-City extension will consist of a water tank, a pump station and approximately 15 miles of new water line to serve the residents of Y-City, Arkansas. There will be 2.25 miles of construction activity on USFS property for a period of 9 months. The water tank site and pump station will be 100x100 ft and 50x50 ft respectively. Both will be located on private property.

Operations will include the following: Clearing for waterlines, water tank sites, and access roads to pump stations and water tank sites.

Ditching for water line placement.

Stream crossing excavations and grading.

Water tank construction and placement.

Pump station construction and placement.

1. The Forest Service Representative (FSR) Timber Management Assistant will be contacted prior to approval to flag the clearing limits. They will mark timber for removal. Merchantable trees in the right-of-way will be marked and sold in a negotiated sale. The right-of way clearing debris will either be chipped, hauled off, burned, or otherwise disposed of. 2. Right-of-way clearings will be fertilized, seeded with wildlife seed mixtures, and mulched to Forest Service standards. For reseeding areas, native plants will be used. 3. No herbicide use is proposed for maintenance. 4. During construction involved with the project, Best Management Practices (BMP) will be used to minimize offsite movement of runoff water and erosion from the project site. Combinations of hay bales, silt fences, seeding and fertilizing, and mulching will be used. Seeding specifications included in the Special Use Permit will be followed to revegetate disturbed areas. 5. Except for those areas needed for access, areas where soil has been disturbed will be reseeded within 30 days of project completion. The seeding will include cut-and-fill slopes, ditches, (wing, lead-off, etc.), shoulders, and any other exposed areas created by the project. 6. A paint color that allows facilities to blend in with the natural landscape background will be used for long-term facilities. This will enable the facilities to blend in as seen from a viewing distance and location typically used by the public. The selected color will be one or two shades darker than the dominant background color, typically a vegetation color. The Forest Service will provide paint specifications. For the Highway 80 East extension the location of the tank site will be placed as far from the roadway as possible for visual concerns.

Species Considered and Evaluated

Appendix A includes a list of all PETS species that are known to occur on the Ouachita National Forest*. Each of these 79 species was reviewed to determine those species that are known to occur within the boundary or those that potentially could occur within the project area.

*The Ouachita National Forest PETS List was developed by Ouachita National Forest Supervisor’s Office (SO) personnel. SO personnel used the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (August 8, 2007) and the most current Endangered Species list to develop the Forest List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website was also checked by this biologist on Oct. 30, 2008, to verify no species have been added as endangered, threatened, or candidate list for the state of Arkansas since the Ouachita PETS list was developed.

A total of 18 PETS species where found that could occur within or near the proposed activities areas. Table 1 provides names of species selected from the Ouachita National Forest PETS list in Appendix A which were determined to need further review for this project.

TABLE 1: Species To Be Evaluated in this Biological Evaluation

Number of Species for this BE Scientific Name Common Name 1 Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker 2 Nicrophorus americanus American burying beetle 3 Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella 4 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle 5 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow 6 Speyeria diana Diana fritillary 7 Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed Bat AQUATIC ANIMAL SPECIES (8. – 13.) 8 Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner 9 Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana fatmucket 10 Obovaria jacksoniana Southern hickorynut 11 Toxolasma lividus Purple lilliput mussel 12 Villosa arkansasensis Ouachita creekshell 13 Pleurobena rubrum Pyramid pigtoe RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES (14. – 18.) 14 Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita false indigo 15 Vernonia lettermannii Narrowleaf ironweed 16 Vitis rupestris Sand grape 17 Calamovilfa arcuata Cumberland sandreed 18 Carex latebracteata Waterfall's sedge

Each selection will require further review. The comments section on each species describes why a species will be further considered in this BE.

Aquatic PETS species that could possibly be in this area will be evaluated as a group.

Four sensitive riparian area plants will also be evaluated as a group.

Evaluated Species Survey Information, Environmental Baseline, Effects, and Determination of Effects.

General Survey Information

The proposed activity areas were surveyed by The McDonald Company in July and August of 2010.

A USFS Wildlife Biologist accompanied The McDonald Company during one of the field site visits and provided insight into some specific habitats within the proposed activity areas. An active Bald Eagle nest, near Lake Hinkle, and a Red-cockaded Woodpecker restoration site were visited during the site investigation. Additional informal consultations with ONF Biologists were also conducted. USFS personnel are familiar with the species considered and their associated habitats. Additionally, the USFS and other agencies have conducted numerous surveys within the proposed activity area as a component of various projects. Findings from previous surveys have helped researchers and managers develop a comprehensive understanding of vegetation and habitat types associated with PETS species. PETS plant and animal species occurrence data is routinely sent to Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) to be incorporated into their database. To further evaluate species occurrences and habitat types associated with PETS plant and animal species, ANHC database was reviewed. Elements of special concern have been recorded within one (1) mile of the project area. The ANHC letters for each water line extension area can be found in Appendix D.

Existing Environment for Species Evaluated in this BE

The proposed water distribution system project covers approximately 54 linear miles, mostly adjacent to existing roadways. Numerous habitat types exist along the project corridors. Riparian habitats, ridge slopes, and grassed right of way areas are all present within the activity area.

General habitat descriptions of each of the water line extensions as they pertain to USFS lands are provided below.

Highway 80 East is characterized by: areas consisting of various grasses, shrubs and trees; both southeast and northwest facing slope areas; and riparian areas near and along Hwy 80 in the upper reaches of Waldron Branch.

Jones Creek Area is characterized by: areas consisting of various grasses, shrubs and trees; riparian areas adjacent to Jones Creek; the upslope areas around and above Lake Hinkle; and

7 both hardwood and pine dominated areas. An area adjacent to, and north of Hwy 248, east of Lake Hinkle contains a Red-cockaded Woodpecker restoration site. This site is part of the pine- bluestem grass restoration project being actively managed by the USFS. An area just east of the RCW habitat, on the south side of Hwy 248, contains an active Bald Eagle nest.

Y-City Area is characterized by: areas consisting of various grasses, shrubs and trees; and riparian habitat areas. The extension activities in this area follow US Hwy 270 east of Y- City along the Mill Creek drainage, which also includes areas where Rock Creek and Turner Creek flow under the highway. West of Y-City, along Hwy 270/71, riparian habitat associated with Johnson Creek occurs.

1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker – Endangered bird species

Survey Information: Currently, there over 50 active RCW clusters on the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District. Annual survey data, over the last five years, indicate that the RCW population on the ONF has increased by an average of 10% annually. The number of active clusters has gone from 35 in 2005 to 51 in 2009.

Since 1990, personnel working with RCWs on the ONF have made detailed daily field reports of activities associated with RCWs, including: surveys for and documentation of cavity trees, maintenance and monitoring of cavities, banding nestlings and adults and other activities associated with the nesting season and inspections during outbreaks of southern pine beetles. These field notes and copies of the annual reports are maintained at the Poteau RD office in Waldron, AR.

There have been additional monitoring activities involving all of the following activities: (1) insert cavities are routinely checked and necessary maintenance performed; (2) cavity trees are mapped and maps provided in prescribed burn plans and experienced personnel are involved in raking fuel away from trees or supervising this activity by others; (3) various aspects of RCW biology are noted in monitoring sessions conducted in mornings and evenings at selected cavity trees; (4) translocation projects include extensive monitoring both before and after bird releases; (5) WSI midstory reduction projects are supervised by experienced personnel.

Basic biological and population data about RCWs has appeared in many technical publications (Kulhavy et al. 1995, Connor et al. 2001). Included are data sets from the ONF and the Ouachita Mountains in Oklahoma (McCurtain County Wilderness Area). Basic survey data for Arkansas was summarized in James and Neal (1986, 1989).

The need to conduct additional site-specific inventories was not necessary to determine the presence of this species or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this species because on going site-specific inventories relating to RCWs are currently available.

Environmental Baseline: Historically, RCWs occurred in pine forests ranging from the eastern U.S. in New Jersey south through Florida, and west from Missouri through Oklahoma and Texas (Hooper et al. 1980). By the time RCWs were listed as endangered, suitable habitat comprised

1% or less of its historic levels, with predictable declines in the numbers of birds (Conner et al. 2001). Surveys in Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s showed a population of a few hundred birds confined to public lands and scattered holdings of timber companies (James et al. 1981). The population in the ONF represents the northernmost remaining RCWs in the U.S.

RCWs were listed as endangered in 1970 because of widespread loss of its habitat in the southeastern U.S. Two clear factors are associated with this sharp decline:

 Original high-quality pine stands of what is today the ONF were heavily cutover during the logging “boom” period 1906-1950 (Smith 1986). Therefore, almost all of the ONF today consists of second-growth shortleaf pines and mixed species of hardwoods. Older stands in this second growth forest are in the 50-90 years range. Even though this forest contains relatively large acreages of maturing forest, it is just reaching the lower threshold age suitable for red heart development useful to RCWs for cavity excavation (85 years and up; Rudolph and Conner 1991).

 Long-term fire suppression has resulted in the loss of structurally open stands. Most stands in the ONF have stocking rates of hardwoods and pines well above historical levels. There is a natural reason for this. Shortleaf pines are not shade tolerant. Openings created by the death of older larger shortleaf pines become occupied by midstory hardwoods and shade out most shortleaf pine reproduction, without fire in the ecosystem (Guldin 1986; see also Kreiter 1995). Quality RCW habitat is characterized as park-like stands of mature pines maintained in an open condition by periodic fire. These fires reduce competition from smaller pines and hardwood trees and foster a diverse understory of native grasses and forbs (Conner et al. 2001). This habitat is termed a “pine-grassland.”

RCWs are unique in their habit of excavating roost and nest cavities in live, mature, pines (Ligon 1970). These pines usually exhibit heartwood decay caused by red heart fungus (Connor and Locke 1982). The birds excavate through the hard, resinous sapwood to reach the softer heartwood, where they then excavate a chamber. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) is the species that occurs naturally in the Ouachitas. Mattoon (1915) found that the mean age of pines with heartwood in the Ouachitas was 110 years. In Texas, RCWs prefer the oldest available shortleaf pines for cavity excavation, typically in the range of 105 years (Rudolph and Connor 1991).

The ONF has responded to RCW recovery needs through creation of MA 22 (USFS 1996). The pine-bluestem grass ecosystem project area encompasses over 200,000 acres, primarily in Scott County, AR, and includes parts of the Poteau, Cold Springs and Mena RDs in Arkansas and extends into the Oklahoma districts. Suitable pine-grassland habitat also exists in MA 14.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): No direct effect is anticipated for RCW during water line construction and maintenance. The nearest RCW Active Cluster to the proposed project is #1226/3. It is located north of Hwy 248, just east of forest service road P26C. The Active Cluster is approximately 800 feet from Hwy 248. If any RCWs are in the area during these activities they will most likely seek cover and return after workers have left the area. Indirectly and cumulatively, proposed water line related activities will not effect the species.

Determination of Effects: Considering all activities for the water line improvements extension project, effects would be discountable or insignificant; therefore the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect red-cockaded woodpeckers or its habitat.

2. American burying beetle – Endangered insect species

Survey Information: In the fall of 1992, the first American burying beetle was captured on the Cold Springs Ranger District in Logan County. Scott County was added as an occupied county the same year. In 1993 approximately 30,000 acres on the Ouachita NF were surveyed with only seven captures, primarily on the Cold Springs RD (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1994). Otherwise, the majority of ABB captured in Arkansas were taken on Fort Chaffee, south of Fort Smith, Arkansas (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1994). During the period 1992-1996, 73 ABBs were captured on the Cold Springs RD (Carlton and Rothwein 1998). ABB occurrences have been concentrated east of Highway 71N and north of Highway 80 on the Cold Springs RD (District survey monitoring records show sites where ABB survey lines are located). Additional surveys have been conducted every year since the first capture. ABB surveys from 1992 through 2010 continue to find ABB on an irregular basis. These captures have generally occurred close to private open pasture land or near recent regeneration cutting.

Environmental Baseline: The American burying beetle (ABB) was listed as an endangered species in July 1989 (Federal Register Vol. 54 (133): 29652-5). At that time, the only known occurrence of this species was Block Island, Rhode Island, and Latimer County, Oklahoma (Peck and Kaulbars 1987; Madge 1958). Results of 1991- 2003 surveys in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota have increased the known occurrences to eight counties in Oklahoma, five counties in Arkansas, seven counties in Nebraska, two counties in South Dakota, and three counties in Kansas.

The ABB has been found in a variety of habitats, including grassland, upland forest, bottomland forest, edge, and regeneration areas. ABBs are considered habitat generalists and will forage in any habitat available (Lomolino et al. 1995). Breeding requirements are not so general, and it appears as if breeding sites may be more specialized.

Reproduction success depends upon the availability of vertebrate carrion of an appropriate size and weight (optimum weight is between 100 and 200 grams). It is possible that this species would most likely be found near dense breeding aggregations of optimally sized vertebrate species. The presence of a grass-forb understory, regardless of overstory type, is a major factor in the occurrence of the ABB. Forests with thick midstories have proven to be poor habitat due to limiting flight. Availability of prey and soil type also influences ABB occurrence.

The ABB is nocturnal and the western population is active from late April to late September. ABBs exhibit a high level of parental care to their young. At night, they are attracted by smell to carrion. Both adults will prepare the brood rearing chamber, and the female will remain in the nest until the young complete larval development. It is possible that adult ABBs can raise two broods per year. Presumably, young adult beetles burrow into the soil to over winter (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1994).

Presently, the cause for the decline of this species is undetermined.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): In May, 2010, the ABBCP and PBC revised the American Burying Beetle locations for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. None of the proposed action project area lies within the current ABBA.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Action is “not likely to adversely affect the American Burying Beetle. Portions of the proposed projects located on private lands will follow the current USFWS guidelines for the American Burying Beetle.

3. Harperella – Endangered Plant Species

Survey Information: Harperella populations currently exist in Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland and West Virginia. Harperella was first discovered in Arkansas on the Ouachita NF in September 1990. In Arkansas this species is restricted to the Fourche Mountain Ecoregion of the Ouachita Mountains. It is known from 6 counties: Garland, Montgomery, Perry, Polk, Scott, and Yell. There are 32 sites in Arkansas 19 sites are within 300ft of the National Forest boundary and all are found on 9 streams in the Ouachita and Fourche La Fave River drainages. Only segments of any occupied stream actually contain suitable habitat.

Based on the assumption that these endangered plants do occur within the proposed project area, additional surveys are deemed necessary. Surveys should be conducted in the vicinity of each of the stream crossing areas, as well as any other perennial wet areas along the proposed waterline routes. Surveys should be performed during the July and August flowering periods for the plants. Qualified botanists familiar with the species and the general location of the proposed project area should be responsible for conducting these surveys.

Environmental Baseline: Populations of Harperella on the forest are limited to stream/river channels. This federally endangered vascular plant was first discovered on the forest in September 1990. It is currently known from several locations on National Forest lands on the Mena/Oden, Poteau/Cold Springs, and Jessieville/WinonaLFourche Ranger Districts in Garland, Montgomery, Scott, and Yell Counties, as well as three privately owned sites ( Susan Hooks, personal communication, May 14, 2009).

It typically grows on rocky shoals, in crevices in exposed bedrock, and sometimes along sheltered muddy banks. It seems to exhibit a preference for the downstream margins of small pools or other spots of deposition of fine alluvium. In most harperella sites, there seems to be significant deposition of fine silts. Harperella may occur in mostly sunny to mostly shaded sites. On the Ouachita NF, harperella occurs in perennial to near-perennial streams either on or among boulders or large cobbles or on coarse sediment bars. Other plants harperella is most often associated with are water willow (Justicia Americana), hyssop (Gratiola brevifolia), sedge (Dulchium arundinaceum) and rush (Eleocharis quadrangulata).

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): By using the additional surveys deemed necessary for this species, no construction or other disturbance activities would take place in areas identified to contain the plants, therefore no direct effect should occur. Loss of potential habitat at proposed project stream crossings due to construction activities may produce indirect effects. No significant cumulative effect to the species is anticipated from implementation of the proposed activities.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Project is “not likely to adversely affect” Harperella.

4. Bald Eagle

Survey Information: Bald eagles occur throughout Arkansas during the winter (James and Neal 1986) and there has been an increase in their statewide nesting population (Karen Rowe, personal communication). They occur in the ONF throughout the year, though the nesting population is much smaller than the wintering population.

Mid-winter bald eagle surveys were conducted annually at Lake Hinkle 1979-1992 (records are available at the Poteau office). Periodic aerial surveys for bald eagle have been conducted during prescribed burning operations on the district. No additional nest sites have been located during aerial surveys.

Bald eagles have nested in all but one year since 2000 near the Lake Hinkle dam. A nest is located south of Highway 248 in the vicinity of the proposed activity area. In addition, a nest that is located on private land (adjacent to government property) on the north side of Poteau Mountain was active in 2004. It was likely to have been active for several years before 2003 (Al Ezell, fide W. Montague). This nest is located approximately 5 miles east of Hartford in Sebastian County.

Additional surveys for bald eagles were not necessary to analyze and disclose effects because survey methods are not effective to provide definitive information for excluding the species from consideration in the project analysis.

Environmental Baseline:

Bald eagles range from Alaska East through Canada and South throughout the lower 48 states and Mexico (NatureServe, 2009). The most densely populated bald eagle breeding populations are in Alaska and Canada, but there are breeding populations in all of the lower 48 states with significant breeding populations occurring in Florida, the Pacific Northwest, the Greater Yellowstone area, the Great Lakes states and the Chesapeake Bay region (USDI-FWS, 2007). Most eagles that breed at northern latitudes migrate southward during winter, or to coastal areas where waters remain unfrozen (USDI-FWS, 2007).

Breeding habitat is usually close to large water bodies that provided desired food sources such as fish, waterfowl and seabirds (USDI-FWS, 2007). Winter roosting sites appear to be closely related to available food sources, but may not be close in proximity to water if abundant alternative food sources are available such as small mammals and carrion (NatureServe, 2009).

In 1940 the bald eagle gained federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Later the bald eagle was given additional protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Soon after passage of the Eagle Act, populations stabilized or increased in most areas of the country. However, the eagle population drastically declined in later years, primarily due to widespread use of the pesticide DDT. The accumulation of DDT in eagles caused them to lay eggs with weakened shells resulting in the eggs being cracked or broken before they could hatch, decimating the eagle population across the nation (USDI-FWS, 2007). Concerns about the bald eagle resulted in its protection in 1967 under the predecessor to the current Endangered Species Act. The eagle was one of the original species protected by the ESA when it was enacted in 1973 (USDI-FWS, 2007). Today bald eagle populations have rebounded. In June of 2007 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the bald eagle’s removal from the Endangered Species List. Currently the bald eagle is still protected under the migratory bird treaty act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (USDI-FWS, 2007). Both laws prohibit killing, selling, or otherwise harming eagles, their nest, or eggs (USDI-FWS, 2007).

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): No direct effects are predicted since the majority of activity will not occur in or adjacent to an eagle nest or potential winter roost site. Indirectly and cumulatively, the proposed action would have no effect on Bald Eagles.

Additionally, water line construction will be moved to the north side of Highway 248 in the vicinity of the known Lake Hinkle nest site, outside of the 660 feet protection zone established by the USFWS.

Indirectly and cumulatively this action would not affect Bald Eagles.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project will have “no impacts” for this species.

5. Bachman’s Sparrow – Sensitive bird species

Survey Information: On the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District Bachman’s sparrow is primary monitored through R-8 Landbird point counts, informal surveys and the Waldron breeding bird survey route. All 12 districts of the Ouachita National Forest have established Breeding Bird Points (50 points total for Poteau/Cold Springs) which are monitored on an annual basis. Four Bachman’s Sparrows have been found on the Poteau/Cold Springs from 1997 – 2008 during these surveys. The Waldron Breeding Bird Survey of 2002 recorded (2) Bachman’s sparrows on the Cold Springs Ranger District in a young seedtree stand. On the Poteau/Cold Springs RD, most survey and distributional data involves informal data collection. Presence of singing birds is usually noted in field records maintained as part of the overall RCW recovery project (data on file and in field notebooks). Records indicate Bachman’s Sparrows most often occur within and adjacent to stands managed for RCW recovery. Typically, these stands have a history of prescribed burning and other vegetation treatments. Specific surveys for Bachman’s sparrow were conducted in 1998 in areas with similar habitat (but lacking RCW clusters) were negative (data on file). Although, other Bachman’s Sparrows have been

13 seen and or heard during the nesting season or migration, in open mature pine stands or in recently cut seedtree areas.

Additional surveys are not necessary to determine the presence of Bachman’s Sparrow or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this species.

Other Bachman’s Sparrows have been seen and or heard during the nesting season or migration, in pine-bluestem habitat areas managed for RCW recovery or similar open mature pine stands or in recently cut seedtree areas.

Environmental Baseline: Bachman’s Sparrow forages on the ground in dense grass or shrub habitat like that found in early forest stage cover. Key habitat requirements for breeding activity are dense grassy places where scattered trees or saplings are present usually in pine forest types. They use young pine plantations 1-3 years of age, and open pine stands with grasses and scattered shrubs, oaks or other hardwoods (see Arkansas nesting data in Haggerty 1988; also James and Neal 1986; DeGraaf et al. 1991; Hamel 1992).

The natural history of Bachman’s Sparrow and its preferred habitats has been well documented. Bachman’s Sparrow populations have declined throughout its southern range in recent decades (DeGraaf et al. 1991; Hamel, 1992), however its viability as a species is not threatened at this time. Population declines may be directly related to declines in its preferred habitats that are early seral stage (losses due to changes in timber harvest methods – no regeneration harvests) and the lack of mature, open pine woodlands.

Bachman’s Sparrow occurs on Poteau/Coldsprings RD during the migration and nesting seasons in pine-bluestem habitat primarily areas managed for RCW recovery (MA22), but also in MA 14 with similar treatments. In past years, it was documented in young pine regeneration areas. With the end of clearcutting in the early 1990s, current records are from mature pine stands, including seed tree areas, maintained in an open condition with prescribed burning.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): Due to the scale of the Proposed Actions, suitable habitat for this species would mostly remain unchanged. Direct effects could be destroying a nest but that is unlikely because the habitat where clearing will occur is not considered optimal habitat. Indirectly and cumulatively, these actions would not impact this sensitive species.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for this species.

6. Diana fritillary – Sensitive insect species

Survey Information: In the literature, deciduous and upland pine woodlands near streams appear to be preferred habitat. Eggs are laid near various species of violets primarily in late summer. The larvae have been documented to feed on the leaves and flowers of violets (Carlton and

Spencer 1996). Five of the eight species of violets in the state occur within the Ouachita Mountains and are found in a variety of moist to xeric habitats (Hunter 1988).

This species has been observed in various areas throughout the district. Most of the older scattered records involved sunny openings associated with roadsides. Concentrated efforts in recent years have shed light on these earlier records. Males were found in abundance during early June and females in abundance later in the growing season.

Surveys on the Poteau RD by Craig Rudolph (2001) and others from Southern Research Station indicate this species to be common in Management Area 22 where timber thinning, WSI, and repeated prescribe burning has produced approximately 40,000 acres of open, park-like forest.

Additional surveys for this butterfly were deemed not necessary at this time because this species is known to occur within this area, suitable habitat is present within the vicinity of the proposed project area, and additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased information for this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: The Diana fritillary, a butterfly, is of concern because populations in its former range have become isolated. Historically, Diana fritillary occurred as far north as western Pennsylvania. It presently occurs in the Virginias, westward throughout the Ohio Valley to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana and northern Georgia. The coastal plain-eastern piedmont populations of Virginia and North Carolina seem to be eradicated. Currently, this species is rare outside of Appalachia, but it occurs in the Ozark-Ouachita Interior Highlands region (NatureServe 2003). The Diana is known to occur in the vicinity of this project area and is found frequently across the entire district. Most of the occurrences are in areas that were burned 2-3 years prior. Diana fritillary utilizes and is associated with wild violets, wild iris, and milkweeds. It occurs in deciduous and pine woodlands near streams and in open areas with a variety of wildflowers.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): The Proposed Actions may directly impact some individuals, but clearly will not impact the species to a degree leading to Federal listing under the ESA. There are no forseeable activities in the area that would indirectly affect this species in a negative manner, or cause additive or synergistic adverse cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Proposed Actions. Therefore no negative indirect or cumulative impacts on the species from implementation of the projects are anticipated.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for this species.

7. Eastern Small-footed Bat – Sensitive mammal species

Survey Information: The Eastern small-footed bat has a fairly widespread range extending from southeastern Canada and the eastern U.S., down to Alabama and west to Oklahoma, but its distribution is very spotty and rarely found in large numbers. Few high-quality occurrences exist; the total numbers counted are very low in comparison to the total number of caves and mines surveyed. The total

15 count for all hibernacula is approximately 3,000 individuals, with roughly 60% of the total number from just two sites in New York. Some of the occurrences probably have not been surveyed completely, and individuals are undoubtedly missed at some sites because they are hibernating in areas that cannot be reached or easily observed (NatureServe 2009). In Arkansas it is known in small numbers from only a few caves in the Ozarks and has been documented on Mt. Magazine in Logan County (Saugey pers. Comm.). Preliminary results from acoustic surveys preformed on the Ouachita National Forest in August and September of 2009 indicated that this species is present in low numbers in Scott and Montgomery Counties. Prior to this survey only a single specimen was document from Polk County and was not known from the caveless region of western Arkansas. It has been documented on the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma at Bear Den Caves in Leflore Co., OK (Saugey et al. 1989).

Environmental Baseline: This species prefers hibernating in caves or mines they are the “hardiest” of cave bats. This bat tends to hibernate near cave entrances; hence it may be vulnerable to freezing in abnormally severe winters. This species may also overwinter in rock talus areas (D. Saugey, personal communication). Warm-season roosts include buildings, towers, hollow trees, spaces beneath the loose bark of trees, cliff crevices, and bridges. Very little is known about feeding habits or reproduction of this species (NatureServe, 2009). Major threat to this species include human disturbance during hibernation and White Nose Syndrome. Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): Eastern small-footed bats are highly mobile during the active season and it is unlikely that one would be directly harmed during The Proposed Action. Habitat suitable for hibernation for this species is extremely poor in the project area. Indirectly and cumulatively, this Proposed Action may reduce warm-season roosts by the removal of a minimal number of hardwood trees, however the action would also increase the prey base and improve the foraging habitat for this species.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project will have “no impacts” for this species.

8.-13. SENSITIVE AQUATIC ANIMAL SPECIES

8 Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner Fish 9 Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana fatmucket Mollusk 10 Obovaria jacksoniana Southern hickorynut Mollusk 11 Toxolasma lividus Purple lilliput Mollusk 12 Villosa arkansasensis Ouachita creekshell Mollusk 13 Pleurobena rubrum Pyramid pigtoe Mollusk

Survey Information: None of the six sensitive aquatic species listed above have been documented from stream sites in the activity are. The Poteau River does have occurrences of several of these species and the potential to have all 6 of these species, thus they will be further evaluated.

The Kiamichi shiner is confined to western Arkansas south of the Arkansas River where it has been found in major rivers. Additional surveys for Kiamichi shiner are not necessary to

16 determine the presence of this species or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this species.

There have been only limited surveys for bivalves such as Louisiana fatmucket, Southern hickorynut, Purple lilliput, Ouachita creekshell, and Pyramid pigtoe on the Poteau/Cold Springs RD. This is due largely to the fact that only small portions of perennial streams are included within National Forest System lands. There have been enough surveys to indicate that the following bivalves could occur in perennial streams near the project area.

The Louisiana fatmucket is widespread in the Ouachitas and are not listed as sensitive by Harris et al. (1997). It has been documented in the Poteau River downstream from the project area (Harris et al. 1997). They are listed as a Regional Forester’s sensitive species as there is concern about the genetic composition of the species across its range, which might fragment it into numerous species with much smaller distributions making the species much more rare.

While Southern hickorynut was found in the Poteau River (Harris 1994), little of which is in public ownership. It was more recently found in the Fourche La Fave River (Harris 2001:11).

The Purple lilliput is known from the Poteau (single specimen), Fourche, Saline, and Ouachita river systems.

Ouachita creekshell has been documented in several rivers in western Arkansas (Harris et al. 1997, Fig. 16). It was found during a survey of the Fourche La Fave River (Harris 2001:11). It was documented previously in the Poteau River (Harris 1994).

The Pyramid pigtoe range includes lower Ouachita, lower Saline, Little, and St. Francis R. It has been collected by John Harris at two sites on the Petit Jean River (but not above Blue Mtn Lake).

Threats to these five sensitive mollusk species include chemical use, sedimentation, dredging, and dam construction. Impacts could occur if streams in these project areas or downstream from the area are negatively affected by erosion, sedimentation, or contamination by non-point source pollutants.

Additional surveys for these mussels are not necessary to determine their presence or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on these species.

Environmental Baseline: The Kiamichi shiner is an Ouachita endemic minnow, found in small to medium sized streams and small rivers in flowing pools over gravel, cobble and small boulder substrates (Robinson and Buchanan 1988: 220-221). Impacts could occur if streams in these project areas or downstream from the area are negatively affected by erosion, sedimentation, or contamination by non-point source pollutants.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): Mitigation to avoid excessive erosion and sedimentation near all stream crossing areas in this activity area, which will include the use of current Best Management Practices (BMP’s), will be implemented. Therefore, no direct effect should occur. Loss of potential habitat at proposed stream crossings due to construction

17 activities may produce indirect effects. No significant cumulative effects to the six sensitive aquatic animal species are anticipated from implementation of the proposed activities.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability”.

14.-17. SENSITIVE RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES

14 Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita false indigo 15 Vernonia lettermannii Narrowleaf ironweed 16 Vitis rupestris Sand grape 17 Calamovilfa arcuata Cumberland sandreed

Survey Information: Ouachita false indigo (Amorpha ouachitensis) is a fairly widespread endemic. It is found in rocky shoreline riparian glades; rocky, well-drained, semi-open areas. This species is not likely harmed by most management activities due to protection provided by streamside management zones.

Narrowleaf ironweed (Vernonia lettermannii) and Sand Grape (Vitis rupestris) are also associated with streamside zones and actually grow right at the water edge.

Cumberland sandreed (Calamovilfa arcuata) is reported from 1 site along the Fourche LaFave River near Y-city in riparian wetlands. Cumberland sandreed is not likely to suffer negative effects due to streamside protection zones and general limitation of activities within stream drainages.

Surveys for the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District by Bates (1991), field surveys by the Forest Botanists and other Forest Service employees have found these plant species distributed widely throughout the district. Each occurrence was within a protected streamside zone.

Additional surveys for these sensitive plant species were deemed not necessary at this time because these species are known to occur within many streamside protection zones on the district, suitable habitat is present in the proposed project area. Assumptions are that these species do occur in this project area. Additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased information for this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: These four sensitive riparian plant species are endemic species to the Ouachita Mountains and are locally abundant. Threats to these species would be similar to those for fish and mollusks. These species are generally protected through the implementation of Revised Forest Plan Standards for protection of streamside zones.

18 activities may produce indirect effects. No significant cumulative effects to the four sensitive riparian plant species are anticipated from implementation of the proposed activities.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability.”

18. Waterfall’s sedge – Sensitive Plant Species

Survey Information: This species is found in Arkansas and Oklahoma on 105 or more sites, most of which occur near or on the Ouachita National Forest. Many of the locations on the Ouachita National Forest are on sites located within areas that have undergone timber management activities and in areas that have been burned. Additional surveys for this sensitive plant species was deemed not necessary at this time because this species is known to occur within the district and additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased information for this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: Waterfall’s sedge is an endemic species to the Ouachita Mountains and is locally abundant. It has a Global Heritage rank of G3, an Arkansas state rank of S3, and an Oklahoma state rank of S2 (Natureserve, 2000). It is found in a variety of habitats such as shaley roadsides, dry shale woodlands, riparian areas, mesic oak hickory forest, pine and pine hardwood forest, and mazarn shale, and novaculite glades. It is found in Polk, Yell, Scott, Montgomery, Howard, Garland, and Pike Counties, Arkansas and LeFlore and McCurtain Counties, Oklahoma. Waterfall’s sedge receives some natural protection from human disturbance by the diversity of its preferred habitats, as described above. Many of the locations on the Ouachita National Forest are on sites located within areas that have undergone timber management activities and in areas that have been burned. Often Waterfall’s sedge is found in areas that have had recent silvicultural activities. It appears to tolerate practices that mimic natural disturbance. No current management practices (e.g., timber harvesting, road building) significantly impact C. latebracteata because of the nature of the habitats it occupies. A minor risk to the species occurs from the use of herbicides to control vegetation where it occurs adjacent to roadways and in regeneration areas.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative): The Proposed Actions may directly impact some individuals, but clearly will not impact the species to a degree leading to a Federal listing under ESA. There are no forseeable activities in the area that would indirectly affect the species in a negative manner, or cause additive or synergistic adverse cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Proposed Actions. Therefore no negative indirect or cumulative impacts on the species from implementation of the projects are anticipated.

Determination of Effects: This proposal “may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for this species.

Mitigations

All activities proposed follow direction of existing Biological Opinions and Assessments. In the vicinity of the RCW habitat improvement site located on the north side of Highway

284, the water line will be moved to the south side of the roadway to ensure no disturbance of the habitat improvement site. In the vicinity of the active Bald Eagle nest, located on the south side of Highway 284, water line construction activities will be moved to the north side of the road. This will place the project activities outside the 660 ft buffer area as described in the USFWS Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Conservation Measures document. In the event that additional surveys indicate the presence of an individual, or group, of Harperella plants, the location of the waterlines will be moved. Additional protection and mitigation measures required for the proposed activities will include : Seeding, fertilizing, and mulching of all disturbed areas using wildlife seed mixtures and approved mulching rates and techniques: use of erosion and sediment control measures, including silt fencing, hay bales and other BMP’s; performance of work only during non-inclement weather conditions; and selection of paint colors for water tanks which will blend in with the natural landscape.

Summary of Determinations

Species evaluated Scientific Name Common name Determination in this BE 1 Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered 2 Nicrophorus americanus American burying beetle Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered 3 Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella Not Likely to Adversely Affect Endangered 4 Haliaeetus Bald eagle No Impacts leucocephalus 5 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability 6 Speyeria diana Diana fritillary May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability 7 Myotisleibii Eastern Small-footed Bat No Impacts

AQUATIC Notropis ortenburgeri, Kiamichi shiner, May impact individuals but is not likely to Lampsilis hydiana, Louisiana fatmucket, cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of ANIMAL Obovaria jacksoniana , Southern hickorynut, Purple lilliput, viability SPECIES Toxolasma lividus Ouachita creekshell, & Pyramid 8. - 13. Villosa arkansasensis, & pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum RIPARIAN Amorpha ouachitensis, Ouachita false indigo, Narrowleaf May impact individuals but is not likely to Vernonia lettermannii, ironweed, Sand grape, & cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of PLANTS Vitis rupestris, & Cumberland sandreed viability 14. – 17. Calamovilfa arcuata

18 Carex latebracteata Waterfall's sedge May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability

1. The proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” Red-cockaded woodpeckers or its habitat. Because of a “not likely to adversely affect” determination for Red-cockaded woodpecker USFWS concurrence is required and will be requested through informal consultation.

2. The proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” American Burying Beetles or its habitat. Because of a “not likely to adversely affect” determination for American Burying Beetles USFWS concurrence is required and will be requested through informal consultation.

3. The proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” Harperella or its habitat. Because of a “not likely to adversely affect” determination for Harperella USFWS concurrence is required and will be requested through informal consultation.

4. The proposed project will have “no impacts” for Bald Eagles or its habitat.

5. The proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for Bachman’s Sparrow. Because of this determination, no USFWS concurrence is necessary.

6. The proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for Diana fritillary. Because of this determination, no USFWS concurrence is necessary.

7. The proposed project is “not likely to adversely affect” the Eastern Small-footed Bat. Because of this determination, no USFWS concurrence is necessary.

8. The proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for Kiamichi shiner, Louisiana fatmucket, Southern hickorynut, Purple lilliput, Ouachita creekshell, & Pyramid pigtoe. Because of this determination, no USFWS concurrence is necessary.

9. The proposed project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for Ouachita false indigo, Narrowleaf ironweed, Sand grape, & Cumberland sandreed; and “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for Waterfall’s sedge. Because of this determination, no USFWS concurrence is necessary.

Prepared by:

______Date ______Monte C. McDonald Senior Ecologist/President The McDonald Company

Reviewed by:

______Date ______Frances Rothwein District Wildlife Biologist Poteau Ranger District Ouachita National Forest

Attachments: Appendix A – ONF PETS list Appendix B – Literature Cited and Supporting Documents Appendix C – Project Location Map Appendix D – ANHC Letter and Element List Appendix E – USFWS Response Letters

APPENDIX A

ONF PETS LIST

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) Species List

of the Ouachita National Forest

Scientific Name Common name Evaluated in Comments this Biological Evaluation Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Yes Open pine stands dominated by mature pine and with a subdominant Endangered Woodpecker as component of hardwood species. Pine-bluestem habitat restoration #1. treatments benefit this species. Occurs in appropriate habitat on the Poteau/Cold Springs RD. Sterna antillarum Least tern No May occur as an occasional migrant on large impoundments, but nests no Endangered closer than the Arkansas River. Charadrius Piping plover No Only known in AR as a rare migrant. melodus Endangered Myotis sodalis Indiana bat No Occurs in very low numbers in Leflore County, OK, and Crawford and Endangered Franklin counties, AR as wintering species. Summer surveys in Ouachitas have failed to locate any individuals. Appears to be breeding in the Ozarks in Franklin Co., AR. Alligator American No On Forest, occurs only in SE Oklahoma in the outer gulf coastal habitat. Not mississippiensis alligator on the district. TSA* Percina Leopard darter No Found only in the upper Little River drainages. Not on the district. X Not known to occur on pantherina Womble or surrounding Threatened districts Quadrula fragosa Winged No Found in the lower Ouachita, Kiamichi & Mountain Fork Rivers. Not on the Endangered mapleleaf district. mussel Arkansia Ouachita rock- No Known in the lower Ouachita, Saline & Kiamichi rivers. Not on the district. wheeleri pocketbook Endangered Lampsilis powelli Arkansas No Occurs in the Ouachita River drainage. Not on the district. Threatened fatmucket mussel Lampsilis Pink Mucket No Not on the district. (An error was made in John Harris’ mussel report that was caught after the abrupta species got put into the Forest Plan. An errata sheet was added to the Forest Plan to remove this Threatened species from further consideration so really wouldn’t have to list it) Leptodea Scaleshell No Known in recent years from only one site on the Forest (South Fork Fourche leptodon mussel La Fave). Not on the district. Endangered Nicrophorus American Yes Found in low numbers on Cold Springs RD north of AR Highway 80. americanus burying beetle As This project is not in the ABBA. Endangered #2. Ptilimnium Harperella Yes Found on Fourche LaFave River on Cold Springs, and Fourche/Oden nodosum As district boundary (no plants on north side of river). Endangered #3 Lesquerella Missouri No Discovered on a shale glade on Jessieville RD, Garland Co. in 2006. (Email Missouri bladderpod no filliformis bladderpod communication from S. Hooks dated 05/02/06). Also known from a shale Threatened glade in Hot Spring County. No suitable glade habitat within this project area. Additional distribution details at NatureServe (accessed 5-2-06).

Myotis leibii Eastern Yes Not known from caveless region of western Arkansas. Found at Bear Small-footed as Den Caves in Leflore Co., OK (Saugey et al. 1989). A single specimen is myotis # 7 known from Polk County and the species may overwinter in rock talus

areas (D. Saugey, personal communication). Preliminary results from recent surveys conducted in Scott County indicates that this species does occur in low numbers on the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District. Myotis Southeastern No Suitable habitat is minimal in Ouachita Highlands. Few occurrences ever austroriparius myotis documented. Roosts in wooded and open areas, in old mine shafts, buildings and hollow trees. Not found on Forest since 1993. A bottomland hardwood species. Haliaeetus Bald eagle Yes Annual winter season visitor in low numbers across the district—lakes, leucocephalus as larger rivers, open farm land. Closest nest on Lake Hinkle 2000 - 2009. Sensitive #4. Also nests in Yell Co. on Blue Mtn. Lake. Falco peregrinus Peregrine No May occur casually during migration. Unlikely in forested habitats. Was anatum Falcon “de-listed” in August 1999. Aimophila Bachman’s Yes Occurs as nesting bird in open pine forest and young, open regeneration aestivalis Sparrow As areas--essentially pine-bluestem habitat, especially habitat suitable for Sensitive #5. RCWs. Has been found in appropriate habitat across the district. Lanius Loggerhead No Open country bird. Requires large expanses of open country with short ludovicianus Shrike vegetation, primarily pastures. May occur occasionally where there are old prairies turned into pastures with dense thicket-like fencerows. Noturus taylori Caddo madtom No Endemic to Caddo, upper Ouachita and Little Missouri rivers. Crystallaria Crystal darter No Found in the Little River in Oklahoma. This species does not occur in the asprella Arkansas portion of the Forest. Found near the Former Tiak RD below fall line. Notropis Kiamichi Yes Ouachita Mts. endemic. Occurs widely. ortenburgeri shiner as Sensitive #8. Percina nasuta Longnose No Occurs on Fourche RD in the South Fork Fourche La Fave River. darter Percina sp. nov. Ouachita form, No On the Forest occurs only in the Ouachita River. Longnose darter Noturus lachneri Ouachita No On the Forest, restricted to the Saline River and Ouachita rivers below madtom Remmel Dam. Lythrurus Ouachita No Occurs only in Little River system; Mena & OK districts. snelsoni shiner Etheostoma Paleback darter No Occurs only in Ouachita and Caddo River headwaters and tributaries. Pallididorsum Notropis Peppered No Outside known range. Found in Ouachita R. drainage above confluence with perpallidus shiner Irons Fork. Prefers moderate-sized rivers and is rare in small streams. On Forest, restricted to Ouachita, Kiamichi and Little River systems. Plethodon Caddo No Outside known range. Range seems limited to Novaculite uplift in the Caddo caddoensis Mountain Mountains. Salamander Plethodon Fourche No Occurs in Fourche & Irons Fork Mountain areas in Scott and Polk counties— fourchensis Mountain just barely within Poteau District. Documented captures have been outside Salamander typical pine sites (MA 14, MA 22) on Fourche Mountain. Plethodon Kiamichi slimy No Outside known range. Known only from Kiamichi and Round Mountains in kiamichi salamander Polk Co., AR and LeFlore Co., OK. Plethodon Rich Mountain No Outside known range. Apparently limited to Rich and Black Fork Mountains. ouachitae Salamander Plethodon Sequoyah No Outside known range. Known only from McCurtain Co., OK. in southeastern sequoyah slimy Oklahoma. salamander Lampsilis Louisiana Yes Occurs in Poteau R. and elsewhere. Note: species is widespread in the hydiana fatmucket as Ouachitas --and not listed as “sensitive” by Harris et al. (1997). Sensitive mussel # 9. Pleurobema Ohio River No No known records current on Ouachita NF, but expected to be found cordatum pigtoe eventually in the Ouachita R.

Villosa Ouachita Yes Low numbers occur widely in Ouachita rivers, including the Poteau R. arkansasensis creek shell as Was found in healthy numbers during a survey of the Fourche La Fave Sensitive # 12. River (Harris 2001).

Toxolasma Purple lilliput Yes Known from the Poteau (single specimen), Fourche, Saline, and Ouachita lividus mussel as river systems Sensitive #11. Pleurobena Pyramid Yes Range includes lower Ouachita, lower Saline, Little, and St. Francis R. rubrum pigtoe as Has been collected by John Harris at two sites on the Petit Jean River #13. (but not above Blue Mtn Lake). Occurrences on Fourche RD are on private land. Quadrula Rabbitsfoot No Occurs in the Saline and Ouachita rivers and the Little River system cylindrica cylindrica Lampsilis satura Sandbank No Occurs in the South Fork of the Fourche R. and in Irons Creek, on Fourche pocketbook RD. mussel Obovaria Southern Yes Single specimen found in Poteau R., little of which is in public ownership. jacksoniana hickorynut as More recently found in the Fourche La Fave River (Harris 2001), where Sensitive mussel # 10. numbers found indicated the population in this area to be in good condition. Cyprogenia Western No Outside known range. On Forest, restricted to Ouachita and Caddo rivers. aberti fanshell mussel Speyeria diana Diana Yes Males and females have been found during summer months. Prefers Sensitive fritillary As open areas (such as burned areas) with subsequent development of # 6. nectar sources, such as pale-purple coneflower and others (Rudolph 2001). Lirceus An isopod No Outside known range. Occurs mostly north of the Arkansas R., but has been bicuspicatus found in a few scattered places on the Ouachita NF. Habitat includes springs, small seeps, and small streams. On the Forest, known only from the Winona RD. Stenotrema Rich Mountain No Occurs on talus slopes with mature tree canopy. Has been found in Blackfork, pilsbryi slit-mouth snail Rich, and Winding Stairs mountains, but not yet on the district. If present, would be protected by avoiding typical habitat that is generally inoperable. Fallicambarus A crayfish No Outside known range. Ouachita endemic species known from several strawni locations and a variety of habitats. Has not been found in Scott County. Confined to portions of the Saline and Little Missouri river basins. Orconectes A crayfish No Outside known range. Ouachita endemic stream crawfish. Robison found menae them in the Little Missouri drainage at Camp Albert Pike and in the Irons Fork of the Ouachita R. west of Acorn, AR. Closest site to the district is a tributary to the Irons Fork, Ouachita River in Polk County, AR Procambarus A crayfish No Known only from Irons Fork drainage of Mena RD. Burrowing crayfish reimeri found in roadside ditches, low wet seepage areas and riparian areas. Procambarus A crayfish No Occurs in Arkansas, Ouachita and Red R. basins of eastern OK and western tenuis AR. Was taken close to Poteau District in a roadside seepage area along highway 71 9.5 miles NW of Mena. Inhabits limited areas of the upper Ouachita, upper Little River tributaries and Arkansas River. Amorpha Ouachita false Yes Fairly widespread endemic. Found in rocky shoreline riparian glades; rocky, ouachitensis indigo As well-drained, semi-open areas. Sensitive #14 Amorpha Panicled false No Outside known range, which is south of the Scott Co. area. Occurs mainly on paniculata indigo the West Gulf Coastal Plain. It hasn't been found in the Ouachita Mountains. On Forest, found only on the former Tiak RD. Asplenium Scott’s No Does not occur in pine stands. Known only from Garland County. Potential ebenoides spleenwort to occur on Fourche Mountain.

Asplenium X Grave’s No Outside known range. It has been found in only two locations: Hot Springs gravesii spleenwort NP on a novaculite outcrop and on Caddo RD. Does not occur in pine stands.

Calamovilfa Cumberland Yes Reported from 1 site along the Fourche LaFave River near Y-city in arcuata sandreed As riparian wetlands. Not expected in typical dry, upland sites. #17

Callirhoe bushii Bush’s No Has not been found on Forest in AR. This is an Ozark species, which has been poppymallow found in Logan County on Ozark National Forest (Mt. Magazine). It was last observed on Magazine in 1925 but could not be located in 1989 by Tucker.

Carex Waterfall's Yes Records from Scott (Masters and Wilson 1994) but not in Logan County. latebracteata sedge As Has been found in adjacent Polk, Montgomery, and Yell counties. Found Sensitive # 18. along streams, and edges of novaculite and shale glades, and occasionally in dry pine stands. Bates (1990) thought that opening of pine stands to almost any degree would benefit this species, if present. This was confirmed in the Masters and Wilson (1994) study. Castanea pumila Ozark No Uncommon. Occurs in dry upland areas in small numbers, including mixed ozarkensis chinquapin forest. Sensitive Cypripedium Yellow lady- No Usually occupies stream banks, cool ravines, seeps and springs, but not kentuckiensis slipper typical upland sites. Occurs on Fourche RD. Delphinium Newton’s No Has not been found on the district. Mostly found at springs, seeps, riparian newtonianum larkspur zones--rich woods. Almost none of this habitat is in public ownership.

Draba aprica Open ground No Xeric glades, shale glades. This species requires at least partial sunlight. draba Dryopteris X Small’s No Hybrid fern of moist sites known only from the Caddo and Womble RDs. australis woodfern Potential to find in seeps and springs. Eriocaulon Gulf pipewort No Outside known range. In the Ouachitas, only known from Garland and kornickianum Montgomery counties. Inhabits outcrops that are seasonally wet or sites permanently wet with water table dropping just a few inches below surface. Helianthus Shinner’s No Known in the Ouachita NF only from Perry and Montgomery counties. Occurs occidentalis ssp. fewleaf in shortleaf pine, oaks, and hickories. No records in any botanical studies on the plantagineus sunflower two districts. Hydrophyllum Browne's No Occurs in neighboring counties to south and east; in deep shade of dense brownei waterleaf woods, higher stream terraces that are not often flooded and in sparsely wooded areas; riparian zones of perennial streams; unlikely in typical pine stands. Juglans cinerea Butternut No Now rare species due primarily to butternut canker disease. Known on the Ouachita NF from one location in the Caney Creek Wilderness. Grows in rich forests, lower slopes, ravines and bottomlands; not in pine stands. Leavenworthia Golden glade No Occurs on limestone glades in OK; not in Scott Co. On Forest, occurs only on aurea Cress the Former Tiak RD; associated with limestone soils. Lesquerella Threadleaf No On Forest only occurs on the Former Tiak RD; associated with limestone angustifolia bladderpod glades. Polymnia Cossatot Mtn. No Habitat is cherty, novaculite talus of Caddo RD, but has also been found in cossatotensis leafcup neighboring Polk Co. May also inhabit rock glacier areas (W. Owen). Quercus Mapleleaf oak No Not in areas of merchantable timber. Only on highest mountaintops. Occurs on acerifolia Mt. Magazine in Logan Co. Was not found during surveys on Flood Mountain 70. near Dry Creek Wilderness. Solidago Ouachita Mtn. No Has been found in Yell County but not on Cold Springs and Fourche RDs. ouachitensis goldenrod Generally found in mesic hardwood coves in well-drained gravelly soils and shaded, N-facing slopes (Bates 1990). Could be expected in habitats with American holly or umbrella magnolia. Streptanthus Pineoak No Suitable habitat predominately novaculite glades and disturbed sites on Mena squamiformis Jewelflower RD. Usually mesic woodlands, including moist pine sites and glades on novaculite and sandstone. Most sites are in areas with steep slopes. Thalictrum Arkansas No Found adjacent to limestone glades on the former former Tiak RD. arkansanum meadow-rue Tradescantia Ozark No Found in rich, mesic hardwood sites on Black Fork and Rich Mountain of Mena ozarkana spiderwort RD to south. Not in pine stands. Occurs in Logan County on Ozark National Forest lands. Has not been found on the two districts.

Trillium pusillum Ozark least No Found in dry to rich mesic upland. Does not occur in typical dry pine or pine- ozarkanum trillium hardwood sites. Usually in oak-hickory assemblage. Valerianella Nuttall’s No Has not been identified in Scott or Yell counties. Does occur in Logan County, nuttallii cornsalad but not on Forest Service land. Inhabits meadows and ditches, including shale glades. From these habits, it is assumed it prefers habitats with low competition. Valerianella Palmer’s No Has not been identified on the district, but does occur elsewhere in western palmeri cornsalad Arkansas, including Polk County. Inhabits a variety of sites including gravelly areas near streams, rocky ledges , and mesic oak woods. Known on the Jessieville RD. Verbesina walteri Carolina No This is primarily a species of the Gulf Coastal Plain, well south of the WAD. It crownbeard is found in moist habitats rich, mesic hardwood sites; not in pine stands. Vernonia Narrowleaf Yes This species has been found throughout western Arkansas on gavel bars lettermannii ironweed As and rock ledges along larger streams. Sensitive # 15. Vitis rupestris Sand grape Yes Found along cherty streambeds, rocky banks, and gravel bars. Sensitive As # 16.

APPENDIX B

LITERATURE CITED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

References and Background Articles

Arkansas Native Plant Society. 1998. Rare plant conference (loose leaf notebook with maps and other data). August. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 1990. Ark. Nat. Heritage Inventory program Elements of Special Concern, Plants and Animals. 33 pp.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 1992. Arkansas Natural Heritage Inventory Program, Elements of Special Concern, Plants and Animals. Little Rock, AR.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Current listing of sensitive species. Through Susan Hooks, Forest Botanist. July 14, 2004

Bates, V. 1990. Overview of plant communities and an inventory of natural areas. Vol. 1. (Unpubl. report on file of a project supported by Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and U.S. Forest Service, 144 pp.)

Bates, V. 1990. Ouachita National Forest. Vol. II. Sensitive plant species information, Poteau Ranger District. (Unpubl. report on file of a project supported by Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and U.S. Forest Service).

Bates, V. 1991. Cold Springs, and Fourche District sensitive plant species information. Volume II. A report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock; and U.S. Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

Bates, V. 1993. An endangered species status report: Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias in Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock.

Brown, A.V. and K.B. Brown. 1989. Stream Inventory of Lampsilis powelli populations on NF Lands. Final report submitted to the Ouachita NF. ECOLAB, Fayetteville, AR.

Bukenhofer, G.A., J.C. Neal, and W.G. Montague. 1994. Renewal and recovery: shortleaf pine/bluestem grass ecosystem and red-cockaded woodpeckers. Proc. Ark. Acad, Sci. 48: 243- 245.

Carlton, C.E. and L. Spencer. 1996. Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on conservation. Entomological News 107(4): 213-219.

Carlton, C.E. and F. Rothwein. 1998. The endangered American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Oliver, at the edge of its range in Arkansas (Coleoptera: Silphidae). The Coleopterists Bull. 52: 179-185.

Chester, D.N., D.F. Stauffer, T.J. Smith, D.R. Luukkonen, and J.D. Fraser.1990. Habitat use by non-breeding bald eagles in North Carolina. J. Wildl.Manage. 54:223-234.

Clark, B.S. and B.K. Clark. 1995. Mist net survey for endangered and candidate bat species on public lands in eastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid Project E-30-1. Oklahoma City.

Clark, B.S. and B.K. Clark. 1995b. Mist net survey for endangered and candidate bat species on public lands in eastern Oklahoma. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Federal Aid Project E-30-2. Oklahoma City.

Clark, B.K. and B.S. Clark. 1997. Mist net survey for endangered and candidate bat species on Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Project No. D-030-1-00. Oklahoma City.

Conner, R. N., and B. A. Locke. 1982. Fungi and red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Wilson Bull. 94:64-70.

Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, and J.R. Walters. 2001. The red-cockaded woodpecker, surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Creighton, J.C., C.C. Vaughn, and B.R. Chapman. 1993. Habitat preference of the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) in Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 38(3):275-306.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: Natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 668. 625 p.

Dunning, J.B. 1993. Bachman's sparrow. In The Birds of North America, No. 38 (A.Poole, P.Stettenheim, and F.Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Escano, R. E. F. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker extinction or recovery: summary of status and management on our national forests. Pages 28-35 in D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., Nacogdoches, Tx.

Foti, T.L. and J.M. Guldin. 1994. Multivariate analysis of the ground cover layer, shrub layer, and midstory and overstory of the Ozark/Ouachita National Forests. Pp. 61-73 in J. Baker, comp. 1994. Proc. Symposium on Ecosystem Management in the Ouachita Mountains; pretreatment conditions and preliminary findings. 1993. October 26-27. Hot Springs, AR. Genl. Tech. Rpt. SO-112. New Orleans, LA. USDA Forest Service, So. For. Exp. Sta., 259 pp. (Unpublished data from 5 years after harvest).

Frazier, K. 1993. Current status of the American burying beetle within the Midwest geographical recovery area. USF&WS, Div. Ecol. Serv., Tulsa, OK (letter of Jan. 20, 1993).

Frisbee, C. No date. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants of the Ouachita National Forest. (Informational booklet with color pictures prepared for district use).

Gardner, J.E. 2001. Distribution of Myotis sodalis (Indiana bat) summer habitat in the Eastern United States, including techniques to quantify range-wide potential summer habitat. Abstract and comments. A Symposium on the Indiana Bat: Biology and management of an endangered species. March 29 – April 1, Lexington, KY. (Gardner is a member of the Indiana bat Recovery Team).

Green, N. 1985. The bald eagle. Pages 508-531. In: R.L. DiSilvestro, editor. Audubon wildlife report. Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Guldin, J.M. 1986. Ecology of shortleaf pine. Pp 25-40 In P. A. Murphy, eds. Proc. Symposium on the Shortleaf Pine Ecosystem. U.S. Dept. Agr. For. Serv., Monticello, AR

Haggerty, T.M. 1988. Aspects of the breeding biology and productivity of Bachman's sparrow in central Arkansas. Wilson Bull. 100:247-255.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 p.

Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. J. Ark. 51:66-89 Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1988. Status survey of Lampsilis powelli (Lea, 1852) Final Report to Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS.

Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. (1990). Arkansas mussels. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Little Rock

Harris, J.L. 2001. Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater bivalves (Unionacea) in sections of the Fourche La Fave River and Petit Jean River, Arkansas. Final report to Ouachita NF (October 1, 2001).

Heath, D.R., D.A. Saugey, and G.A. Heidt. 1986. Abandoned mine fauna of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas: Vertebrate taxa. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 40:33-36.

Hedrick, L. 1993. Analysis: American burying beetle trapping data, Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas. Staff Officer, Fish, Wildlife and Range. Ouachita National Forest.

Highton, R., G.C. Maha, and L.R. Maxson, 1989. Biochemical evolution in the slimy salamanders of the Plethodon glutinosus complex in the Eastern United States. Illinois biological monographs:57, 153pp.

Hooper, R.G., A.F. Robinson Jr., and J.A. Jackson. 1980. The red-cockaded woodpecker: notes on life history and management. SA-GR9. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern area, Atlanta, 8 pp.

Hudson, E. 1996. Survey of Ptilimnium nodosum. Unpublished report on file at Ouachita NF, Supervisor's Office.

Hunter, C.G. 1988. Wildflowers of Arkansas. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, AR 296 pp.

Hunter, C.G. 1989. Trees, shrubs, & vines of Arkansas. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, AR 207 pp.

James, D. A., D. L. Hart, and F. L. Burnside. 1981. Study of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Arkansas. Final Rep., Proj. E-1- 5, Job II. 47pp

James, D.A. and J .C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas birds: Their distribution and abundance. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 402 p.

James, D. A., and J. C. Neal. 1989. Update of the status of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Arkansas. Little Rock. 18pp.

Kiser J. and C. Elliott. 1996. Foraging habitat, food habits, and roost tree characteristics of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) during autumn in Jackson County, Kentucky. Unpublished report submitted to Nongame Program, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 65 pp.

Kreiter, S.D. 1995. Dynamics and spatial pattern of a virgin old-growth hardwood-pine forest in the Ouachita Mountains, Oklahoma, from 1896 to 1994.

Kulhavy, D. L., Hooper, R. G., and Costa, R., editors, 1995, Red-cockaded woodpecker: recovery, ecology and management: Nacogdoches, Tx, Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 552 PP.

Kurta, A., K.J. Williams and R. Mies. 1996. Ecological behavioral, and thermal observations of a peripheral population of Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis). Pp. 102-117, In Barclay, R.M.R. and R.M. Brigham, eds. Bats and forests symposium. October 19-21, 1995. Victoria BC. British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

Ligon, J. D. 1970. Behavior and breeding biology of the red-cockaded woodpecker. Auk 87:255-278

Lomolino, M.V., J.C. Creighton, G.D. Schnell, and D.L. Certain. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the endangered American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Conservation Biology 9(3):605-614.

MacGregor, R. J., J. D. Kiser, M. W. Gumbert and T. O. Reed. 1999. Autumn roosting of male Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) in a managed forest setting in Kentucky. In Proceedings, 12th central hardwood forest conference; 1999 February 28-March 1-2; Lexington, KY. Eds. Stringer, J.W. and D.L. Loftis. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-24. Ashville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 293 pp.

Madge, R. B. 1958. A taxonomic study of the genus Nicrophorus in America North of Mexico. Masters Thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL. 66 pp.

Maddox, D., and R. Bartgis. 1990. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias) Agency Draft Recovery Plan. Prepared by Maryland Natural Heritage Program. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.

Masters, R.E. 1991. Effects of timber harvest and prescribed fire on wildlife habitat and use in the Ouachita Mountains of eastern Oklahoma. Ph. D. Thesis, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater. 351p.

Masters, R.E. and C.W. Wilson. 1994. Effects of midstory vegetation removal and fire on breeding birds and plant community composition in red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. Final report for a Challenge Cost-Share Grant. Ouachita NF, Dec. 1994.

Masters, R.E., C.W. Wilson, G.A. Bukenhofer, and M.E. Payton. 1996. Effects of pine-bluestem restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers on white-tailed deer forage production. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 24:77-84.

Mattoon, W.R. 1915. Life history of shortleaf pine. Bull. U.S. Dept. Agri. No. 244.

Menzel, M.A., J.M. Menzel, T.C. Carter, W.M. Ford, and J.W. Edwards. 2001. Review of the forest habitat relationships of the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). General Technical Report NE- 284. Newton Square, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 21p.

Nature Serve: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2002. Version 1.7. Arlington, Virginia, USA: Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: 2002-2003).

Neal, J.C., and W.G. Montague. 1991. Past and present distribution of the red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis and its habitat in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 45:71-75.

Neal, J.C., M.E. Stewart, and W.G. Montague. 1994. Burying beetle (Coleoptera: Silphidae, Nicrophorus surveys on Poteau Ranger District, Ouachita NF. Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 48: 127-129.

Nelson, T.A., D.A. Saugey, and L.E. Carolan. 1991. Range extension of the endangered Gray bat, Myotis grisescens, into the Arkansas River Valley. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 45:129-131.

Peck, S. B. and M. M. Kaulbars. 1987. A synopsis of the distribution and bionomics of the carrion beetles (Coleoptera: Silphidae) of the conterminous United States. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 118: 47-81.

Perry, R. and R.E. Thill. 2001. Roosting behavior of tree bats in forested landscapes of the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Progress Report (June 2001) submitted to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock.

Plummer, M.V. 1982. The status of the Caddo Mountain and Fourche Mountain salamanders (Plethodon caddoensis, P. Fourchensis) in Arkansas. Report submitted to Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission.

Robison, H.W. 1992. Distribution and status of the Ouachita River form of the longnose darter in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Final report to the Ouachita NF, Hot Springs, AR. 57 pp.

Robison, H. W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: a study of the endemic plants and animals of the state. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 121 pp.

Robison, H. W. and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. Univ. of Ark. Press, Fayetteville.

Romme, R., K. Tyrell, and V. Brack, Jr. 1995. Literature summary and habitat suitability index model: components of summer habitat for the Indiana bat, Myotis sodalis. 3D/Environmental, Cincinnati, OH.

Rudolph, D.C. 2001. Is the Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) a fire dependent species in the Interior Highlands? Abstract only. Lepidopterist’s Society Annual Meeting July 26-29, 2002 in Corvallis OR.

Rudolph, D. C. and R. N. Conner. 1991, Cavity tree selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers in relation to tree age. Wilson Bull. 103:458-467.

Rudolph, D.C. and C.A. Ely. 2000a. Lepidoptera (butterflies and skippers) surveys of the Ouachita National Forest (with particular attention to the Caddo Ranger District) in relation to habitat. Interim Report to the Caddo Ranger District.

Rudolph, D.C. and C.A. Ely. 2000b. The influence of fire on lepidopteran abundance and community structure in forested habitats of eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science, 52(4) Supplement: 127-138.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon and G. Gough. 2000. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laruel MD.

Saugey, D.A., V.R. McDaniel, D.R. England, M.C. Rowe, L.R. Chandler-Mozisek, and B.G. Cochran. 1993. Arkansas range extensions of the Eastern small-footed bat (Myotic leibii) and Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and additional county records for the Silver- haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius), and Rafinesque’s bat (Plecotus rafinesquii). J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 47:102-106.

Saugey, D.A., G.A. Heidt, D.R. Heath, and V.R. McDaniel. 1990. Hibernating Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) from the Ouachita Mountains of southeastern Oklahoma. Southwestern Association of Naturalists. 35(3):341-342.

Saugey, D.A., D.R. Heath, and G.A. Heidt. 1989. The bats of the Ouachita Mountains. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 43:71-77.

Saugey, D.A, D.G. Saugey, G.A. Heidt, and D.R. heath. 1988. The bats of Hot Springs National Park. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 42:81- 83.

Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas mammals: their natural history, classification, and distribution. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville 308 pp.

Smith, K.L. 1986. Sawmill, the story of the cutting of the last great virgin forest east of the Rockies. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville.

Steward, T.W., V.R. McDaniel, D.A. Saugey, and D.R. England. 1986. The bat fauna of southwest Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 40:72-73.

Trauth, S.E. and J.D. Wilhide. 1999. Status of three Plethodontid salamanders (Genus Plethodon) from the Ouachita National Forest of southwestern Arkansas. J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 53:125-137.

Tumlison, R., T. Fulmer, T. Finley, and D. Saugey. 2002. Bats of the Jessieville Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 56:206-211.

USDA Forest Service, 2010. Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, 2005a. Final EIS for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Ouachita National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest.September 2005.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Revised Programmatic biological opinion of the Ouachita National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. (For American Burying Beetle; issued May 3, 2010.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Programmatic biological opinion of the Ouachita National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. (For American Burying Beetle; issued September 22, 2005.)

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA, 296 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Agency draft Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) revised recovery plan. Fort Snelling, MN. 53 p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Consultation handbook: procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered Species Fact Sheet: The American burying beetle. New England Field Office, Concord, NH.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Biological Opinion on the U.S. Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus). Recovery Plan. (C. Raithel, author). Region 5, New England Field Office, Concord, NH.

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1991. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery Plan prepared by Maryland Natural Heritage. Newton Corner, Management Area. 56 pp.

USDI Fish & Wildlife Service. 1983. Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat. Washington, D.C.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Ga.

Watson, L.E. 1989. Status survey of Carex latebracteata, Waterfall’s sedge, in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Tulsa, OK. 8 pp.

Wilson, C.W. 1994. Breeding bird community and composition and habitat associations in pineoak forest and pine-bluestem woodlands in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. MS Thesis, Okla. State Univ. 101 pp.

Wilson, C.W., R.E. Masters, G.A. Bukenhofer. 1995. Breeding bird response to pine-grassland community restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers. J. Wildl.Manage. 59:56-67.

APPENDIX C

PROJECT LOCATION MAP

APPENDIX D

ANHC LETTER AND ELEMENT LIST

APPENDIX E

USFWS RESPONSE LETTERS