BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Conservation Species) USDA FOREST SERVICE Kisatchie National Forest Winn Ranger District

Mendenhause Project Compartments 51, 52, and 56

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of any native or desirable non-native animal species. This BE documents likely effects of management actions on populations of conservation species of concern as determined by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP). Such species are those, whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. Information presented here is used to ensure that such species are maintained at, or are moving toward, viable population levels. Populations of other species (those at less risk of losing viability) are maintained by creating and maintaining a diversity of habitat types distributed across the National Forest in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Through this combination of approaches, viable populations of all species are maintained.

A review of the Louisiana Rare Animal Species list and the Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) records was conducted to determine which species would possibly occur within the project site. The general biology of the species, personal communication with experts, and literature searches were used to determine the potential effect proposed actions, including the no action, would have on species considered likely to occur within the project area. The aforementioned research was conducted considering the best available science, and the potential effects discovered are discussed in this BE.

PURPOSE AND NEED:

Differences between current and desired conditions have been identified within the project area. In order to move the project area toward the desired conditions, specific resource management actions were identified and the alternatives were developed. The purpose of this project is to meet the needs of the Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), reduce risk of Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) attack, restore native longleaf pine, shortleaf pine-oak-hickory, and bottomland hardwood communities; improve forest access, and maintain boundaries between forest and private landowners.

This project is needed to:

Reduce the risk of Southern Pine Beetle attack The SPB risk rating program, Southern Pine Beetle-Event Monitor (SPB-EM), created by the USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, was used to rate loblolly stands. Stands with a hazard rating of medium or high were selected for first thinning. Data produced by this model projected that approximately 78 percent of the proposed treatment stands have a high southern pine beetle hazard rating; and approximately 9 percent have a medium SPB hazard rating.

Restore Native Vegetation Communities: Longleaf Pine, Shortleaf Pine / Oak - Hickory, and Bottomland Hardwood The Forest Plan calls for reforestation of native vegetation communities. Based on current stand exam data, a large percentage of the project area’s forest type is currently loblolly pine. The project would restore approximately 125 acres to longleaf pine ecosystem, 75 acres to shortleaf pine/oak-hickory ecosystem, and 75 acres to hardwood ecosystem.

Increase suitable RCW habitat The desired future condition (DFC’s) of Management Area (MA) 5 is the management of RCW habitat and restoration of the historical vegetation. The RCW Recovery Plan recognizes that the fitness of woodpecker groups increases if they have foraging habitat. The RCW Recovery Plan defines quality habitat as substantial amounts of foraging areas that are burned regularly, have some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse to no hardwood midstory, and have a bunchgrass and forb groundcover (RCW Recovery Plan, p. 188). Foraging habitat is reduced by the presence of midstory hardwoods. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little hardwood midstory and few overstory hardwoods. Effective midstory control is a prerequisite to the management, conservation, and recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout their range (RCW Recovery Plan, p. 38).

There are approximately 2,812 acres of the project area within the RCW HMA. The project area has not been thinned in several years and many of the stands proposed for treatment have basal areas (BA) greater than 80ft2. Stands located within the RCW HMA have been prescribed burned recently, however prescribed fire may be ineffective in quickly removing midstory due to the size of the trees it contains.

The RCW HMA population objective for the Winn Ranger District is 263 active clusters (The Plan, FW-712, pg. 2-61); currently there are 46 active clusters. The project area has numerous recruitment stands that are currently not suitable for nesting. The project would include installation of 4 artificial inserts in each recruitment stand.

Maintain Forest Service Boundaries Property boundary marking is inadequate in numerous locations, making it difficult to determine ownership. There are approximately 13 miles of private and NFS land interface in the project area. Boundary lines would be maintained or re- established to prevent ownership issues.

Improve road conditions The Forest Plan requires a road system suitable for land and resource management activities and Forest administration (The Plan, p. 2-46, FW-554), and to provide user safety and traffic efficiency (The Plan, p. 2-48, FW-574). Within the Mendenhause Creek project area, several roads require maintenance and improvements. These improvements would involve blading, spot graveling, ditch restoration, and reconstruction of specific roads to prevent degradation of the Figure 1 : road system. Temporary roads used during project Vicinity Map of the USFS, Kisatchie National Forest, Winn Ranger District’s Mendenhause Project located implementation would be obliterated and re-vegetated as part North of U.S. Hwy 84 West in Winn Parish, Louisiana. of the project work, following use. Several closed National Forest Service Roads (NFSRs) are proposed to be designated for administrative use only once project implementation is complete. Roads with Gum Springs Horse Trail crossings would have signs posted near crossings to ensure safety to road and trail users.

PROJECT LOCATION:

The project area is located in western Winn Parish, approximately 8 miles west of Winnfield, Louisiana in Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, and 28 of Township 11 North and Range 4 West.

CONSULTATION HISTORY:

The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest, which this project implements, was concurred upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be requested for this project.

A heritage resource survey has been completed in these compartments. The findings of the survey have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and concurrence has been received.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTION:

Harvest Treatments: First Thinning on approximately 446 acres in Compartment 51 (in stands 2, 6, 9, and 13), Compartment 52 (in stands 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 27, 29, 30, and 35), and Compartment 56 (in stands 1 and 16) to an average residual 60 ft2 per BA in the young loblolly pine stands to reduce risk of SPB damage or loss and to improve tree and stand vigor. Intermediate thinning on approximately 3,038 acres in Compartment 51 (in stands 1, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19), Compartment 52 (in stands 2, 5, 16, 18, 20, 24, and 33), and Compartment 56 (in stands 2-11, 13-15, 18-23, 25, 27, 30, and 31). Thinning in Compartments 51 and 56 would consist of removing some pine pine and some or all hardwood midstory and overstory necessary to achieve an average of 60 ft2 BA per AC (except within the RCW clusters where BA would be reduced to an average 50 ft2 BA per AC). These thinning’s would retain longleaf and shortleaf pine over loblolly and slash pines. Retention priority would be 1) relict trees, 2) potential cavity trees, 3) trees greater than 10 inches diameter at 4.5 feet above ground level, 4) trees less than 10 inches at DBH. Hardwood trees that are in clusters would not be cut. Hardwoods retained, that were not in clumps, would be retained by the following order: 1) Relict trees, 2) wildlife cavity trees, 3) flowering species, and 4) large/super canopy trees Intermediate thinning that occurs in Compartment 52 would consist of pine and hardwood midstory and overstory reduction to an average 100 ft2 BA per AC. Species would be retained in the following order: 1) oaks and hickory, 2) dogwood, 3) black cherry, 4) American beech, 5) blackgum, 6) American holly, 7) elm, 8) maple, 9) sweetgum, and 10) loblolly pine. Retention priority would be 1) relict trees, 2) wildlife cavity trees, 3) large/super canopy trees, and 4) clumps of hardwoods. Longleaf restoration of approximately 125 acres in compartment 52 (stand 6) and Compartment 56 (stands 24, 26, 28, and 29) by artificial regeneration. Restoration would consist of cutting all species except longleaf pine,. Site preparation of these stands would include chopping, burning and/or herbicide. Once seedlings are planted, prescribed burning to control brownspot disease and release, as needed, would be initiated. Release would be accomplished using handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws, etc.), burning, herbicide application, or a combination. Herbicides used would include Triclopyr, Imazapyr, or a combination to control competing vegetation. Herbicide would be applied in spring (usually April and/or May) after the trees have completed full flush by directed foliar spray, hack and squirt, or basal bark treatments. Any burning would occur within a minimum of 30 days after herbicide application. Shortleaf restoration of approximately 75 acres in compartment 51 (stands 11, 20, and 21) by artificial regeneration. Restoration would consist of cutting all species except shortleaf pine. Site preparation of these stands would include chopping, burning and/or herbicide. Once seedlings are planted, they would be released, as needed. Release would be accomplished using handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws, etc.), herbicide application, or a combination. Herbicides used would include Triclopyr, Imazapyr, or a combination to control competing vegetation. Herbicide would be applied in spring (usually April and/or May) after the trees have completed full flush, by directed foliar spray, hack and squirt, or basal bark treatments. Hardwood restoration will occur using a shelterwood with reserves vegetation treatment on approximately 50 acres in Compartment 52 /Stands 1 and 3 to re-establish the natural community composition, structure, and ecological processes. Restoration efforts will begin with site prepping these stands with understory and midstory treatment by prescribed burning and/or herbicide (Triclopyr and/or Imazapyr) targeting non-oak and hickory species. This will open the stand and forest floor to light to allow the oaks and hickories to regenerate. Hardwood release will be accomplished using hand tools (chainsaws, brushsaws, etc.), and/or herbicide application. Herbicides used will include Triclopyr, Imazapyr, or a combination to control competing vegetation. Herbicide will be applied in late spring to early fall (usually between April and September) after the trees have

completed full flush or before starting fall color change, by directed foliar spray or basal bark treatments. No burning will occur within a minimum of 30 days after herbicide application. First and third year survival surveys will be conducted on 50 acres of natural hardwood restoration areas to ensure restoration success and to determine the need for release treatments. These stands will be monitored to determine if adequate advanced regeneration had occurred in approximately five years before these stands will then be harvested using a shelterwood treatment.

Wildlife Treatment Install 52 (four inserts per cluster) artificial cavity inserts/predator exclustions in all RCW clusters and recruitment stands within the following: Compartment 51 (in stands 14-17, and 19) and Compartment 56 (in stands 8, 10, 18, 21-23, 25, and 31). Midstory/Overstory removal (RCW habitat improvement) operations on approximately 1,871 acres in conjunction with intermediate thinnings inside the RCW HMA. These actions would consist of hardwood and pine midstory removal and pine overstory thinning. Midstory work would be accomplished using mechanical equipment (powersaws and/or woodsgator type machinary) and/or herbicide application. This would meet the RCW nesting and foraging guidelines by creating an open canopy more beneficial to RCW as specified in the Forest Plan. Work proposed in active RCW clusters would not occur during the nesting seson, typically April 1st through July 31st (or until young have fledged, as determined by the district Biologist). Within RCW clusters, operations would be limited to one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset year round to avoid disturbing birds entering and leaving their cavities. Extreme care would be taken when working around cavity trees to avoid damaging the trees or their root systems. Hardwoods with crowns in the overstory would not be considered midstory, bt may be removed /thinned by mechanical means inside RCW clusters. Approximately six (approximately .25 acre) wildlife ponds would be created incompartments 51 & 52. These ponds would be approximately 18-24 deep and located in appropriate soil types. These ponds would provide breeding grounds for amphibian (wildlife species) an water source.Ponds installed near the Gum Springs Horse Trail would also provide horses water sources. Monitor RCW inserts and midstory work to ensure it is being accomplished correctly and that the treated area is being utilized by RCW. Monitor ponds to ensure correct design and best management practices (BMPs) are followed.

Soil and Water and Road Maintenance Transportation Analysis Process Administrative Error: Approximately 2.5 miles of roads added to the transportation system, as administrative use only. These roads currently exist on the ground and were inadverntly deleted from the database during Transportation Analysis Process (TAP), but do not exist in the database. These roads are needed for administrative and management purposes. These roads would be administrative use only and would not be used by the public. Table 5 displays this information.

Table 5: Administrative Use Roads Existing Road Maintenan Needed for Future Level of Level of Length Work Needed Number ce Level Project Use Use Non- Work may include any or W052H Existing N/A .511 Yes all of the following: Closed Non- Blading and reshaping, W052I Existing N/A .524 No clearing ditches, culverts, Closed

Non- and spot gravel W052J Existing N/A 1.473 Yes Closed

System Road Construction: No new permanent roads would be constructed System Road Maintenance: Install and replace culverts along road that is currently not in the system, but would be as part of this project. Spot surfacing, as needed. Blading and grading. Temporary Roads: Approximately 2.5 miles of temporary roads would be built for access into treatment areas. These temporary roads would be obliterated after use by adding waterbars where needed, installing road closures, seeding, and fertilizing. Other Soil and Water: No other soil and water projects have been identified.

Fire Treatments: There would be approximately two miles of fire line installed around the Shortleaf Pine Restoration areas. When young, Shortleaf Pine is very susceptible to damage from burning so the stands would need to be protected from burning until stems reach 3-4” diameter at ground level or 10-15’ in height (FW-070).

Interpretive Signage: Installation of a maximum of five signs along the Gum Springs Horse Trail to provide for educational opportunities and help the public understand management actions.

Silvicultural Treatments: Approximately 200 acres would receive site preparation chopping, burning, and/or chemical treatments. This would help remove debris and undesired species growing on the sites and restore the landscape to appropriate species. Longleaf and shortleaf artificial planting would occur on 200 acres. 1st and 3rd year survival surveys would be conducted on 250 acres (200 acres of artificial pine planting and 50 acres of natural hardwood) of restoration area to ensure restoration success and to determine the need for release treatments. The 200 acres of pine would receive a release, either through chemical and/or handtool methods. Any restoration areas that needed additional plantings to achieve adequate stocking success would have additional planting after the 3rd year survival checks were conducted.

Other Proposed Treatments: Boundary Line Maintenance would be conducted along the entire 13 miles of boundary between private lands and NFS lands. Treat approximately 50 acres of non-native invasive species (NNIS) with herbicides including Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese Privet, Chinese Tallow, johnsongrass, Japanese climbing fern. Treatment would be limited to the area where the NNIS is located but include approximately 1 acre surrounding the NNIS area. Monitor the 50 acres of NNIS treatments to ensure no further spread and prevent future outbreaks.

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED:

Below is a complete list of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Conservation (PETSC) Fauna Species listed for Louisiana that may possibly be located on the Winn Ranger District of KNF.

Table 1. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Conservation (PETSC) Species listed for Louisiana that may possibly be located on the Winn Ranger District of KNF.

STATUS State Scientific Name Common Name USFWS USFS (LNHP) Status Status Status/Rank Canis rufus Red Wolf SX Aimophila aestivalis Bachman’s Sparrow S S3 Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat S1,S2 Notropis hubbsi Bluehead Shiner S S2 Orconectes blacki Calcasieu Painted Crayfish S S2 Pogonomyrmex comanche Comanche Harvester Ant SNR Sterna antillarum Interior Least Tern E E E/S1B Orconectes maletae Kisatchie Painted Crayfish S S2 Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear T T T/S2 Margaritifera hembeli Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel T T E/S1 Pleurobema riddellii Louisiana Pigtoe Mussel S S1,S2 Pituophis ruthveni Louisiana Pine Snake C S S2,S3 Plethodon Kisatchie Louisiana Slimy Salamander S S1,S2 Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush S3,S4B Pandion haliaetus Osprey S2B, S3N Faxonella creaseri Ouachita Fencing Crayfish S S2 Picoides borealis Red-Cockaded Woodpecker E E E/S2 Faxonella beyeri Sabine Fencing Crayfish S S1,S2 Schoolhouse Springs Leuctran Leuctra szczytkoi S S2 Stonefly Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-Haired Bat S1 Strophitus subvexus Southern Creekmussel S S1 Elliptio dilatata Spike S2S3 Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter S S2 Sitta carolinensis White-Breasted Nuthatch S2 Legend: FEDERAL and STATE STATUS: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate species, S = Sensitive STATE RANK: S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = rare, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = demonstrably secure, SA = accidental in Louisiana, SH = of historical occurrence in Louisiana, SR = reported from Louisiana, SU = possibly in peril in Louisiana, SX = believed to be extirpated from Louisiana, SZ = transient species in which no specific consistent area of occurrence is identifiable (B or N may be used as qualifier of numeric ranks and indicating whether the occurrence is breeding or non-breeding) Source: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program; 2013.

Habitat for eight conservation species occurs near or within some part of the project area. Four of the eight Conservation species (Ouachita Fencing Crawfish, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Louisiana Slimy Salamander, and Southern Creekmussel) are analyzed in a separate PETS BE.

Table 2. Conservation species acknowledged as those of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature and KNF records are addressed in detail within this document.

Designation Species Habitat Winn RD Occurrence

Conservation Big Brown Bat Wide array of wooded and partially open Uncommon Resident Eptesicus fuscus habitats, especially deciduous forests

Conservation Silver-haired Bat Forested areas adjacent to water sources Unknown Lasionycteris noctivagans

Conservation Louisiana Waterthrush Deciduous or mixed forests with rocky Uncommon Resident Parkesia motacilla streams

Conservation White-breasted Nuthatch Mature hardwood trees, with stubs, Common Resident Sitta carolinensis knotholes

EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION:

Big Brown Bat: No bat surveys were conducted specifically for this project. Surveys completed by Deep South Eco Group in 2012-2013 resulted in no observations/recordings of Big Brown Bats. Surveys completed in 2009 by Winn Ranger District wildlife personnel revealed 11 recordings of this species. Recent concerns related to White-nose Syndrome and other conservation issues have spawned new interest in bat conservation efforts. The Winn Ranger District is currently seeking local bat survey results, and advanced survey methods to better monitor bat populations on Kisatchie National Forest.

Silver-haired Bat: No bat surveys were conducted specifically for this project; however, suitable habitat exists for Silver-haired Bats. Other surveys conducted on the Winn Ranger District have not resulted in observations/recordings of this species. Recent concerns related to White-nose Syndrome and other conservation issues have spawned new interest in bat conservation efforts. The Winn Ranger District is currently seeking local bat survey results, and advanced survey methods to better monitor bat populations on Kisatchie National Forest.

Louisiana Waterthrush: No specific survey was completed for the Louisiana Waterthrush for this project; however, suitable habitat exists within the project area. Knowing exact numbers of the species within or adjacent to stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as project design criteria addresses protection of streamside management zones, which is a preferred habitat of this species.

White-breasted Nuthatch: No specific survey was completed for the White-breasted Nuthatch for this project; however, suitable habitat exists within the project area. Knowing exact numbers of the species within or adjacent to stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as project design criteria addresses reservation of nesting habitat types.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ON EACH SPECIES EVALUATED:

Conservation Species

Big Brown Bat Current Condition This species inhabits many different wooded to open sites including deciduous, conifer, and mixed forests, as well as cities; although they are more abundant in deciduous forests. The entire project area is fairly suitable for these bats.

insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternative 2 Due to their nocturnal nature and preferred roosting habitat it is unlikely that the primary proposed activities under this alternative would have any direct impact on this species. Herbicide application on restoration sites would not likely harm bats since it covers such a small percentage of the project area that any food ingested from these areas would be a small percentage of their diet. Creation of ponds in compartments 51 and 52 would beneficial in the form of additional prey (flying insect) habitat. Project road maintenance and culvert replacement would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Silver-haired Bat Current Condition The Silver Haired Bat prefers forested areas adjacent to lakes, ponds, and streams. Summer roosts and nursery sites are in tree foliage, cavities, or under loose bark, and sometimes in buildings (NatureServe, 2013). There are currently approximately 680 acres of habitat within the project area that are fairly suitable for these bats.

Alternative 1 As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative changes very little.

Louisiana Waterthrush Current Condition This species prefers deciduous or mixed forests with rocky streams, but also occurs along sluggish streams and rivers, and infrequently in swamp, therefore, habitat in the project area is generally considered fair. The best habitat in the project area for this species occurs in the streamside zones. One Louisiana Waterthrush has been observed during twelve years of bird point surveys on the Winn Ranger District.

Alternative 1 The no action alternative promotes the development of preferred habitat. There is a slight increase in suitability. Positive changes are attributed to the development of the midstory as the effects of previous burns are no longer manifested.

As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. The alternative does provide habitat for food, water and shelter. Habitat conditions under this Alternative are better than the other alternative.

Alternative 2

It is unlikely that Louisiana Waterthrush would be harmed by any of the proposed activities. Birds may be disturbed temporarily, by workers in the area, but they would probably return later after activities cease. Herbicide application on restoration sites would not likely harm these birds since it covers such a small percentage of the project area that any food ingested from these areas would be a small percentage of their diet. Negative changes in suitability acres are attributed to the effects of midstory/overstory removal and thinning. Creation of ponds in compartments 51 and 52 would beneficial in the form of additional foraging habitat. Project road maintenance and culvert replacement would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species.

The effects of the treatments in this alternative would provide less desirable habitat than Alternative 1. There should be no significant long-term cumulative impacts on this species with the proposed activities.

White-breasted Nuthatch Current Condition The Nuthatch prefers mature hardwood trees, with stubs, knot-holes or other sites for nesting and roosting cavities with a strong preference for hardwoods. The project area contains some preferred habitat in streamside riparian zones.

Alternative 1 The existing vegetation would continue to grow. Woody species would shade out grasses and forbs. The area would become a thicket. The absence of vegetative manipulation is beneficial to this species and its habitat. There would be a slight increase in habitat suitability.

As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. The alternative does provide food, water and shelter. Habitat conditions under this Alternative are more desirable compared to the other alternative.

Alternative 2 It is unlikely that this species would be harmed during mechanical activities such as midstory/overstory control, installation of artificial cavity inserts, thinning, fireline construction, rehabilitation and maintenance of firelines, timber harvest related skid trails, or road maintenance. Workers in the area may temporarily disturb birds, during logging, site preparation activities, release, or prescribed burning. They would probably return later after activities cease. Herbicide application on restoration sites would not likely harm these birds since it covers such a small percentage of the project area that any food ingested from these areas would be a small percentage of their diet. Creation of ponds in compartments 51 and 52 would beneficial in the form of additional drinking water. Project road maintenance and culvert replacement would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species.

Negative changes to suitability acres are attributed to the effects of midstory/overstory removal, thinning and the effects of site preparation. Most of the proposed activities, however, would not occur in preferred nuthatch habitat.

COMPLIANCE:

Implementation of the proposed actions would include compliance with the Endangered Species Act.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT AND RATIONALE:

My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information (including databases, literature reviews and site visits), a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk.

Conservation Species

Big Brown Bat: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial.

Silver-haired Bat: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial.

Louisiana Waterthrush: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial.

White-breasted Nuthatch: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial.

REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES:

BASF The Chemical Company, 2010 Version 3. Safety Data Sheet PTM SC. BASF Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey.

Black Bear Conservation Committee, 1992 First Edition. Black Bear Management Handbook for Louisiana, Mississippi and east Texas.

Breedlove, R. Breeding bird surveys for the Winn Ranger District, 1998-2010. Unpublished report.

Dean, Jan. 1996. Fish Survey of Perennial Streams on the Winn District of the Kisatchie National Forest. Unpublished report. Challenge Cost Share between the Kisatchie National Forest and Northwestern State University.

Deep South Eco Group. Bat Surveys in Louisiana with an Emphasis on the Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), 2013. Deep South Eco Group, Morton, MS.

Dow AgroSciences. 2003. Material Safety Data Sheet for Triclopyr.

Dow AgroSciences. 2006. Material Safety Data Sheet for Garlon 3A Herbicide.

Dow AgroSciences. 2009. Material Safety Data Sheet for Garlon 4 Herbicide.

Hamel, Paul B. 1992 . Land managers guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pages.

Johnson, P. 1993. Survey Notes for the Winn and Catahoula Ranger Districts. Unpublished report. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Kisatchie National Forest. 1999. Final environmental impact statement: revised land and resource management plan. Produced by (and available from) the Kisatchie National Forest; printed by the U.S. government printing office.

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Reichling, Steven. 2002. Factors Affecting Repatriation Success of Captive-Bred Louisiana Pine Snakes. Unpublished report.

Rudolph, Craig. Southern Forest Experiment Station, Louisiana pine snake surveys for the Winn Ranger District 2000- 2002. Unpublished report.

Shively, S.H. and J.G. Walls. 2005. Crawfish of the Kisatchie National Forest. Kisatchie National Forest.

Trani, M.K., W.M. Ford, and B.R. Chapman . 2007. The Land Manager’s Guide to Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Durham, NC. 546 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989. Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel Recovery Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi.

U.S. 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.

Vidrine. M.F. 1993. The historical distributions of freshwater mussels in Louisiana. Louisiana State University, Eunice.

Prepared By:

Albert L. Brazzel District Wildlife Biologist Date: Winn Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest