United States Department of ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Agriculture

Forest Service Shoal Creek Project

Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District Mark Twain National Forest Region 9 Crawford, Iron, and Washington Counties, Missouri

PALS #18216 Mark Twain National Forest,

June 2007

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 1 Document Structure ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 Background (Need for Action) ...... 2 Purpose of the Actions ...... 2 Project Location ...... 3 Background ...... 3 Forestwide Standards and Guidelines ...... 10 Management Area Prescriptions ...... 10 Goals ...... 11 Desired Conditions ...... 11 Proposed Action ...... 12 Decision Framework ...... 13 Public Involvement ...... 13 Issues ...... 13 Relationship to Other Documents ...... 15 Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the proposed action ...... 16 Introduction ...... 16 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 16 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 24 Mitigation Common to Action Alternatives...... 25 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 28 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 34 Vegetation - Historical Perspective ...... 35 Vegetation - Existing Condition of Structure and Composition ...... 39 Environmental Effects Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...... 41 Vegetation - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 43 Vegetation - Cumulative Effects ...... 47 Economics - Existing Condition ...... 50 Economics - Environmental Consequences ...... 50 Economics - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 51 Soils - Existing Condition ...... 54 Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects...... 55 Soils - Cumulative Effects ...... 63 Soils – Summary of Effects ...... 66 Water - Existing Condition ...... 68 Water – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 76 Water - Cumulative Effects ...... 84 Water – Summary of effects ...... 89 ii Wildlife - Existing Condition ...... 90 Wildlife – Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...... 101 Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) ...... 147 Fisheries and Aquatics - Existing Condition ...... 155 Fisheries and Aquatics – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 158 Fisheries and Aquatics - Cumulative Effects ...... 160 Air Quality - Existing Condition ...... 162 Air Quality - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 163 Air Quality - Cumulative Effects ...... 166 Recreation Resources - Existing Condition ...... 166 Recreation Resources - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 168 Recreation Resources - Cumulative Effects ...... 170 Visual Resources - Existing Condition ...... 171 Visual Resources - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 175 Visual Resources - Cumulative Effects ...... 176 Heritage Resources - Existing Condition ...... 178 Heritage Resources – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 179 Heritage Resources - Cumulative Effects ...... 181 Transportation System - Existing Condition ...... 182 Transportation System - Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 184 Transportation System - Cumulative Effects ...... 187 Social Effects ...... 189 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination...... 192 Preparers and Contributors ...... 192 Chapter 5 Appendices

iii

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five chapters:

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency‟s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed description of the agency‟s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the interdisciplinary team, public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area.

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Chapter 5 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District Office, Potosi, Missouri. Purpose and Need for Action The existing conditions of the project area do not fully meet desired conditions as stated in the current Forest Plan for MA 2.1 and MA 6.3 (Forest Plan pages3-11 and 3-41). The proposed action and proposed alternatives for this project are designed to move existing conditions toward the desired conditions by implementing various vegetative and fire management activities that will improve the health of native plant communities within the project area.

1 Background (Need for Action) Due to natural succession and a lack of burning and a lack of harvest over the past decades, the Shoal Creek Project area has seen a shift from a white oak dominant structure to a black oak/white oak/red oak dominant structure.

This action is being proposed with the objective of enhancing natural communities, providing a wide diversity of habitats to meet the needs of plants, fish and wildlife species, improving forest health, improving species composition and stocking, reducing hazardous fuels, providing a variety of timber products and enhancing the project area‟s dispersed recreation experience. Purpose of the Actions The purpose of this project is to restore parts of the project area to a healthy condition and ensure that the ecosystems that make up the project area are resilient to a wide range of disturbances. As a result of these actions, it is expected that the MA will be moved towards the desired condition. It is also expected that these actions will lend themselves toward meeting the following objectives:

The purpose of this project is to: Provide a variety of goods, uses and services including wood products, visual quality, and dispersed recreation opportunities. Improve the condition of open woodland and woodland natural communities. Improve Maintain or improve habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals Reduce hazardous fuels through the use of prescribed fire. Re-establish fire as a tool for ecosystem health. Reduce and control some existing populations of non-native invasive plant species that threaten native plant communities. Provide the range of natural habitats necessary to support populations of existing native plant and animal species. Maintain a transportation system, which provides the minimum permanent road access needed to meet resource management objectives. Decommission unneeded system and non-system roads and user created trails that pose the greatest risk to public safety and/or are contributing to poor watershed conditions.

A combination of commercial timber harvest, and non-commercial timber, wildlife, watershed and prescribed fire treatments and activities are designed to move the project area toward a desired condition. The project area would consist of a variety of stand sizes, shapes, crown closures, and age structures in a pattern that simulates the structural variability of natural community types similar to historical vegetative patterns. Through implementation of the proposed actions identified in the next section, the Shoal Creek project would improve the health of oak and oak/hickory forest, sensitive plant habitats such as dolomite/limestone glades, and closed and open woodlands. Forest Service system roads that are needed for long-term management and public access would be reconstructed and maintained to engineering standard. Some populations of non-native and invasive species that threaten native plant communities would be either eradicated or controlled. Non-system roads that are not needed for long-term access, pose a threat to public safety, and/or are contributing to poor watershed conditions would be decommissioned.

2 Project Location The Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) is located in southern Missouri. It is scattered across the Missouri Ozarks encompassing an area of 285 miles east to west and 100 miles north to south. In addition, one unit is located in central Missouri. The Forest is divided into thirteen units located in nine contiguous blocks managed as six administrative units called Ranger Districts. Overall, Forest direction is provided through the Forest Supervisor‟s Office in Rolla, Missouri.

The Mark Twain is the only national forest in Missouri. There are approximately 1.5 million acres of National Forest System lands, which is approximately 58% of land within the proclamation boundaries of the forest. National Forest System lands are located in the following 29 counties: Barry, Bollinger, Boone, Butler, Callaway, Carter, Christian, Crawford, Dent, Douglas, Howell, Iron, Laclede, Madison, Oregon, Ozark, Phelps, Pulaski, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Genevieve, St. Francis, Shannon, Stone, Taney, Texas, Washington, Wayne, and Wright.

The Shoal Creek Project is located generally north of Viburnum, Missouri on the Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District of the Mark Twain National Forest (MTNF) in Crawford, Iron, and Washington Counties, Missouri. The project area contains approximately 68,202 acres, of which approximately 33,184 acres is National Forest. The legal description of the project area is: Township 35 North, Range 3 West section 24; Township 37 North, Range 3 West, section 1; Township 38 North, Range 3 West, sections 23-26, 36; Township 35 North Range 2 West, sections 1-5, 8-12, 14-18, 19-23, 27-30; Township 36 North, Range 2 West, sections 1-30, 32-36; Township 37 North, Range 2 West, sections 2-17, 20-29, 32-36; Township 38 North, Range 2 West, sections 19-21, 28-33; Township 35 North, Range 1 West, sections 1-8; Township 36 North, Range 1 West, sections 5-8, 13-16; Township 37 North, Range 1 West, sections 29-32; Township 36 North, Range 1 East sections 19 and 30; Fifth Principal Meridian. Background The Weeks Law, an Act of March 1911, enabled the Federal Government to look at suitable forest areas in Missouri for establishing National Forests. Prior to this legislation, all National Forests had been created from the public domain. Only in cooperation with the State of Missouri could the Federal Government begin buying land. Missouri had to pass enabling legislation implementing the provisions of the Weeks law. It took another piece of Legislation – The Clark- McNary Act of June 7, 1924 – before Missouri would pass an enabling act. The Clark-McNary Act enabled the Secretary of Agriculture to work cooperatively with State officials for better forest protection, chiefly in fire control and water resources. It also provided for continuous production of timber.

Missouri was added to Region 9 of the U.S. Forest Service in 1930. During 1934 and 1935, eight separate purchase units, embracing over 3 million acres was established. By the start of World War II, slightly more than 1.25 million acres had been approved for purchase by the National Forests Reservation Commission; and two National Forests, the Clark and the Mark Twain, had been established. The Mark Twain National Forest was combined with Clark National Forest as "The National Forests in Missouri" in 1973 and renamed “Mark Twain National Forest” headquartered in Rolla in 1976. Today, the Mark Twain National Forest is a direct result of the passage of time and active management and contains approximately 1.5 million acres under public ownership.

Since the acquisition of land in this area in the 1930‟s, numerous management activities have occurred. On Forest Service Lands over the past 10 years, harvesting has occurred on a total of

3 1,223 acres in the proposed project area. Silvicultural systems used include clearcutting, seedtree, shelterwood, sanitation, thinning, and uneven aged management improvement cuttings. Follow up site preparation for natural regeneration was done on 708 acres.

Some prescribed burning for open woodland development and maintenance has been conducted in the Shoal Creek Project area in the last ten years(acres approximate): Richter (219 acres), burned in 1992, 1998, and 2002; Brazil (142 acres), burned in 1998, 2002, and 2005; Murry Hill (417 acres), burned in 1998, 2000, 2003 and 2007; Berryman (186 acres), burned in 1998 and 2002.

In 2005, the Mark Twain finalized and revised the Forest Plan that is in existence today. In the past 10+ years, notable drought events, late frosts, and outbreaks of spring defoliators have stressed the trees in the area. Older, suppressed, and otherwise weakened trees become susceptible to additional stress agents such as root rots, insect borers, and fungal cankers. The combination of all these factors contributes to decline and death of trees that could otherwise withstand these factors individually. The combination of stress agents occurring together is termed oak decline when it occurs in the oak forests. Many of the black oak trees in the area originated with the abandonment of the agriculture practices of the early 1900‟s and the lack of burning. Consequently the black oaks are nearing their maximum maturity which is around 80- 90 years old. This advanced age makes black oaks more susceptible to decline than trees not as close to the end of their life cycle, such as the white oak group or shortleaf pine.

Shoal Creek’s Ecological Classification

The Shoal Creek project area lies within the Meramec River Hills subsection of the Ozark Highlands State Natural Division. The Natural Divisions of Missouri is a map which divides the state into major regions based on geologic history, soils, topography, plant and animal distribution, and other natural features. The Natural Divisions of Missouri also provides the initial framework for characterizing the distribution of natural communities discussed below. As described in the Atlas of Missouri Ecoregions (Nigh and Schroeder, 2002), the Meramec River Hills… “subsection consists of the hilly to rugged lands of the Meramec River basin. Steep slopes and narrow valley bottoms prevail everywhere. Soils are very cherty and range from very deep to thin over carbonate and sandstone bedrock. Local karst, losing streams, and large springs are characteristic”. … “Second-growth oak forests now dominate land cover. Large acreages are public land.”

Shoal Creek’s Topography and Geology

The Meramec River Hills subsection and the Shoal Creek project area are underlain by thick, cherty dolomites of the Cambrian Eminence-Potosi Formation and the thick, cherty dolomites and distinctive sandstones of the Ordovician Gasconade and Roubidoux Formations. The dolomites are soluble and create impressive local karst, including some very large springs, extensive caverns, and numerous dry valleys.

Local relief throughout the subsection is moderately high, 200-350 feet. The surface is thoroughly dissected into narrow ridges and sinuous valleys with steep slopes near the streams and broader ridges with moderately steep slopes farther back. Historic iron and lead surface mining also disturbed numerous scattered tracts of land and caused the removal of thousands of acres of timber for fuel for smelting.

Shoal Creek’s Hydrology

4

Stream gradients are moderately steep to steep within the project area. Streams carry great bed loads of sand and gravel; their channels are encumbered with gravel and sandbars and consist of alternating pools and riffles. There is little suspended sediment carried by the streams. Natural streamflow is highest in spring and declines rapidly throughout the summer, except during periods of heavy or sustained rainfall. The Meramec River Hills subsection and the Shoal Creek project area includes many small lakes and ponds that have been constructed to benefit wildlife and stock watering. All of the area is karstic, and many stream channels are dry or losing streams.

Cultural Setting and Transformation of Natural Communities

Missouri‟s historic natural communities provided an abundance of flora and fauna that provided humans with food, shelter, clothing, buildings, and many other products essential to a successful and productive lifestyle. Native Americans influenced their environment in two principle ways. The first transformed entire ecosystems across North America, primarily through their widespread burning of the landscape. The second pattern consisted of local effects resulting from agriculture, hunting, and building of shelters. Field clearing and widespread burning created varied forests and woodlands with greater biological diversity (Nelson, 2005). With the growing network of roads, valuable structures (i.e. fences, homes, barns, utility lines (associated with urban interface)), and the Smokey Bear Campaign (Only you can prevent forest fires) over the last 50+ years, fire has been excluded from the landscape. As a result, the species composition, stocking and biological diversity has changed. While uncontrolled wildfire can severely impact the landscape, fire under the right conditions is beneficial to many of the Mark Twain National Forest‟s natural communities.

Shoal Creek’s Historic and Current Terrestrial Natural Communities

Before Euro-American settlement, this region was mainly timbered with oak and oak-pine forests and woodlands. The highest, smoothest lands were open oak woodland and forest. Bottoms were mainly well forested with mixed hardwood, elm, and riverfront sycamore-cottonwood types. Dolomite glade/woodland complexes were common on steep slopes near the rivers. Historic vegetative cover within the project area was comprised of approximately 24% open woodland, 61% closed woodland, 11% forest, and 4% bottomland forest.

Except where cleared for livestock (private lands), pastures and a few shortleaf pine plantations, the upland communities of oak and oak-pine woodland and forest remain. However, their structure and composition has been altered by management; second growth forests tend to be denser and have a diminished pine component. Current conditions on Forest Service lands within the project area are comprised of approximately 9% unclassified (most likely regeneration areas), 4% Barrens & Scrub, 7% Open Woodland, 28% Closed Woodland, and 52% Forest communities.

5

Table 1-1 represents the range of desired conditions for Shoal Creek natural community types found within the project area. Not all community types shown in the Forest Plan are currently found or were historically present in the project area.

TABLE 1-1 DESIRED CONDITIONS FOR SHOAL CREEK NATURAL COMMUNITY TYPES

Overstory Trees Shrubs Ground Cover Layer Natural % Basal area Percent shrub % Community Types (NCT) canopy (sq. ft.) layer Ground organic layer ground cover Scattered grasses, Prairie < 10 NA <10 90 - 100 sedges and forbs

Scattered grasses, Savanna 20 – 40 40 – 60 50 sedges and forbs; 60 – 30 - 50 80% leaf litter cover

Scattered grasses, Open 40 - 70 40 - 70 20-40 sedges and forbs; 30 – 30 - 40 Woodland 50% leaf litter cover Scattered sparse grasses, sedges and Closed woodland 70 - 90 80 - 100 5-10 20 - 30 forbs; 100% leaf litter cover 50% in 2 acre Moderately deep leaf openings/wind Upland Forest 90 - 100 80 – 100 litter; sparse ground < 30 gaps; < 5 % cover elsewhere

Multi-layered; Deep leaf litter; Bottomland forest 90 - 100 90 - 100 uneven age; few 50 - 70 ephemeral herbs gaps Sparse to dense thatch All glade types <20 NA < 40 of grasses; mineral soil 50 – 80 sometimes exposed Shrubs are all native woody species including regenerating trees less than 10 feet tall generally consisting of multiple stems rising from the ground.

The Percentage of Natural Community Type chart shows a comparison between the historic cover class and the current cover class. Not all cover types shown below are listed because these features are either too small and are thus considered “in stand” features or don‟t exist in the Shoal Creek project area. Historic Natural Community Type map is included for reference.

6

7 Percentage of Natural Community Type

Shoal Creek Project Area 70% Historic Landcover Current Landcover 60%

50%

40%

30% Percent of Percent Area

20%

10%

0% Unclassified Praire Glade Savanna Open Closed Forest Bottomland Woodland Woodland Forest

Data based on MTNF Landform Model developed from USFS ELT handbook and'The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri' Nelson 2005; CDS Canopy Openness is used to group CDS data. Percentage of Natural Community Model is based on the entire project area. Percentage of CDS Communities is based on NFS Lands

Data indicates that the Forest today is not what it was historically.

Based on current Combined Data System (CDS) basal area (BA) openness groupings for the Shoal Creek project, approximately 52% (17,117 acres) of the area is categorized as a Forest community and 28% (9350 acres) is categorized as a Closed Woodland community. Current CDS Age class structure data for the Shoal Creek project shows approximately 63% (21,195 acres) in Mature Seral closed (60-120 years, BA >50) groups (Seral is an intermediate stage in the process of succession). Similar data inquiries of the Historic Land cover data show only 11% in a Forest community, 62% in a Closed Woodland community and 7% in an Open Woodland community.

According to current Percentage of Vegetation Cover Class Chart for the Shoal Creek project, approximately 32% (22,176 acres) of the project area is categorized as red oak, white oak and black oak dominant, 8% (5474 ac.) is categorized as white oak dominant, and 5% (3591 acres) is categorized as shortleaf pine dominant. Similar inquiries of the historic forest type data show 57% being categorized as white oak dominant while 27% was categorized as post oak dominant (see Historic Forest Type map).

8

9 Percentage of Vegetation Cover Class Historic vs Current Condition Shoal Creek Project Area 70% Historic Cover Class CDS Cover Class 60%

50%

40%

30% Percent of Percent Area

20%

10%

0% Water Open Lands Elm Shortleaf Pine Post Oak White Oak Red-White- Cedar-Black Black Oak Jack Oak

Data based on Historic Vegetation from GRC at the University of Missouri Columbia. CDS forest Type is used to group CDS data. Percentage of Historic Landcov is based on the entire project area Percentage of CDS Landcover is based on NFS Lands only

As reported in the Forest Plan FEIS (page 3-23 thru 3-25), the vast majority of the Mark Twain National Forest is over 60 years old and in the young sawtimber class (8-11 inches dbh). The largest forest type group in these age classes is the red oak group comprised of scarlet and black oaks. This large red oak group component may explain the effects we are seeing from the 1998- 2001 droughts and the oak decline that we have experienced on the Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District. Forestwide Standards and Guidelines Standards and guidelines are permissions or limitations that apply to on the ground implementation of management practices. The standards and guidelines in Chapter 2 of the Forest Plan apply to all management practices for the entire Mark Twain National Forest. Where Forestwide standards and guidelines are different from those for a management prescription, the management prescription standard applies. If a specific resource is not addressed in a management prescription, then only the Forestwide Standards and Guidelines apply. Management Area Prescriptions Management prescriptions provide direction to help achieve goals and objectives expressed at the forest level. Management prescriptions define where differing types of opportunities and experiences are available to the public, and where differing management practices may be carried out. They identify proposed and probable practices and actions appropriate to achieve the desired conditions. All management prescriptions provide multiple uses, even though their titles may imply a single use.

10 The Shoal Creek project area lies in Management Prescription 2.1 and Management Prescription 6.3. A brief description from the Mark Twain Forest Plan of the Management Prescription themes, goals, and desired condition is provided below to set the foundation for the Shoal Creek project.

Management Area Prescription 2.1 General Forest, Roaded Natural ROS Theme This prescription emphasizes multiple use resource objectives while allowing for the enhancement of natural communities, improvement of forest health conditions, and roaded natural recreation experiences.

Multiple use resource objectives provide a wide variety of goods, uses, and services including wood products, forage, other products, visual quality, developed and dispersed recreation opportunities, and habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, fish, and other biota.

Management Area Prescription 6.3 Candidate Wild, Scenic, Recreation Rivers Theme This prescription provides management for rivers identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSR) Goals Goals are concise statements that describe the primary purpose or aim for the management prescription. Goals are broad and general in scope with no specific timeframe.

Management Area Prescription 2.1 Goals (Forest Plan, page 3-11) Provide a variety of uses, products, and values by managing within the capability and resource potential appropriate to natural communities and the landscape. Manage terrestrial and aquatic natural communities to enhance and retain their characteristic ecological elements. Provide a wide diversity of habitats to meet the needs of plants, fish, and wildlife species distributed across the Forest.

Management Area Prescription 6.3 Goals (Forest Plan, page 3-41) Manage eligible rivers to maintain or enhance their outstandingly remarkable values, free- flowing character, and potential for recommended classification. Desired Conditions Desired Conditions are characteristics and conditions expected because of the prescribed management. They provide a snapshot of what the forest or management area will look like when goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines are met. Desired conditions can apply to the present or the future and do not consider costs.

Management Area Prescription 2.1 Desired Condition (Forest Plan, page 3-11) Vegetation consists of a variety of stand sizes, shapes, crown closures, and age structures in patterns that simulate the structural variability of natural communities. Areas exhibiting old growth characteristics comprise 8% to 12% of the management area. Regeneration openings comprise 8% to 15% of each management area. From 1% to 5% of these regeneration openings are ≤ 2 acres in size. Natural communities are distributed similar to historical vegetation patterns.

11 Recreational opportunities provide for interaction between users ranging from moderate to high depending on the specific location.

Management Area Prescription 6.3 Desired Condition (Forest Plan, page 3-41) Rivers eligible for National River status are managed under the provisions for National Scenic and Recreation River classification. The unique attributes of the eligible rivers are maintained or enhanced. Facility development is the minimum necessary to reach the objective and designed so as to not preclude the rivers eligibility. Evaluations of projects on, directly affecting or invading the corridors or diminishing the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of these river segments adhere to the guidance of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordination Council. Proposed Action The proposed land management activities proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need, to contribute to a sustainable forest ecosystem, and move toward the desired condition in a timelier manner, include the following, with approximate values:

-Seed tree harvests (2,366 acres) to create early successional habitat through regeneration of oak and pine stands. -Shelterwood harvest (1,871 acres) to provide suitable conditions for open woodland habitat and oak regeneration. -Uneven-aged management (UAM) (2,314 acres) to maintain continuous high forest cover, periodic regeneration of desirable species, and orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter and age classes. -Overstory removal (69 acres) to maintain the health of the stand and not inhibit the new stand‟s growth potential. -Thinning and sanitation cuts (2,157 acres) to remove high risk and low quality trees and improve residual tree survival, health, and growth. -Natural reforestation (6,384 acres) to provide for the re-establishment of tree cover by natural seed fall, sprouting, or suckering of vegetation. -Timber stand improvement to include release (889 acres) to promote growth and survival of the oak component, and to improve composition and stand vigor. -Crop tree release (3,421 acres) to ensure a desired composition and provide healthy conditions in young forested stands. -Prescribed burning (7,199 acres) to maintain woodlands, improve natural regeneration, and reduce hazardous fuels. -Construction of a “bat friendly” cave gate on the entrance of Twenty-three Degree cave to protect a known population of federally endangered bats. -Provide 2,598 feet of streambank stabilization to reduce or eliminate streambank erosion at five areas within the project area. -Provide improved aquatic organism passages at 2 locations (1784 feet), to allow aquatic organisms to move naturally in the stream. -Bottomland Hardwood Establishment (101acres) to return three areas from abandoned cropland to their historic bottomland hardwood vegetation type. -Noxious weed control in Compartment 121, Stand 18, (56 acres) to reduce the threat of sericea lespedeza -Vernal Pond construction (103 ponds) to provide habitat for wildlife that depend upon or prefer vernal ponds. -Glade management, (1 glade) by woody vegetation removal to improve habitat for rare plants

12 -Midstory treatment (2,207 acres) to move stands toward open woodland conditions and to foster herbaceous vegetation in the understory. -Two fens will be fenced to protect them from off-road vehicle and feral hog damage -Designation of old growth habitat (3,577 acres) to provide future habitat for wildlife species dependent on forest stands containing large diameter trees, snags, and fallen logs. -Convert 7 miles of Non-system road to System Road and reconstruct -Reconstruction or maintenance of 27 miles of road to accomplish the actions listed above. -Close 48 miles of non-system road to protect soil, water, and wildlife.

There are currently 24 miles of non-system roads under special use permit. Decision Framework Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions: . Whether the proposed activities and alternatives are responsive to the issues, accomplish Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose and need as defined for the Shoal Creek Project, . Which actions or alternative to approve and implement, . Whether the information in this analysis is sufficient to implement the proposed activities, and . If the activities can be implemented in a timely manner. Public Involvement A scoping letter (dated November 3, 2006) with project description, maps, and project comment form was mailed to the district mailing list, adjacent landowners (229letters) and tribal contacts (39 letters) to invite comments on the project. This project has also appeared in the forest-wide Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA).

Comments received during and after the scoping period were accepted and evaluated in the development of issues and alternatives to the proposed action. The District received 23 responses to the scoping document. All comments received were reviewed and evaluated by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT).

The close of the 30-day comment period was April 9, 2007. There were four letters, e-mails, and personal comments received from individuals, organization, and agencies. Issues The Deciding Official and IDT separated the issues into two groups: key issues and non-key issues. Key issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-key issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” Using comments from the public, other agencies and organizations, the interdisciplinary team developed the following list of issues to address.

13 Issue A: Forest Health/Prescribed Burn: There is a responsibility of the Forest Service and an ongoing effort to preserve and improve the local ecosystems of the area and maintain and improve the biodiversity when possible. The methods used to accomplish this are of some debate.

Some people feel that it is best to let nature take its course, and that doing so will result in a healthy, functioning ecosystem. They are concerned that human use of the site‟s resources (i.e. timber products and constructed roads) is incompatible with healthy ecosystem functioning.

Others feel that active intervention is necessary to heal past abuses and encourage the composition, structure and functions that comprise a healthy woodland ecosystem. These people believe that humans are an integral part of a healthy ecosystem.

Measure: Acres of Rx burn, Acres of Savanna cuts, Acres of Bottomland Hardwood Establishment, Acres of Old Growth, Acres Midstory Treatment

Issue B: Roads:

Roads are a source of concern in the Shoal Creek Project area. They provide access to areas that were previously undisturbed, thus disrupting the natural seclusion of an area that some wish to enjoy without the intrusion of vehicles. Others feel that it is a responsibility of the Forest Service to provide access to all segments of its land.

Currently within the Shoal Creek Project area there are many miles of non-system roads, or user made roads that are used by off road vehicles and four wheelers. These roads are not maintained by the Forest Service and in some areas can destroy Cultural Resource sites, create erosion problems, disturb wildlife, and are hazardous to the users.

Measure: Miles of user created roads converted to system roads; miles of non-system road closures

Issue C: Herbicide Use

There are members of the public who feel that the use of herbicides on National Forest lands is inappropriate. They feel that other methods of control for non-native invasive plants and noxious weeds should be used. There is also the concern of the possible detrimental environmental effects on other resources from the use of herbicides. There is also the view that for certain non-native invasive plants and noxious weeds, herbicides are the most effective means to control spread. There is a need to control the spread of non-native invasive plants and noxious weeds, especially in areas where they are pushing out native plant populations.

Measure: Acres treated with herbicide

The following non-key issues were identified but eliminated from detailed study:

-Shorter harvest schedule and rotation ages was not analyzed because it was covered by prior environmental review in the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.

14 -Long term effects of restoration emphasis was not analyzed because it was covered by prior environmental review in the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Relationship to Other Documents The Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Mark Twain National Forest 9/2005).

The Forest Plan provides a programmatic framework regarding allocation of land and the measures necessary to protect National Forest resources. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources should be provided from these lands now and in the future. The Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) displays the forest-wide effects of activities such as timber harvest, wildlife habitat management, recreation management, and visual resource management. The site-specific effects of those practices are not a part of the Forest Plan FEIS.

This analysis of the Shoal Creek Project Area presents the site-specific effects of implementing the alternatives, including the proposed action, and is tiered to the Forest Plan FEIS.

Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Mark Twain National Forest 2005 Forest Plan (September 16, 2005)

Federal agencies are required to comply with provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This includes a requirement to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on projects, which may affect species federally listed as threatened or endangered (TE). The Biological Opinion determined that implementation of the Forest Plan would not jeopardize the existence of any of the species considered, exempted the Forest Service from a specified amount of incidental take, and described mandatory Reasonable and Prudent Measures along with associated Terms and Conditions to minimize the impacts of incidental take on the MTNF

This analysis is tiered to the following documents:

. The Mark Twain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (9/05). . Mark Twain National Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment (Mark Twain National Forest September 2005). . Programmatic Biological Opinion for the MTNF 2005 Forest Plan (USFWS Sep. 2005)

The following analyses are incorporated by reference:

-The Mark Twain National Forest Monitoring and Evaluation Reports from FY 1996 through FY 2005. -Mark Twain National Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment (Mark Twain National Forest, June 2005). -Programmatic Biological Opinion for the MTNF 2005 Forest Plan (USFWS Sep. 2005)

Site-Specific Environmental Analyses Adjacent to the project area

15 Oak Decline and Forest Health Project (4/26/2002), 192,638 acres

Delbridge HFI (11/9/2004), 4175 acres

Other Documents

Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment (December 1999)

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Shoal Creek Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (i.e., helicopter logging versus the use of skid trails) and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative (i.e., the amount of erosion caused by helicopter logging versus skidding). Alternatives Considered in Detail The Forest Service developed three alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public and internal scoping.

Alternative 1 This no-action alternative provides a baseline (reference point) against which to describe the environmental effects of the action alternatives. This is a viable alternative and responds to the concerns of those who want no activities to take place. The option for future management in this area would not be foreclosed.

If Alternative 1 is selected, current and on-going management activities would continue, but no new management activities would be initiated. In addition, no new Old Growth would be designated, given that no project activities would be implemented. Since there is no commercial activity, roads would not be reconstructed to access and facilitate harvest. Roads would continue to receive maintenance as needed.

Fire suppression would continue in the Shoal Creek Project Area.

Alternative 2 This proposed action alternative was developed to improve forest and watershed health, and protect a wide diversity of habitats that move the Shoal Creek project area towards the desired condition as outlined in the 2005 Forest Plan. These proposed actions are within the 2005 Forest Plan standards and guides and are compliant with the Programmatic Biological Opinion and the Forest Plan. Several management actions may occur over the same acres. In addition, some of the proposed actions may meet more than one need. Proposed land management activities are

16 proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose and need, contribute to a sustainable forest ecosystem. Activities to protect biological communities or geological sites that preserve and perpetuate the natural character, diversity, and ecological processes of Missouri‟s native landscapes would be conducted.

This alternative also responds to the need to continue wildlife habitat maintenance and improvement, recreation management, examination of road system needs, and associated or connected actions. This alternative includes burning and thinning to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire across the project area by reducing the fuel load, and disrupting the continuity of fuel in stands. In this alternative, “catastrophic” is defined as substantial damage from wildfire to existing vegetation and developments. Wildfire is considered an unplanned fire that burns organic soil, grasses and forbs, shrubs, trees, and associated fuels in the natural or modified state.

This alternative will implement a portion of the National Fire Plan (NFP) developed to identify and list priority areas that would benefit from hazardous fuel reduction treatments. This list includes 84 communities within Missouri.

Congress directed the USDOI and USDA to work with governors to develop a national 10-year Comprehensive Strategy to deal with wildland fire and hazardous fuels situation. This strategy identified prioritizing hazardous fuels reduction where the negative impacts of wildland fire are the greatest as one of its major goals. The strategy acknowledges the importance of fire suppression, but indicates the need for a shift in fire management emphasis from a reactive approach to a proactive approach. The focus is on hazardous fuels reduction, integrated vegetation management, and fire-fighting strategies (USDOI & USDA 2001).

This alternative uses a mix of commercial harvest, non-commercial thinning, reforestation treatments, and prescribed burning to emphasize desirable oak species and minimize the adverse effects of insects and disease. A substantial number of acres are treated with commercial harvest. Firewood gatherers may be allowed in selected areas after harvesting operations are completed.

This alternative uses prescribed burning for various primary objectives, including site preparation for seedling development, development of open woodlands with native groundcovers such as sedges and forbs, and for reduction of hazardous fuels. These prescribed burning treatments would also improve wildlife habitat, for the short term, and in some cases, i.e. open woodlands, for the long term.

Reforestation activities are proposed to allow suitable light conditions to promote the development of desired tree seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, and shrubs. The amounts of treatment depend on the amount of even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration proposed. Timber stand improvement activities are proposed to guide stand development and to regulate species composition to those best suited for the site. Release potentially increases species richness on a site and is expected to improve tree species composition and stand vigor in the long term.

In addition, this alternative will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire across the project area by reducing the fuel load and disrupting the continuity of fuel in stands identified as dense pine woodlands. This alternative responds to this need by using combinations of thinning and prescribed burning to: interrupt the fuel continuity, increase crown spacing, or both; reduce the available long-term fuel loads; and maintain stand health to delay tree mortality induced by crowding.

17 Road reconstruction, temporary roads and fire lines would be needed to access and facilitate treatments.

This alternative would move the existing condition of the project area towards the desired condition as outlined in the Forest Plan.

Table 2-1 - Summary of activities proposed for Alternative 2 Approximate Area Proposed Activity Affected Commercial timber harvest - seedtree method 2,366 acres Commercial timber harvest - shelterwood method 1,871 acres Commercial timber harvest - uneven-aged management method 2,314 acres Commercial timber harvest - overstory removal method 69 acres

Commercial timber harvest - thinning methods 982 acres Commercial timber harvest - sanitation method 1,175 acres Commercial timber harvest - savannah method 1,363 acres Site prep of stands after timber harvest 6,384 acres Release of pine in regeneration 889 acres

Crop tree release of pine & hardwood saplings 3,386 acres related Activities

- Temporary/Skid Trail Development Re-construction 48 miles New construction 4 miles

Timber Skid trail construction 28 miles Road Activities Maintenance/Re-construction 26.5 miles Decommissioning (closure) 48 miles Convert from non-system to system road 7.3 miles Prescribed burning 7,199 acres Miles of new line proposed (dozer/handline) 26 miles

Miles of existing line to be used (roads/streams) 20 miles Midstory Removal 2,207 acres Acres of herbicide application 1 acre Cave Gate Installation 1 site Bottomland Hardwood Planting 101 acres Acres of herbicide application 25 acres Streambank stabilization 2,598 ft of stream Aquatic organism passage improvement 1,784 feet of road

Glade enhancement 1 acre timber related Activities

- Noxious weed control 56 acres Acres of herbicide application 41 acres Non Vernal Pool Establishment 103 pools Fen protection 2 fens Old growth designation 3,577 acres

Table 2-2 shows the needs and opportunities identified in the Forest Plan that would be addressed by Alternative 2.

Table 2-2 – Needs and Opportunities - Alternative 2. Goal & Forest Wide Goals & Alternative 2 - Needs & Opportunities in the Objective Objectives Project Area. (paraphrased)

18 Goal 1; Promote Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1.1 – Terrestrial Maintain, restore or Create open woodland conditions using a combination of Natural enhance site-appropriate prescribed burning, woodland-type cuts, and stump Communities natural communities spraying to control woody sprouts in Compartments 75, 100, 136, 117, 116, 119. Encourage white oak, post oak, and species that were historically dominant. Create more open forest canopies than currently exist using various timber treatments and controlled burning. 1.2 – Non-Native Control existing noxious Use a combination of herbicide and prescribed burning to Invasive Species & non-native invasive reduce noxious and non-native plants in old fields and species abandoned openings. 1.3 – Soils, Establish & maintain Identify RMZ & WPZ during stand layout to protect Watersheds, and riparian corridors along existing water quality. Water Quality streams (RMZ & WPZ). 1.3 – Soils, Protect the water quality Clean-up identified dump sites to protect existing water Watershed, and and integrity of the quality. Water Quality watershed on Forest lands 1.3 – Soils, Protect the water quality Restore natural streamflow and aquatic organism passage Watershed, and and integrity of the by replacing culvert barriers at 2 sites Water Quality watershed on Forest lands 1.3 – Soils, Minimize erosion & Follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines Watersheds, and compaction & protect, intended for soil and water protection. Stabilize eroding Water Quality improve water quality streambanks at 5 sites 1.3a – Soils, Establish stable stream Stabilize streambanks at Berryman, Red Bluff, Watersheds, and reaches Timberlane, Murry Hill, and Hazel Creek. Plant Water Quality hardwood seedlings to stabilize NF lands adjacent perennial streams. Hardwood species may include sycamore, silver maple, black walnut, green ash, hackberry, northern redoak, hazelnut and possibly American elm. Site prep area to be planted with herbicide. 1.3b – Soils, Enhance bottomland Plant hardwood seedlings to stabilize NF lands adjacent Watersheds, and hardwood forest perennial streams. Hardwood species may include Water Quality sycamore, silver maple, black walnut, green ash, hackberry, northern redoak, hazelnut and possibly American elm. TSI young stands along perennial stream; selecting desired hardwood species & eliminate honey locust. 1.3c – Soils, Increase Large Woody Where possible, identify stands along perennial streams Watersheds, and Debris in streams as old growth. Water Quality 1.4 – Wildlife and Provide range of wildlife Propose a combination of timber treatments that create Aquatic Habitat habitats & natural early seral vegetation; encourage native plant communities development; implement controlled burns; create woodland and old growth habitats; restore glade communities; protect fen habitats; control NNIS; stabilize streambanks; improve aquatic organism passage. 1.4 – Wildlife and Provide specialized See comments above. Restore and protect fens located in Aquatic Habitat habitats (snags, den Compartments 121 & 36. Put a gate on cave located in trees, down woody Compartment 4 to protect endangered bats. Restore debris, temp pools, seeps, glades in Compartments 37. springs) which function as part of the larger

19 landscape in the amount commensurate with the natural community. 1.4 – Wildlife and Maintain fish Review sites listed in 1.3a to determine if a revetment is Aquatic Habitat populations through needed to stabilize the stream bank. Stabilizing the habitat protection and stream bank will reduce the amount of sediment entering enhancement and by the stream course and will increase “fry” survival rates. protecting water quality Improve aquatic organism passage by replacing culverts and quantity on Stringtown Branch in Compartment 121 and Courtois Creek in Compartment 118. 1.4a – Wildlife Improve open woodland See comments in 1.1 above. Restore glades in and Aquatic conditions to provide Compartments 37. Habitat habitat for summer tanager, bobwhite, red bat and Bachman’s sparrow 1.4b – Wildlife Increase proportion of Use periodic controlled burning in areas proposed for and Aquatic native grasses to exotic savannah/woodland development (Compartments 75, Habitat cool season grasses 100, 136, 117, 116, and 119). Discourage woody stems and encourage native grasses by stump-spraying during savannah cuts. 1.4c – Wildlife Maintain forest cover Designate approximately 3,500 acres of old growth areas, and Aquatic over 85% of MTNF for particularly along slopes above perennial streams. Habitat worm-eating warbler Maintain canopy cover on majority of forest in project area. 1.4d – Wildlife Treat glades to reduce Use controlled burning and remove red cedars on glade in and Aquatic woody vegetation the project area. Habitat Goal 2: Provide a Variety of Uses, Values, Products, and Services 2.1 – Public Provide variety of uses & Provide jobs in the area thru timber harvesting and Values benefits that contribute reforestation and TSI contract work. Firewood cutting to the social & economic opportunities. well-being of local communities 2.2 – Rx Fire, Emulate historic fire Rx Fire will be beneficial to development of historic Fuels, and regimes community types; it will facilitate movement from Fire Wildland Fire Regime Condition Class 3 & 2 toward Fire Regime Mgt Condition Class 1. 2.2 – Rx Fire, Reduce fuels/wildfire Rx Fire will reduce fuels across the landscape including Fuels, and risks around Forest lands near homes and improvements; reducing Wildland Fire communities overall risk and intensity effects of potential wildfire. Mgt 2.2a - Rx Fire, Burn up to 20% of total Areas of prescribed fire units which were historically Fuels, and burn acres from May Open Woodlands may be burned during the late Spring Wildland Fire through September and early Summer months according to parameters set Mgt forth in the prescribed fire plan. 2.2a – Rx Fire, Burn up to 40% of total Any area of a prescribed fire unit may be burned from Fuels, and burn acres from September through December according to parameters set Wildland Fire September thru forth in the prescribed fire plan. Mgt December 2.3 – Utilize a transportation Maintain or reconstruct roads in order to provide a safe Transportation system that provides the and efficient transportation system. System minimum permanent road access needed to meet resource objectives

20 2.3 – Provide off-road vehicle Motorized access in compliance with Missouri State law Transportation access that minimizes will be provided (i.e. Permitted ATVs may be driven on System resource impacts. open system roads) 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Concentrate on removing high risk trees in the red oak Management restore degraded group and thinning overstocked stands. habitats 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to reduce Thinning and biomass removal in overstocked stands. Management fuels 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Use a variety of silvicultural methods to improve the age Management restore natural class distribution and increase the % of open woodland. communities 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Concentrate on removing high risk trees in the red oak Management respond to disturbance group that are most susceptible to red oak borer events (insects) infestation. 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Approximately 25 MMBF of oak and pine sawtimber will Management provide products to be available for harvest by the local timber industry. support local industries 2.8 – Recreation Provide diversity of Continued use of the area for dispersed recreation uses Opportunities recreational such as hunting and increased use in gathering forest opportunities products, such as firewood and blackberries. 2.10 – Heritage Preserve & inventory for 95 archaeology sites have been identified within project Resources heritage resource sites area (eligibility assessments pending).

Alternative 3 This alternative responds to the issue of improving forest health and vigor in the project area with a commercial harvest emphasis. Fen protection, glade management, vernal pond construction, transportation, streambank stabilization, aquatic organism passages, cave gate construction, and old growth designation is the same as in Alternative 2. No mid-story treatment or savannah cuts, prescribed burning, or herbicide use are included in this alternative. Bottomland hardwood establishment is the same as Alternative 2 except no herbicide use or burning would be done. Sites would be mowed to prepare them for planting and to release from competition; planting would be the same as Alternative 2.

Table 2-3 - Summary of activities proposed for Alternative 3 Approximate Area Proposed Activity Affected Commercial timber harvest - seedtree method 2,366 acres Commercial timber harvest - shelterwood method 1,871 acres

Commercial timber harvest - uneven-aged management method 2,314 acres Commercial timber harvest - overstory removal method 69 acres Commercial timber harvest - thinning methods 982 acres Commercial timber harvest - sanitation method 1,175 acres Commercial timber harvest - savannah method NONE

Site prep of stands after timber harvest 6,384 acres related Activities

- Release of pine in regeneration 889 acres Crop tree release of pine & hardwood saplings 3,386 acres Temporary/Skid Trail Development

Timber Re-construction 48 miles New construction 4 miles Skid trail construction 28 miles

21 Road Activities Maintenance/Re-construction 26.5 miles Decommissioning (closure) 48 miles Convert from non-system to system road 7.3 miles

Prescribed burning NONE Midstory Removal NONE Cave Gate Installation 1 site Bottomland Hardwood Planting 101 acres (NO HERBICIDE) Streambank stabilization 2,598 ft of stream Aquatic organism passage improvement 1,784 feet of road Glade enhancement 1 acre

Noxious weed control NONE timber related Activities

- Vernal Pool Establishment 103 pools Fen protection 2 fens Non Old growth designation 3,577 acres

Table 2-4 shows the needs and opportunities identified in the Forest Plan that would be addressed by Alternative 3.

Table 2-4 – Needs and Opportunities – Alternative 3 Goal & Forest Wide Goals & Alternative 3 - Needs & Opportunities in the Objective Objectives Project Area. (paraphrased) Goal 1; Promote Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 1.3 – Soils, Establish & maintain Identify RMZ & WPZ during stand layout to protect Watersheds, and riparian corridors along existing water quality. Water Quality streams (RMZ & WPZ). 1.3 – Soils, Protect the water quality Clean-up identified dump sites to protect existing water Watershed, and and integrity of the quality. Water Quality watershed on Forest lands 1.3 – Soils, Protect the water quality Restore natural streamflow and aquatic organism passage Watershed, and and integrity of the by replacing culvert barriers at 2 sites. Water Quality watershed on Forest lands 1.3 – Soils, Minimize erosion & Follow BMPs and Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines Watersheds, and compaction & protect, intended for soil and water protection. Stabilize eroding Water Quality improve water quality streambanks at 5 sites. 1.3a – Soils, Establish stable stream Stabilize streambanks at Berryman, Red Bluff, Watersheds, and reaches Timberlane, Murry Hill, and Hazel Creek. Plant Water Quality hardwood seedlings to stabilize NF lands adjacent perennial streams. Hardwood species may include sycamore, silver maple, black walnut, green ash, hackberry, northern redoak, hazelnut and possibly American elm. Site prep area to be planted by mowing. 1.3b – Soils, Enhance bottomland Plant hardwood seedlings to stabilize NF lands adjacent Watersheds, and hardwood forest perennial streams. Hardwood species may include Water Quality sycamore, silver maple, black walnut, green ash, hackberry, northern redoak, hazelnut and possibly American elm. TSI young stands along perennial stream; selecting desired hardwood species & eliminate honey locust.

22 1.3c – Soils, Increase Large Woody Where possible, identify stands along perennial streams Watersheds, and Debris in streams as old growth. Water Quality 1.4 – Wildlife and Provide range of wildlife Propose a combination of timber treatments that create Aquatic Habitat habitats & natural early seral vegetation; encourage native plant communities development; create woodland and old growth habitats; restore glade communities; protect fen habitats; control NNIS; stabilize streambanks; improve aquatic organism passage. 1.4 – Wildlife and Provide specialized See comments above. Restore and protect fens located in Aquatic Habitat habitats (snags, den Compartments 121 & 36. Put a gate on cave located in trees, down woody Compartment 4 to protect endangered bats. Restore glade debris, temp pools, seeps, in Compartment 37. springs) which function as part of the larger landscape in the amount commensurate with the natural community. 1.4 – Wildlife and Maintain fish Review sites listed in 1.3a to determine if a revetment is Aquatic Habitat populations through needed to stabilize the stream bank. Stabilizing the habitat protection and stream bank will reduce the amount of sediment entering enhancement and by the stream course and will increase “fry” survival rates. protecting water quality Improve aquatic organism passage by replacing culverts and quantity on Stringtown Branch in Compartment 121 and Courtois Creek in Compartment 118. 1.4a – Wildlife Improve open woodland See comments in 1.1 above. Restore glade in and Aquatic conditions to provide Compartment 37. Habitat habitat for summer tanager, bobwhite, red bat and Bachman’s sparrow 1.4c – Wildlife Maintain forest cover Designate approximately 3,500 acres of old growth areas, and Aquatic over 85% of MTNF for particularly along slopes above perennial streams. Habitat worm-eating warbler Maintain canopy cover on majority of forest in project area. Goal 2: Provide a Variety of Uses, Values, Products, and Services 2.1 – Public Provide variety of uses & Provide jobs in the area thru timber harvesting and Values benefits that contribute reforestation and TSI contract work. Firewood cutting to the social & economic opportunities. well-being of local communities 2.3 – Utilize a transportation Maintain or reconstruct roads in order to provide a safe Transportation system that provides the and efficient transportation system. System minimum permanent road access needed to meet resource objectives 2.3 – Provide off-road vehicle Motorized access in compliance with Missouri State law Transportation access that minimizes will be provided (i.e. Permitted ATVs may be driven on System resource impacts. open system roads) 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Concentrate on removing high risk trees in the red oak Management restore degraded group and thinning overstocked stands. habitats 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to reduce Thinning and biomass removal in overstocked stands. Management fuels 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Use a variety of silvicultural methods to improve the age

23 Management restore natural class distribution and increase the % of open woodland. communities 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Concentrate on removing high risk trees in the red oak Management respond to disturbance group that are most susceptible to red oak borer events (insects) infestation. 2.4 – Timber Use timber mgt to Approximately 23.5 MMBF of oak and pine sawtimber Management provide products to will be available for harvest by the local timber industry. support local industries 2.8 – Recreation Provide diversity of Continued use of the area for dispersed recreation uses Opportunities recreational such as hunting and increased use in gathering forest opportunities products, such as firewood and blackberries. 2.10 – Heritage Preserve & inventory for 95 archaeology sites have been identified within project Resources heritage resource sites area (eligibility assessments pending).

Table 2-3 – Proposed Road Actions Alt. 2 &3 Proposed Road Actions (Est. Miles) Road Maintenance: 2000 (0.4 mi), 2011 (2.1 mi), 2215 (2.3 mi), 2252 (0.1 mi), 2295 (1.2 mi), 2296 (0.8 mi), 2319 (0.7 mi), 2382 (0.9 mi), 2392 (0.4 mi), 2404 (1.0 mi), 2405 (1.1 mi), 2632 (0.5 mi), 2637 (0.6 18.6 miles mi), 2687 (1.2 mi), 2687A (0.4 mi), 2692 (1.9 mi), 2711 (0.5 mi), 2816 (1.1 mi), 2878 (0.9 mi), 2917 (0.5 mi). Road Reconstruction: 2204 (1.2 mi), 2382 (1.0 mi), 2404A (0.2 mi), 2410 (0.3 mi), 2410A (0.2 mi), 2511 (0.2 mi), 2678 (0.7 mi), 2681 (0.9 7.8 miles mi), 2710 (0.6 mi), 2823 (1.0 mi), 2913 (1.2 mi), 2917 (0.3 mi). Convert Non-system Road to System Road and Reconstruct – 2069 (0.6 mi), 2070 (1.3 mi), 2071 (0.6 mi), 2072 (0.9 mi), 2512 (1.2 mi), 2538 7.3 miles (0.7 mi), 2539 (0.2 mi), 2690 (0.8 mi), 2914 (1.0 mi). Decommission non-system roads 48 miles Manage non-system roads under special use permits 23.6 miles

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration.

An alternative similar to alternative 2 but that did not carry management activities to the edge of the property line of adjacent landowners was considered. This alternative was dropped because this concern will be addressed by feathering the edges of units where necessary during implementation.

24 An alternative that would allow a shorter harvest rotation schedule was considered but dropped because rotation ages are prescribed in the Forest Plan and an accelerated harvest schedule could flood the market for timber products and require an unsustainable level of funding to prepare the timber sales.

An alternative that would use only Heated Sugar Water for vegetation control was considered but dropped. Heated Sugar Water is considered in Alternative 2 along with other vegetative control measures to achieve the desired vegetation management.

A No Commercial Logging alternative was considered but was dropped because this alternative was analyzed during Forest Plan development. That analysis indicates that the role of commodity-based natural resource management has a place in supporting local economies, as well as making a contribution to state and national economies through taxes of various types Mitigation Common to Action Alternatives The following are mitigation measures in addition to the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Mitigation measures identified with a “T” pertain to timber harvesting and an “M” refers to mechanical treatments, “P” refers to pond construction/maintenance, “G” refers to glade establishment, “D” refers to dump removal, “R” refers to roads, and “F” pertain to fire.

Mitigation Measures - Heritage Resources (CR): CR1 (F)

1. Firelines (a) Those archaeological sites located along existing woods roads that may be used as fire lines will be protected by hand-clearing those sections of the road/fireline that crosses the sites. Although these roads are generally clear of combustible debris using a small dozer, those sections of roads crossing archaeological sites will be cleared using leaf blowers and leaf rakes. There will be no removal of soil or disturbance below the ground surface during fireline preparation.

(b) Archaeological sites and features that may be located along proposed routes of dozer- constructed firelines, where firelines do not now exist, will be avoided by fireline construction by routing firelines around archaeological sites. Sites that lie along previously constructed dozer lines from past burns will be protected during future burns by hand clearing those sections of line that cross the sites, rather than re-clearing the lines using heavy equipment.

2. Burn Unit Interior (a) Combustible elements at potentially eligible sites in the burn unit interiors will be protected from damage during the burns by removing fuels from the feature vicinity, and, where necessary, by burning out an area around the feature prior to igniting the main burns. Burning out is accomplished by constructing a set of two hand lines, approximately 30 to 50 ft. apart, around the feature and by then burning the area between the two lines while the burn is carefully monitored. A fuel-free zone is thereby created around the combustible elements. Any combustible features that might be located in a burn unit will also be fully documented with photographs and field

25 drawings prior to the burn. For burns in which this mitigation measure is in effect, a Heritage Resources Specialist will be consulted for the pre-burn briefings, and Forest Service personnel will accompany any non-Forest Service crews that may participate in the burn.

(b) Those sites containing above ground, non-combustible, cultural features and exposed artifacts will be protected by removing, by hand, any concentrations of fuels that might have built up on the sites and features. Where such fuel concentrations are not present, no mitigation is required.

(c) No mitigation measures are proposed for any sites in the burn interior that do not contain combustible elements or other above ground features [as described in (a) and (b) above], because it is not expected that the burns proposed for the project area will harm these sites.

3. Post-Burn Monitoring Post-burn monitoring will be conducted at those sites that fall under 2(a) mitigation measures, as well as a sample of others, in order to assess the actual effects of the burns on the sites against the expected effects and to check for indirect effects at the sites following the burn. SHPO consultation will be carried out with respect to mitigation for any sites that suffer unexpected damage during the burn, or that are suffering damage from indirect effects following the burn.

CR2 (R) Where Forest Service Roads scheduled for maintenance cross archaeological sites, road work will be confined to the existing roadway and ditches.

CR3 (T, M, R, F) If activities take place outside those areas not already included in cultural resource surveys, prior to project implementation, the cultural resource surveys will be completed. Appropriate measures (specifically Site Avoidance and CR1) will be applied prior to project implementation to protect any archaeological sites that may be located in these areas. Consultation with the Missouri SHPO will be completed prior to project implementation.

CR4 (T, M, P, D, G, R, F) If it is not feasible to completely avoid an archaeological site (as per direction of the 2005 Forest Plan, Chapter 2, Pages 26-27) and if mitigation measures outlined in CR1 and CR2 are not applicable, then the following steps will be taken:

1 In consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the site(s) will be evaluated against National Register of Historic Places significance criteria (36 CFR 60.6) to determine if the site is eligible for, or appears to be eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

2 In consultation with the Missouri SHPO, mitigation measures will be developed which will lessen, or minimize, the adverse effects on the site(s), so that a finding of No Adverse Effect results.

26 3 The agreed-upon mitigation measures will be implemented prior to initiation of project activities that have the potential to affect the site(s).

CR5 (T, M, P, D, G, R, F) Although the cultural resource surveys completed for this project are designed to locate all archaeological sites that might be eligible for the National Register, such sites may go undetected for a variety of reasons. Pursuant to the provisions found in 36 CFR 800.13, should any previously unidentified cultural resources be discovered during project implementation, activities that may be affecting that resource will be halted immediately. The resource will be evaluated by a professional archaeologist, and consultation will be initiated with the Missouri SHPO, as well as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if required, to determine appropriate actions for protecting the resource and for mitigating any adverse effects on the resource. Project activities will not be resumed until the resource is adequately protected and until agreed-upon mitigation measures are implemented with SHPO approval.

Mitigation Measures - Air Quality (A): A1 (F) Prescribed burning would be completed during weather conditions that facilitate smoke dispersal. The public would be informed of the planned burning days and the Forest Service employees would control traffic, if needed, along Forest Roads. Minimum smoke dispersal parameters for prescribed burning or as follows: mixing height at least 500m, transport wind speed at least 6.7 mph, atmospheric stability must be such to encourage lift/dispersal(generally this is a slightly unstable air mass).

Mitigation Measures – Soil and Water (SW): SW1 (T&M) Temporary road and main skid trails would be located on the ground by Forest Service personnel prior to harvest operations.

SW2 (T) When logging is complete additional slash would be pulled onto skid trails.

SW3 (F&T) Prescribed burn units should have as little mechanical disturbance to the soil before and just after burning as possible.

SW4 (T&M) Reconstructed and temporary road constructions, which have potential to cause severe erosion, would have additional water protection mitigations as needed. Slash filter would be placed uphill from any drainage and used as filter at the outside of the water-bar nearest the drainage. If the crossing location is soft, it would be reinforced with aggregate.

SW5 (T, M, P, G, &F) Stands with soils that have perched water tables would have little to no mechanical disturbance to wet soil. Refer to Soil Section for stands that have high erosion potential.

Mitigation Measures - Vegetation (V): V1 (F)

27 Prescribed burn plans will incorporate burning conditions that best meet specific management area objectives to reduce fuel loads, stimulate forest regeneration, have minimal impact on future timber resources, meet visual standards, and protect sensitive species. Time of year prescribed burns are conducted will be determined based upon the site-specific objectives and follow guidance in the 5100 Fire Management section of the Forest Plan.

V2 (T, M, R &F) A protection zone will be designated around glades. This zone will surround the glade itself, as well as any adjacent grassy areas, rock ledges, exposed bedrock, and/or rock outcrops. Trees, other than post oak and chinquapin oak, may be removed from within this zone, but may only be removed by winching or dragging. No heavy equipment may be used within this zone unless pre-approved by a biologist/ecologist. Removal of small diameter trees, especially red cedar, is encouraged within this zone. Comparison of Alternatives ______

Table 2-4. Activity Comparison Table

Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt. 3

Silvicultural Method Acres Acres Acres Seed Tree 0 2366 2366 Shelterwood 0 1871 1871 Uneven Aged 0 2314 2314 Sanitation/Thin 0 2157 2157 Over-story Removal 0 69 69 Savanna Cuts 0 1363 0

Reforestation Acres Acres Acres Natural Reforestation 0 6384 6384

Timber Stand Improvement Acres Acres Acres Crop Tree Release 0 3421 3421 Release 0 889 889

Prescribed Fire Acres Acres Acres 0 7199 0

Road Reconstruction Miles Miles Miles 0 7.8 7.8

Streambank Stabilization Feet Feet Feet 0 2598 2598

Aquatic Organism Passage # # # 0 2 2

28

Bottomland Hardwood Establishment Acres Acres Acres With herbicide & burning 0 101 0 Without herbicide & burning 0 0 101

Noxious Weed Control Acres Acres Acres 0 56 0

Midstory Treatment Acres Acres Acres 0 2207 0

Old Growth Designation Acres Acres Acres 0 3577 3577

Cave Gate Construction # # # 0 1 1

Vernal Pool Establishment # # # 0 103 103

Glade Management # # # 0 1 1

Table 2-5. Issue Comparison Table

Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt. 3

Issue A: Forest Health/Prescribed burn Acres Acres Acres Measure #1: acres of Rx burn 0 7199 0 Measure #2: acres of savanna cuts 0 2207 0 Measure #3: acres of bottomland hardwood establishment 0 101 101 Measure #4: acres old growth 0 3577 3577 Measure #5: acres Midstory treatment 0 2207 0

Issue B: Roads Miles Miles Miles Measure #1: user created roads converted to system roads 0 7.3 7.3 Measure #2: miles non-system roads closed 0 48 48

29

Issue C: Acres Acres Acres Herbicide Use Measure: acres to be treated 67 0

This table provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the table is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 2-6. Summary of Effects by Alternative RESOURCE ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 Soils Possible negative Adherence to FP S&Gs and Adherence to FP S&Gs and site-specific effects from wildland site-specific mitigation mitigation measures would result in no fires and no road measures would result in no appreciable changes to inherent long- reconstruction. appreciable changes to term productivity of the land. Lower inherent long-term disturbance than Alt. 2 productivity of the land. Water Potential negative Adherence to FP S&Gs and Potential negative effects from wild fires effects from wild fires. site-specific mitigation would increase soil erosion and allow Possible negative measures would result in no sediment to enter streams which could effects of 48 miles of negative changes to negatively alter aquatic biota. open, non system inherent long-term water Otherwise, adherence to FP S&Gs and roads. Existing quality and quantity. Water site-specific mitigation measures would negative effects of quality would be maintained result in no negative changes to eroding stream banks. or improved. Desired inherent long-term water quality and All these would increase aquatic ecosystem changes quantity. Water quality would be soil erosion and allow would take place. maintained or improved. Desired sediment to enter aquatic ecosystem changes would take streams which could place. negatively alter aquatic biota. Dumps sites have a negative effect on water quality. Existing culverts restrict & impede water flow and prevent aquatic organism passage. Air Possible negative Adherence to FP S&Gs and Adherence to FP S&Gs and site-specific effects from wildland site-specific mitigation mitigations measures would result in no fires. measures would result in no appreciable changes to inherent long- appreciable changes to term or short-term air quality. inherent long-term or short- term air quality. Fire Fire Mgmt Establishment of Desired ecosystem changes Establishment of desired habitats and desired habitats and would take place, along with ecosystems would be delayed. ecosystems would be site preparation burns . delayed. resulting in moving toward desired future conditions of wildlife habitats. Fuel Loading Increased fuel loading, Reduction of fuel loading Increased fuel loading, potential for potential for larger would decrease the potential larger wildland fires. wildland fires. for large wildland fire within stands treated. Vegetation Composition & Increase of shade Provides the most diverse Provides a diverse under-story and Structure intolerant species in the under-story and greatest vertical structure, but not as much as Alt under-story would vertical structure. Early 2. Early successional habitat created.

30 inhibit growth of successional habitat desirable seedlings. created.

Non-Native Proposes no direct Proposes direct control a Proposes no direct control of any NNIS Invasive control of any NNIS NNIS plant population in plant populations. Species plant populations. Compartment 121. May Not likely to indirectly reduce any NNIS (NNIS) Not likely to reduce any indirectly reduce some NNIS populations. NNIS populations. plant populations by prescribed burning. Economics Timber Sale $0 $3,802,500 $3,291,300 Revenue Total Costs $0 $3,031,823 $2,273,028

Visuals Less visual variety and Adherence to FP S&Gs and Adherence to FP S&Gs and site-specific less pleasing views due site-specific mitigation mitigation measures would result in no measures would result in no negative changes and an increase in to increase of shade negative changes and visual variety intolerant species in the increase in visual variety under-story. Recreation Safety concerns In the short-term some . In the short-term some areas may not increase for forest users areas may not be available be available for dispersed recreation from hazard trees and for dispersed recreation due due to logging operations or prescribed wildland fires. to logging operations or fires. In the long-term many recreation prescribed fires. In the long- opportunities could be improved as term many recreation forest diversity increases opportunities could be improved as forest diversity increases. Roads Decreasing public and Improved public and Improved public and administrative administrative access administrative access. access. Reduced negative impacts to due to roads not being Reduced negative impacts soil and water due to road reconstructed. Negative impacts to soil to soil and water due to road reconstruction and decommissioning. and water where reconstruction and unneeded roads aren't decommissioning. decommissioned Wildlife Early Negative. Beneficial. Same as Alternative 2. Successional Would not increase this Would increase this habitat Habitat habitat component component within the project within the project area. area by approximately 11.4%. Old Growth Beneficial. Short-term negative but Same as Alternative 2. All of the forest stands long-term beneficial. Long in the project area term would increase this would become older habitat component in the over the next 10 years, project area by but because no old approximately 11.4%. growth would be officially designated, there is no long-term protection for any of these stands. Open Negative. Beneficial. Prescribed Negative; would not maintain existing Woodlands Existing open woodland burning, savannah cuts & woodlands nor create new ones. habitats would become midstory treatment would degraded due to lack of encourage open woodland burning and no new habitat. open woodlands would be created. Glades Negative. Beneficial. Not as beneficial as Alternative 2

31 No glade enhancement Felling of cedars and because no prescribed burning would activities are proposed; proposed burning would occur. The proposed cutting of cedars glades would remain enhance this habitat. in a glade would be beneficial. degraded due to lack of burning. Groundwater Negative. No activities Beneficial. Not as beneficial as Alternative 2 Seepage to protect fens (fen Prescribed burning activities because no burning is proposed but Communities fencing) are proposed. may enhance these would fence fens. communities. Fen fencing would protect fens. Native Negative. No activities Prescribed burning and No improvement in establishing native grasslands & that would promote timber treatments may grasslands. Would reduce artificial Artificial native grasslands are encourage native grasses. openlands on 101 acres where Openlands proposed. Artificial Would reduce artificial bottomland hardwood planting is openlands would openlands on 101 acres proposed. gradually be lost due to where bottomland hardwood lack of maintenance. planting is proposed. MIS Would not improve Would improve habitat for Not expected to improve habitat for habitat for Bachman’s Bachman’s sparrow, Bachman’s sparrow, northern bobwhite, sparrow, northern northern bobwhite, summer and summer tanager because no bobwhite, summer tanager, and not expected to prescribed burning is proposed. Would tanager, or red bat, but be adverse to red bat and not be expected to be adverse to red not expected to be worm-eating warbler bats or worm-eating warblers. adverse to worm-eating populations. warbler populations. Salamanders Expected to maintain Some of the proposed Same as Alternative 2, but may be the existing conditions activities may reduce habitat slightly better for salamanders because on National Forest in quality for some of these no prescribed burning is proposed. the project area for species; the amount of salamanders. This suitable habitat that is alternative would allow expected to be affected by the existing forest timber harvesting and/or stands on the National prescribed burning Forest to approach old represents about 15-17 % of growth conditions, the forested habitat which would provide available in the project area. habitat for salamanders Any negative effects upon in the form of damp, these habitats are expected shaded forests. to be temporary. Construction of vernal pools would benefit some of species of salamanders. Birds Would not benefit birds Would benefit birds Would benefit birds associated with associated with early associated with early seral early seral forest. Would not benefit seral forest, open forest, open woodlands, birds associated with open woodlands, woodlands, grasslands native grasslands and native grasslands or glades because no or glades. Would benefit glades. Would benefit birds prescribed burning is proposed. Would birds associated with associated with old growth benefit birds associated with old growth old growth and closed and closed canopy forests and closed canopy forests and would canopy forests. and would improve bird improve bird habitat in riparian areas by However, no activities habitat in riparian areas by planting of bottomland hardwoods in that encourage shrub planting of bottomland existing cleared riparian areas. and understory hardwoods in existing development or planting cleared riparian areas. of bottomland hardwoods in existing cleared riparian areas would occur. T&E Species Topeka shiner No effects. No effects. No effects. Tumbling No effects. No effects. No effects.

32 creek cavesnail Gray bat May affect-Is not likely May affect-Is not likely to May affect-Is not likely to adversely to adversely affect adversely affect affect Indiana bat May affect-Is not likely May affect-likely to May affect-likely to adversely affect. to adversely affect adversely affect. Bald eagle May affect-Is not likely May affect-Is not likely to May affect-Is not likely to adversely to adversely affect adversely affect affect Hine’s May affect-Is not likely May affect-Is not likely to May affect-Is not likely to adversely emerald to adversely affect adversely affect affect dragonfly Running May affect-Is not likely May affect-Is not likely to May affect-Is not likely to adversely buffalo clover to adversely affect adversely affect affect Mead’s No effects. No effects No effects milkweed Pink mucket No effects. No effects No effects pearlymussel Ozark No effects. No effects No effects hellbender Scaleshell No effects. No effects No effects mussel Virginia No effects. No effects. No effects. sneezeweed Spectaclecase No effects. No effects. No effects. mussel Sheepnose No effects. No effects. No effects. mussel RFSS Species Aquatic, No impact May impact individuals or Same as Alternative 2 but to a lesser Riparian & habitat but will not likely degree. Wetland contribute to a trend towards Species federal listing or loss of population viability Forest - No impact May impact individuals or Same as Alternative 2 but to a lesser associated habitat but will not likely degree. Species contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability Grassland- No impact No impact No impact associated Species Glade- No impact May impact individuals or Same as Alternative 2 but to a lesser associated habitat but will not likely degree. Species contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability Bluff- No impact May impact individuals or Same as Alternative 2 but to a lesser associated habitat but will not likely degree. Species contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability Cave- No impact May impact individuals or Same as Alternative 2 but to a lesser associated habitat but will not likely degree. Species contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability

33 CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in the alternatives chapter. Specialists considered direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to evaluate both short-term uses and long-term productivity.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that accompanied the programmatic Forest Plan disclosed the effects, including cumulative effects, of management practices in a forest-wide context. This Environmental Assessment for the Shoal Creek project discloses the effects of implementing the proposed action and its alternatives and is tiered to the Mark Twain National Forest - Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS.

The direct and indirect effects would include those identified in the project area and the existing conditions within the MAs boundaries and Landtype Associations.

The cumulative effects include “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” (40CFR section 1508.7). This includes determining the geographic (spatial) and time (temporal) boundary cumulative effects analysis area boundaries. This is to ensure that the cumulative effects are measurable and meaningful and that the decision makers will be completely informed about the consequences of their actions (CEQ 1997 – Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA). The cumulative effects need to be evaluated separately for each resource as the scope of evaluation for each resource is different. Therefore the cumulative effects may vary between resources, including the spatial and temporal boundary.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) memorandum “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis” dated June 24, 2005, was used in the preparation of this analysis document. In determining what information is necessary for a cumulative effects analysis, agencies should use scoping to focus on the extent to which information is "relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts," is "essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives," and can be obtained without exorbitant cost (40 CFR 1502.22). Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined. The analysis of cumulative effects begins with consideration of the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the alternative proposals for agency action. Agencies then look for present effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the agency, relevant and useful because they have a significant cause-and-effect relationship with the direct and indirect effects of the proposal for agency action and its alternatives. CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. The scope of the cumulative impact analysis is related to the magnitude of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Proposed actions of limited scope typically do not require as comprehensive an assessment of cumulative impacts as proposed actions that have significant environmental impacts over a large area. Proposed actions that are typically finalized with a finding of no significant impact usually

34 involve only a limited cumulative impact assessment to confirm that the effects of the proposed action do not reach a point of significant environmental impacts.

The cumulative effects of the alternatives upon each resource must be evaluated separately, as the scope of evaluation for each resource is different. Cultural resources are evaluated on a site-by-site basis, and then the project is looked at as a whole. Hydrology is looked at from a regional and then local watershed basis. Soils are evaluated on a soil type basis. How large that is would depend on the slope, type of soil and activity. Recreation is evaluated based on use, activity, and travel ways to sites. Visuals are evaluated based on seen area, travel ways, and the VQO of the area. Vegetation is evaluated all the way from an Eco-region of the United States down to the Project and stands level. Biodiversity deals with population trends as a whole and the habitat available here for them. The scope of the analysis may vary by resource, but the following are the effects of the Shoal Creek project

The activities identified in Alternatives 2 and 3 (Chapter 1 and 2 of this document) are the same or similar to previous activities implemented on the Potosi/Fredericktown Ranger District (See Relationships to Other Documents in Chapter One). Therefore, any effects would be the same or very similar to ones which have already been observed. The analysis done in these past NEPA documents did not reveal any significant effects from the proposed activities (i.e. timber harvesting, reforestation, wildlife habitat maintenance, prescribed burning, old growth designation, pond maintenance, and roadwork). Post activity monitoring on the Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District has verified that the analyses were compliant with the NEPA document and the effects were as displayed.

VEGETATION - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The environment of the Missouri Ozarks has changed substantially over the last 12,000 years. Data relating to past environments have come from a variety of sources, including fossil pollen, animal remains, geomorphology, geology, and archaeology. Studies from regions adjacent to the Courtois Hills have provided a wealth of data that pertain to past environments. The following summary of prehistoric environments has been drawn from Delcourt and Delcourt (1994), Delcourt et al. (1999), O‟Brien and Wood (1998:108), Royall et al. (1991) and Warren (1992; 1995). By 12,000 years ago, the spruce and boreal jack pine that characterized the height of the last glacial maximum in the Ozarks had given way to an Oak-Ironwood Forest that did not resemble any forest types seen today. Between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago, the climate was characterized as warm and wet and the forest gradually changed to mixed deciduous woodland, also with no real modern analogues. These early-successional species could thrive in the ephemeral and variable weather conditions that existed at that time. From 8,000 to 4,000 years ago the environment changed to a warm and dry period known as the Hypsithermal. Drought tolerant species took over the area and the forest became an Oak-Hickory savanna, characterized by a sparse woodland and grass under-story. The increased temperatures and decreased precipitation had a major impact, with groundwater tables dropping, increased hill slope erosion, and a decline in the discharge of streams. These effects lead to changes in the distribution and composition of terrestrial and aquatic fauna. Following 4,000 BP (Before Present), the modern Oak-Hickory-Short leaf pine forest developed with the return of warm and wet conditions. Creeks increased in flow and stabilized into their current

35 characteristics of high gradients with shallow water, swift currents, with gravel or sand substrates.

The onset of colonization of Missouri by European immigrants caused rapid, large-scale changes to the environment, and the original healthy ecosystems, to an unprecedented extent that continues today (Yatskievych, 1999). Not only is outright destruction of habitats evident, but also evidence is mounting that the character of existing terrestrial natural communities is affected over time. Missouri‟s natural vegetation prior to and at the time of settlement was described as a highly varied landscape mosaic of forests, woodlands, savannas, prairies, marshes, glades, rivers, streams, and caves. This landscape was mantled in rich vegetation and abundant wildlife as attested by many early travelers and explorers. They wrote about the bison, elk, deer, beaver, mountain lion, black bear, and wolves seen daily. They saw passenger pigeons, Carolina parakeets, and red-cockaded woodpeckers not seen in Missouri today. Back at the time of settlement, Missouri‟s native diversity was essentially intact. Continuous, diverse mosaics of complex ecosystems dominated the landscape. Trees grew to immense proportions. Evidence of this past still exists in small- protected remnants called natural areas. Biologically rich natural communities within these natural areas may contain as many as 100 plant species per acre within a forest, woodland, savanna, or prairie.

Following Euro American settlement in the early nineteenth century, substantial environmental changes once again occurred in the region. At first, the bottomland forests were cleared for agriculture, while logging of the uplands soon followed (Wood and O‟Brien, 1995:35). From the late nineteenth through early twentieth centuries, logging on a massive scale occurred throughout the Ozarks, resulting in almost complete deforestation of the region. The current project area was logged to provide lumber. After all the merchantable timber was cut, the lands owned by the lumber companies were sold off as farms. Farming proved to be marginal at best in most of these areas and the farmlands were converted to rangeland. In many cases, burning occurred annually to increase forage and this kept the forest from naturally regenerating. The result of all of this activity was a devastated resource base. Soil erosion became a major problem, springs went dry, and wildlife essentially disappeared (Rafferty, 1980:185-186).

Across the landscape, ecosystem or forest health is a function of vigorous renewal or stability (as in the condition prior to settlement). A healthy ecosystem can be resilient to a wide range of disturbances. Missouri‟s forest evolved under a wide variety of disturbances (Nelson, 1985) including natural and man-made fire; grazing by free-roaming native herbivores; extremes in violent weather such as tornados, ice storms, snow storms, wind, heavy precipitation, drought; insects and fungal diseases. Certain species of oak, hickory, and short leaf pine are disturbance adapted because they are shade intolerant. These require periodic disturbance to get light to the ground or create seedbeds for germination and regeneration. Problems arise (oak mortality, soil loss, exotic species invasions, etc.) when ecosystems are impacted by multiple or repeated extreme stresses such as consecutive years of disease, defoliation, grazing, burning, and drought.

The present forest environment seen in the Ozarks today has developed entirely since the 1930s and the establishment of conservation and forest management in Missouri. Present forest types in many cases differ from those found in pre-settlement times. An excellent example of this is found in the area around the Nova Scotia Ironworks (1880-1885) in southeastern Dent County. When General Land Office surveys were conducted in 1820, the area was characterized by large mature pine trees (70% of the timber) with an open

36 under-story intermixed with small amounts of black, white, and post oak, with some hickory. In contrast, today the area is dominated by declining black oak (70%) with a dense brushy under-story and small amounts of pine, hickory, and white and post oak (Wettstaed, 1999a; 1999b; Wettstaed and Harpole, 2001; Wettstaed et al., n.d.). Another example is the Sligo Iron Furnace (1880-1921), which was located in eastern Dent County. Thousands of acres of timber were required simply to provide charcoal to the Sligo furnace. Sturdevant (1980:46) reported that an average of 5,000 acres a year was harvested for charcoal. There were 72 kilns located at the Sligo plant to produce charcoal from this wood. Much of this area was originally forested by pine. Archaeological evidence to support this was recovered by investigations at the Rulon Depot (23IR145) the eastern terminus of the Sligo and Eastern Railroad (Wettstaed, 1997). A crosscut saw of the type used to cut pine was recovered at this site. Today the area is dominated by oak. In many cases the forests seen in the Ozarks today are much different than those that existed 150 years ago.

Today, virtually all of Missouri‟s original 12 million acres of prairie are gone forever (Schroeder, 1981). Thousands of miles of original meandering streams and rivers are captured in man-made channels and levees. Virtually all of Missouri‟s timber has been logged at least once. The Ozarks logging boom began in 1887 with the advent of railroad construction. Production peaked in 1899 when Missouri sawmills produced 724 million board feet. Most of the state‟s original quality timber was gone by 1920. This resulted in a drastic decline in pine-dominated forests and woodlands. Cunningham and Hauser (1992) estimated that short leaf pine was reduced from 6.6 million acres prior to 1880 to less than 400,000 acres today.

The result of this boom period, coupled with extended decades of open-range grazing and subsequent severe soil erosion from cultivation and overgrazing, left the Ozarks with an abundance of fast-growing, shade-intolerant pioneer scarlet, black, and northern red oak that replaced white oak, post oak, and short leaf pine. This greatly reduced and altered the pre-settlement forest‟s unique vegetation composition and soil productivity. A healthy, sustainable Ozark forest or woodland ecosystem at the time of settlement contained a rich herbaceous grass cover, shrubs, ferns and tree seedlings.

Research on oak mortality strongly correlates the decline of scarlet and black oak with droughty, clayey, cherty Captina and Clarksville soils (Law and Gott, 1987). Both soils likely suffered severe erosion loss of original A and B-horizons. Trees establishing themselves in poor, clayey or rocky eroded soils would be especially susceptible. Further, trees of similar age, growing together, display similar group behavior. Decline results. Subsequently, further analysis is showing that white oak, post oak, and short leaf pine (among other species) are increasing in relative abundance in the declining stands. These species, having been the dominant trees prior to settlement, are better adapted to surviving periods of drought.

Vegetation - Trends Current studies in classification of native vegetation reveal that much of the oak- hickory forest in pre-settlement times was much more open in character with perhaps one-third in savanna, one-third in woodland and the remaining third in forest (Nelson, 1985). Oak-pine forest is the second most extensive within the region, with 4.4 million acres. Pine forests were in fact very open in character and produced tremendous amounts of lumber at the time of settlement.

37 Non-industrial private forest owners hold 68 % of the 22.89 million acres of timberland in the Ouachita-Ozark Highlands Assessment area; forest industry owns 11%. Thus, non- industrial, private and corporate landowners together hold more than 79% of the timberland. The remaining 21% consists of public timberlands, three-fourths of which are within three national forests. Since the 1970‟s, forested areas have increased in five of the six survey regions in the Highlands (Forest Inventory and Analysis). This dramatic increase in forest is partly attributed to the suppression of fires and cessation of woodland grazing as former rangeland lost its productivity.

Vegetation - Fire Management Wildland fire is among the oldest of natural phenomena. Wildland fires, whether lightning caused or set by humans, trace their ancestry to the early development of terrestrial vegetation. Hardly any plant community in the temperate zone has escaped fire‟s selective action. Many biotas have consequently so adapted themselves to fire that such adaptations have become symbiotic (Pyne, 1982). Missouri is no exception. Natural and man-made fires were and are clearly evident across the landscape. Trees bear fire scars dating back hundreds of years. Early explorers wrote about the numerous fires set by Indians. Even today‟s remaining natural vegetation and wildlife alludes to the importance of fire. From an ecological and natural resource management perspective fire is treated as one of many factors in the environment comparing with rainfall, tornados, and drought. The effects can be beneficial and destructive. The challenge is to safely apply fire in a way that achieves and benefits resources on the Mark Twain National Forest, and at the same time protects other human values.

Before fire prevention and suppression became common, an Ozark forest typically had fewer trees that were spaced much farther apart than today‟s stands. Fire was a natural factor to which many species and ecosystems have adapted (Pell, 1999). Many ecologists (Bielman and Brenner, 1951; Ladd, 1991) have emphasized the importance of fire as a landscape process in the Ozark Highlands. Native Americans have constantly influenced plant communities and ecosystems throughout North America and the Ozark Highlands for thousands of years, especially through their widespread broadcasting of fire that burned across the land. Lightning fires were added ignition sources. Such fires have resulted in the occurrence of fire-dependent prairies, savannas, and woodlands throughout the Ozarks (Ladd, 1991).

Fire suppression from the time of settlement to the 21st century has resulted in degradation and loss of species diversity in savannas and open oak woodlands. Additionally, overgrazing removed much of the original savanna and woodland ground flora and caused increased soil erosion. Subsequent clear cutting of Missouri‟s virgin timber allowed a second growth release of many young oaks, hickories, and other tree species. In the absence of fire, this new tree growth permitted excessive fuel leaf litter to accumulate that smothered what ground cover flora still existed.

Studies indicate that extensive areas within the project area are classified Fire Condition Class 2, and to a lesser amount, Condition Class 3. The “condition class” is a risk descriptor associated with alteration of fire regimes. Condition Class 2 develops when one or more fire intervals are missed (often as a result of fire suppression efforts) and the understory vegetation becomes denser. The accumulated understory tends to burn more intensely, increasing the difficulty in suppressing a fire and resulting in a more pronounced impact on biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality.

38

In Condition Class 3, fires are relatively high risk and the fire intensity is more severe, impacting large trees that normally would survive fires of lower intensity. This condition class is high risk based on the danger posed to people and the potential for long-term resource damage.

Dense pine stands scattered across the project area consist of 30- to 60-year-old, overcrowded stands where tree canopies interconnect. Trees in these conditions tend to be weakened by the competition for available growing space and become more susceptible to disease, insects, wildfire, and drought. Many of these stands are characterized by overcrowding and by weakened, dying, or dead trees that provide elevated fuel loads for wildfires. The current fuel types, loading, and density on the selected project stands are conducive to stand-replacing fires. Stand replacing fires are wildfires that burn intensely under adverse weather conditions and in accumulated fuels, thereby fundamentally changing the vegetative composition of the ecosystem, destroying communities and/or habitat, or entire stands.

When looked at on the community level, fire carries out several functions essential to the perpetuation of many ecosystems. For example, fire is known to (1) prepare seedbeds, (2) increase species richness and cover, (3) influence the mosaic of age classes and vegetation types, (4) control plant community composition, (5) regulate the amount and type of fuel accumulation, (6) recycle nutrients, (7) increase or decrease forest insects and disease problems, and (8) directly influence wildlife habitat (Kilgore, 1973; Parmeter, 1977; Heinselman, 1978). The initial response after fire is for oak and pine regeneration to occur, ground cover species to increase in abundance, richness, and cover, and wildlife to increase as a result.

Non-Native Invasive Species Contract provision BT6.35-“Equipment Cleaning” will be used as a guide for Forest Service employees and timber sale purchasers to prevent the possible introduction and spread of invasive species during timber sale activities. This provision is part of a larger forest-wide program to identify areas of invasive species on sale area maps and require cleaning of equipment if it is being moved from a known area of infestation, or if the prior location of equipment cannot be identified, it will be assumed to be infested with seeds of invasive species of concern.

VEGETATION - EXISTING CONDITION OF STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION

Primary tree species commonly found in the Analysis Area include: black, scarlet, white and post oak, shortleaf pine, and various hickories. Primary forest types include short- leaf pine, black oak, scarlet oak, mixed oak and a mix of oak and pine. Because of the extensive logging that occurred in the early 1900‟s, most trees in the stands are the same age (even-aged), mature or over-mature.

Stand structure is a combination of over-story (tree size classes) and under-story conditions. Oak decline over the last twenty years has created holes in the over-story that have allowed an under-story of advanced oak, pine and hickory regeneration to become established in

39 many stands. Fire control has also allowed under-stories of species such as dogwood, sugar/red maple and sassafras to become established on some of the better sites.

Horizontal diversity, or diversity across the landscape, is a result of the spacing of forested and open stands and the different age classes. Timber harvesting, rights-of-way, trails, and natural openings create gaps in the forest canopy, which also contribute to the horizontal diversity. The majority of the Analysis Area is continuous, mature forest. Besides forested land, permanent openings, including rights-of-way, make up less than 2.9% of the national forest ownership and generally consist of lowland or upland brush and grasses. Permanent openings needed by wildlife for a variety of reasons and are a key component of a diverse landscape in a healthy forest ecosystem are lacking. Forested stands that have been recently regeneration harvested and have <40% canopy cover (clearcuts/seedtree cuts) are called temporary openings, and are typically between 0-9 years old. Currently, 41 acres (<1%) of NFS land in the analysis area meet this criteria.

Timber stands that are predominantly black and scarlet oak in excess of 70 years of age account for 33% (approximately 11,077 acres) of the national forest land in the Analysis Area. FIA permanent plot data collected on both National Forest and private land in the three counties encompassing the project area show that annual mortality in the red oaks has increased over 500% from 1989 (4,509 MBF) to 2005 (26,492 MBF). The data shows moderate decrease of 42% in the white oaks. Field surveys and prescriptions conducted during the planning stage of this project verified that these stands are suffering from moderate to severe oak decline as a result of relatively old age (70+ years), shallow rocky soils, and continued severe droughts. Secondary factors that cause further stress and damage to these trees are red oak borers, chestnut borers, Armillaria root rot, and Hypoxylon canker.

An additional 17% (approximately 5,537 acres) of the Analysis Area is in mixed oak and oak-pine forest types over 70 years of age. The black and scarlet oak component in these stands range from 30% to 80% of the stand composition and are the trees experiencing moderate to severe oak decline.

An additional 900 acres (2.7%) of the black and scarlet oak forest type and 529 acres (1.6%) of the mixed oak and oak/pine forest type is between the ages of 50 and 69 and is showing early symptoms of decline. Total acres being affected or with the immediate potential to be affected by oak decline is 18,043, 54% of the project area.

40 Table V-1 displays the horizontal diversity found across the Analysis Area on NFSTable V-1: Horizontal Diversity (Age Class) by Forest Type for the Analysis Area ACRES FOREST Non - Seedling Sapling/Pole Small Mature Over TYPE stocked (0-9) (10-49) ST (70-99) mature (50- (100+) 69) Shortleaf 1929 551 60 43 pine/Cedar Black/Scarlet 404 1628 900 9390 1687 oak Mixed 311 2922 529 4416 1121 Oak/Oak-Pine White/Post 86 629 505 2627 1842 Oak Misc. 6 155 78 350 56 Hardwood Open/semi- 959 Open ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3

All types of harvesting remove the main portion or bole of the tree from the site. Tops of trees are traditionally left on the site, increasing the dead and down material component in the short term. Since most of the nutrients in the trees are in the leaves, twigs, and small branches, there would only be minor effects on nutrient cycling and soil fertility. Most snags would be retained.

Reforestation and forest restoration treatments proposed under all action alternatives have similar implications. In a healthy, sustainable forest ecosystem, tree seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, and shrubs develop naturally whenever suitable light conditions are created on the forest floor. When over-story trees die, young tree seedlings replace them, helping to ensure that a forested condition is maintained. The proposed treatments would be implemented to allow suitable light conditions to promote the development of desired tree seedlings, herbaceous vegetation, and shrubs. The amounts of these proposed treatments are displayed by alternative in Table V-2, and are dependent on the amount of even-aged and uneven-aged regeneration proposed. The following is a discussion of the anticipated vegetative effects for each of these types of treatments.

41 Table V-2: Proposed Reforestation Activities by Action Alternative (acres)

Activity Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Prescribed Fire 344 ac 0 ac Natural Site Preparation 6,384 ac 6,384 ac Total Acres 6,728 ac 6,384 ac

Prescribed fire is proposed in stands that have a heavy understory stocking of sugar maple. A series of burns at a three to five year interval is needed in order to top kill the maple seedlings and saplings and at the same time allow white oak advanced regeneration to develop to the point where it can compete for sunlight and nutrients. Three to five burns will be needed to meet this objective. An additional 4,077 acres of hazardous fuel prescribed burning will have a companion benefit of the establishment of new tree seedlings to perpetuate well stocked forest cover and to increase the shortleaf pine component in the stands that are burned. Site preparation would be completed on many sites proposed for either even-aged or uneven- aged regeneration. Conducted following seedtree, shelterwood and some uneven-aged cuts, this treatment would encourage sprouting of desired species and involve cutting poorly formed, suppressed or severely damaged trees that may interfere with development and growth of the desired species. Trees specially designated for retention on the site would not be cut. Cutting undesirable species such as red maple, and sassafras will not eliminate them from treated stands since most stumps will produce sprouts. Cutting these trees will primarily reduce their stature, shading and competitive advantage over commercially desired oak, hickory and shortleaf pine reproduction.

Table V-3: Proposed Timber Stand Improvement Activities by Action Alternative (acres)

Activity Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Crop Tree Release 3,421 ac 3,421 ac Pine Release 889ac 889 ac Total Acres 4,310 ac 4,310 ac

Crop tree release treatments proposed for Alternative 2/3 involve the non-commercial mechanical hand cutting of woody vegetation that interferes with the tree saplings (either naturally occurring or planted) on the site. This treatment can be used to direct stand development and to regulate species composition to those best suited for the site or to maintain species diversity. Desirable species include shortleaf pine, white oak, black oak, scarlet oak, hickory and post oak. This treatment can concentrate future growth on the best trees and ensure survival of desired species which otherwise would be at risk of being suppressed or killed by the dominate species that out-compete them. Release potentially increases species richness on the site and is expected to improve tree species composition in the long term.

Crop Tree Release generally is carried out in young mixed oak stands when they are between 12 and 30 years of age, depending upon site-specific stand development patterns and weather conditions. Crop Tree Release work helps ensure a desired composition in young forested stands as well as the development of healthy conditions. This early manipulation of composition will

42 help to alleviate the problems we see in stands that developed on their own into mostly uniform stands of black and scarlet oak.

Pine release treatments involve the mechanical cutting of non-commercial woody vegetation that interferes with pine tree seedlings on the site. The treatment can be used to manage stand development and to regulate species composition to those best suited for the site or treatment to maintain species diversity. Release can promote growth and survival of desired individuals and species which otherwise would be at risk of being suppressed or killed by their competitors. Release potentially increases species richness on the site and is expected to improve tree species composition and stand vigor in the long term.

Release generally is carried out in regenerating pine stands when they are between 5 and 10 years of age, depending upon site specific stand development patterns and weather conditions. Release work helps ensure the survival of pine, which is a desired tree species for south and west facing stands (ELT 17) that otherwise would contain high percentages of black and scarlet oak which would later be predisposed to decline.

VEGETATION - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Common silvicultural terms are used here in an effort to describe what the end result of stand treatment for will look like after the treatment is complete. The term applied to each individual stand to be treated was based on the current composition as the primary trees to be removed in all treatments will be black and scarlet oak. For example, if the existing stand has greater than 60- 70% of trees in the red oak group, that stand will treated as a seed tree or shelterwood cut. If the existing stand has less than 50% of its trees in the red oak group, that stand would be treated as a sanitation or uneven aged cut. Some white oak and shortleaf pine will be designated as needed to reduce canopy cover as required for the regeneration of desired species to create a mix more resistant to oak decline. Some low quality white and post oak (forked/crooked trees) may also be removed to allow the resulting growing space be utilized by better quality trees. In any event, it is estimated that most of the trees harvested will be black and scarlet oak.

Even-Aged Management Activities What follows are descriptions of the various harvest methods involved in conducting even-aged management (EAM). The long-term, forest-wide effect of even-aged silviculture on vegetative patterns is to create horizontal diversity, which results from differences in the vegetative ages and sizes between stands of timber. With implementation of activities identified in the Forest Plan one would encounter a mosaic of seedling, sapling, pole size timber, sawtimber, and old growth stands across the landscape (Forest Plan, Appendix D). This vegetative mix also contributes to a sustainable forest ecosystem.

Seed Tree cuts are proposed on 2,366 acres. A seed tree cut treatment is used on sites where it is desirable to have large trees scattered throughout the stand while establishing a new fully stocked stand of oaks and pines. Purposefully creating these open conditions will help stop the trend of conversion to red maple, gum, dogwood or other shade tolerant species by creating the light conditions necessary for the existing oak reproduction to develop, or pine to establish. Developing a lightly stocked over-story of superior trees that will maintain excellent growth rates due to low competition and have the potential to develop into trees of larger size than normally found on these sites under fully forested conditions is expected. The residual over-story will consist mostly of trees with a life expectancy of 20

43 years or greater. If oak, white oak will comprise the over-story remaining after the timber harvest due to white oak‟s longer life expectancy. If pine, the trees will be of good to superior quality, suitable for a seed source and capable of adding growth. Harvesting high risk and low quality trees, trees with inadequate growing space, and other trees not needed for the seed tree retention will be the treatment. This treatment also encourages a great variety of early successional plants to meet wildlife habitat needs in the form of temporary forage which is a primary need in this area (Forest Plan, Appendix D). It also promotes large tree crowns on healthy, fast growing trees with the potential to produce more acorns and pinecones.

Residual trees will average above 20 basal area, but below 30% stocking level, thus allowing plenty of growing space. Follow-up treatment after the timber sale will include cutting non- commercial stems, including some of the maples. It may also include sale of round wood and fire wood sales. If present, 5 live cull trees over 12 inches DBH will be left per acre, along with all dead trees that will not compromise worker safety.

Shelterwood cuts are proposed on 1,871 acres. A shelterwood cut treatment is used on sites where it is desirable to maintain a broken canopy of large trees while establishing a fully stocked new stand of shade intolerant trees. Crown gaps will be the rule rather than the exception. Purposefully creating these openings will help arrest the trend of conversion to shade tolerant species by creating the light conditions necessary for the existing oak advance reproduction to develop. Develop a moderately stocked over-story of good trees that will maintain excellent growth rates due to low competition and have the potential to develop into trees of larger size than normally found on these sites under fully stocked conditions. The residual over-story will consist mostly of trees with a life expectancy of 20 years or greater. White oak will become more abundant currently exist in stands that are presently in mature or over-mature condition since most of the regenerating, healthy, younger trees are white oaks, and they have a longer life expectancy. Harvesting high risk and low quality trees, trees with inadequate growing space, and other trees not needed for the shelterwood retention will be the treatment.

Residual stocking will average 30% to 50% for the site, thus the residual sawtimber will not fully utilize the available growing space. Thrifty young sawtimber and non-suppressed poles will be favored as leave trees. Follow-up of the sawtimber sale will include cutting of most non- commercial stems. It may also include sales of round wood products. If present, 5 live cull trees over 12 inches DBH will be left per acre along with all dead trees that will not compromise worker safety.

Over-story removal cuts are proposed on 69 acres. An over-story removal cut treatment is used on sites where there has been acceptable regeneration resulting from preceding, oak decline, wildfire, or seedtree/ shelterwood cuts. The removal of some or all of the remaining over-story trees that will inhibit the new stand‟s proper growth and development will be carried out. Reserve trees will be longer-lived pine or white oak, if available, to meet wildlife needs for mast and cover. Additional work will be made in this harvest to continue development of the new age class of shade intolerant species. The residual over-story will consist mostly of trees with a life expectancy of 20 years or greater and will average below 30% stocking, thus allowing the regenerating stand to fully utilize the site‟s resources, as well as increase oxygen production and carbon dioxide absorption by maintaining a high percentage of the growing space in healthy, actively growing trees. Reserve trees in excess of the 5 live trees/acre over 12 inches DBH will be removed, as well as trees seriously damaged during logging.

Sanitation cuts are proposed on 1,175 acres.

44 Sanitation cuts are designed to harvest trees that are of poor quality, at risk of dying during the next 5 to 10 years, and to reduce stocking in overly-dense stands to enhance residual tree survival, health and growth. This will also maintain fast growth on the best trees to avoid stagnation, insect and disease problems and promote larger diameter trees in a shorter time frame. Opening up the stands will maintain or encourage a forage component in the stand by allowing light to reach the ground. This will also stimulate under-story development. The visual characteristics will be enhanced in the stand by promoting larger trees. Promoting larger tree crowns will increase seed and mast production on residual trees.

Leaving the best-formed, healthiest trees in the dominant size class in the stand for future growth will be the practice in these stands. Removing the high risk and poor quality trees will be the objective (red oak group). Some healthy appearing trees may be cut to provide additional growing space for trees nearby. The trees that remain following harvest would consist primarily of larger diameter trees with healthy crowns and adequate growing space.

Thinning cuts in are proposed on 982 acres. This intermediate cut treatment in is used on sites to reduce the basal area in overstocked, immature stands. Trees are removed from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes in order to favor the best formed and healthiest trees in those same crown classes. Some trees from the lower classes may also be removed in order to reduce stand stocking to desired levels. Longer lived species in the short leaf pine and white oak groups are favored for retention, followed by healthy well formed trees in the red oak group. Desired residual stocking levels after thinning are around 80-90 BA for short leaf pine and oak-pine stands and 70 BA for oak.

Uneven-aged Management (UAM) Activities Uneven aged management methods are proposed on 2,314 acres. Uneven-aged treatments are designed to move the stand in a direction of having three or more 20-year age classes developed within the stand. With an uneven-aged system, a portion of each stand must be harvested on a routine cutting cycle such as 15 to 20 years. The remaining stands will consist mostly of trees with a life expectancy of another 20 years or more. White oak will become more prevalent because of its longer life expectancy; white oaks also tolerate more shade than red oaks, and will accumulate in relatively greater numbers in the younger age classes. In this first entry we propose to remove most of the red oak group because of its high-risk condition, while keeping residual stocking above 50% of maximum stocking for the site. (Over-story stocking will generally be capable of utilizing the site resources, except in openings). This will create conditions to favor development of a new age class of shade intolerant tree species including oaks, hickories and shortleaf pine and reduce the trend of conversion to shade tolerant species using a combination of individual tree selection and group selection as necessary. (See Stambaugh, 2001; Larson, et al., 1999; Larson, et al., 1997)

This treatment will also maintain and encourage a forage component in the stand by increasing light to the ground. Increase the potential for mast production by promoting larger tree crowns on younger trees with more fruiting potential. Maintain or develop fast growth on best trees to avoid stagnation, insect and disease problems and promote larger diameter trees in a shorter time frame.

Uneven-aged management is the application of a combination of actions needed to simultaneously maintain continuous high-forest cover, continual or periodic regeneration of desirable species to develop and maintain at least three age classes, and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter and age classes. The use of UAM, as well as the other silvicultural treatments, is based on the vegetative composition and biological capability of

45 the sites. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are single tree selection and group selection. Both methods would usually be applied concurrently in the Analysis Areas. This combination of the two distinct UAM methods has been termed “Selection with Groups” on the Mark Twain National Forest.

Glade Development Glade development is proposed for 1 acre. This treatment will involve hand cutting to remove woody vegetation from the glades allowing better utilization of the sites by native grasses and forbs. Other than eastern red cedar and white pine, no stems greater than five inches in diameter would be felled. No resources will be removed from the sites. Under Alternative 2, the glades will also be burned, but not under Alternative 3. Burning would further stimulate the growth and abundance of desired grasses and forbs.

Bottomland Hardwood Establishment Bottomland hardwood establishment is proposed for 101 acres. This treatment will involve restoring riparian area open lands to forested cover. Species such as ash, river birch, cottonwood, hackberry, swamp white oak, burr oak and shellbark hickory will be planted on a 12 foot by 12 foot spacing. Under Alternative 2, site preparation will be accomplished prior to planting by mowing and/or burning followed by either a 4 foot wide strip or 3 foot radius spot application of herbicide to control competing vegetation (existing grasses). To help ensure seedling survival, herbicide spot application and some mowing may occur post planting if needed to control competing vegetation. Under Alternative 3, there will be no preceding site preparation or post planting treatment with herbicide which, experience with similar projects has shown, greatly reduces seedling survival. Likewise with the proposed prescribed burning for site preparation.

Effects Common to Alternative 2

Savanna Development/Maintenance/Mid-Story Treatment/Hazardous Fuel Thinning for savanna development is proposed on 1,363 acres. This intermediate cut treatment is used on sites to reduce the basal area in order to create a permanent semi-open habitat condition for wildlife. Trees are primarily removed from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes in order to create canopy gaps that will allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor while favoring the best formed and healthiest trees in those same crown classes. While the desired residual BA for these areas is 30-50, this initial treatment will reduce residual stocking levels to 60-70 BA, concentrating on removal of high risk trees in the red oak group. Some white oak and pine may be designated for removal if necessary to achieve desired canopy cover. Thinning to the desired BA on the first entry would leave the residuals too vulnerable to wind throw while also creating a heavy fuel load adding to residual mortality from subsequent prescribed burning. Trees such as white oak, post oak, shortleaf pine and hickories would be favored as residuals.

To further reduce stocking levels and allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, a non- commercial mid-story treatment is also proposed in these areas plus an additional 844 acres. This treatment will involve the hand cutting of stems in the 3-9 inch diameter class, primarily black and scarlet oak, followed by stump treatment with either triclypor or glyphosate herbicides to prevent re-sprouting. By using a stump treatment method, it is anticipated that no non-targeted vegetation will be affected.

Prescribed burns are proposed for savanna development on 2,457 acres for hazardous fuel reduction on 4,077. The treatment would consist of low intensity dormant season prescribed burns on a 2-5 year interval to reduce the density of woody species in the under story. Over time,

46 trees less than 3” in diameter would be top killed allowing a grass and forb ground cover to become established. The decision to burn in order to maintain the woodland savanna habitat type will be dependent upon the professional opinion of the District wildlife and prescribed fire staff.

The hazardous fuel prescribed burns would also be done during the dormant season and of low intensity. The primary objective of these burns will be to consume years of accumulated leaf litter and down woody debris under controlled conditions, thus reducing the impact of or aiding in the control of a more intense wildfire in the area. Where suitable, continued use of prescribed burning will continue. Benefits of these burns would include improved wildlife habitat in the area from the flush of grasses and forbs that follow burning and an increase in shortleaf pine regeneration in both harvested and other stands by exposing some mineral soil for pine seedfall.

Noxious Weed Control Noxious weed control is proposed for 56 acres in one stand. Sericea lespedeza is present along FR 2382. Without control efforts, it is anticipated that the thinning and burning proposed would encourage further invasion of this species throughout the stand. Triclopyr and/or glyphosate would be sprayed on the sericea present within a 100-foot strip on either side of the road prior to thinning and burning the stand to reduce the likelihood of spread. The stand would be monitored post treatment and subsequent outbreaks may be retreated with the same herbicides. While glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide and may kill non-targeted grasses and forbs present along the road ROW, with adequate sunlight present it is expected that the area affected will recover with native grasses and forbs within one growing season.

VEGETATION - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative Effects Components Spatial Boundary: The spatial boundary for cumulative effects on vegetation is limited to the Shoal Creek project area. Vegetation is stationary thus no expansion of the project area boundary is needed. Temporal Boundary: The temporal boundary was set to analyze 10 years prior and post to this decision because 10 years is the normal management cycle and is the extent of the effects that are measurable and meaningful. Also, due to vegetation being stationary, actions taken on private property would not effect vegetation on National Forest System land. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions: Harvesting has occurred on National Forest land (1,032 acres) in the past 10 years. Silvicultural methods used included Clearcutting, seedtree, shelterwood, uneven aged improvement cutting, thinnings, and sanitation thinnings. In addition, 708 acres of site preparation for natural regeneration was completed. No other vegetative manipulation projects other than that described in the Shoal Creek project are currently proposed in the area for the next 10 years.

Cumulative Effects Discussion Under Alternative 1, no vegetative management would take place. Twenty four percent (24%) of the area is classified with a stand condition of high risk and an additional twenty two percent (22%) as low quality. Sixty five percent (65%) of the Analysis Area is currently over 70 years old and an additional Eight percent (8%) is over 50 years old. In the short term, during the next

47 planning decade, these stands would continue to mature and remain or become high risk or low quality. The stands that are made up of trees in the red oak family would change greatly as the over-story and mid-story oaks continue to die out and are replaced in the under-story by more shortleaf pine and white oak due to the lack of stump sprouting. This will result in a lower percentage of black and scarlet oak than currently exists. This change will be less pronounced on north and east facing slopes and in other stands currently dominated by shortleaf pine and white or post oak.

In the short term (within the next 10 years), implementation of Alternative 1 would maintain the current species composition in stands less than 70 years old or that are mostly shortleaf pine or white oak species. Over the long-term, species composition would depend on available seed trees and the amount of natural disturbance (openings in the canopy caused by mortality, wind or ice storms, or wildland fire). Age-class distribution would tend to become further skewed towards the older age-classes since no new age-classes are being created except in stands suffering from extreme oak decline. It is estimated that annually 2% of these stands will die back to the extent that they will regenerate themselves naturally, but will be lacking any dominant black and scarlet oak component. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose various combinations of vegetative treatments which include seed tree cuts, shelterwood cuts, over-story removal cuts as well as intermediate harvests, such as sanitation and thinning, or selection harvesting. Table V-4 illustrates the treatment of these high- risk and low quality stands by alternative. A look at just two age classes serves to explain what could happen in the Analysis Area based on these treatments. By examining the age-class 0-9, we can evaluate how alternatives effect regeneration. The 0-9 age-class is an important milestone, it means vertical diversity has gone from the maximum to the minimum. By looking at the effects of the various alternatives on the mature age class (stands 70 years and older), we can gauge the projected percentage of stands in or entering in the phase of decline and mortality, another important milestone, especially for commercial forest outputs or forest sustainability.

The effects of treatments specified in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be to increase the 0-9 year age class for the next decade (2007-2016) over and above the estimated 2% that will occur naturally. In 2008, the 0-9-age class on federal land is <1% of the Analysis Area. In 2016, estimated acres in the 0-9 age class will equal the acres that have regeneration harvests proposed in this project (seedtree and some shelterwoodsanitation cuts, 20% in UEAM cuts receiving site prep.). For Alternative 2 and 3 the amount is 11.4%; Alternative 1 results in 0%. If all even-aged management activities were proposed, with an average rotation age of 70 years, approximately 11.4% of the area would have a regeneration harvest every 10 years and fall within the 0-9 age class.

In 2007, the mature, high risk, and low quality stand condition classes make up 54% of the Analysis Area. By 2016, trees that are presently 60-69 years old (5%) will have grown into this mature, high risk and low quality condition class. The change in mature forest by 2016 equals the present condition (54%), plus the acres of trees growing to maturity (5%), minus acres of trees that have been regeneration harvested (0-9 age class). For Alternative 2 and 3 the calculation is: Mature/Over-Mature Age Class = 54% + 5% - 14% = 45%. For Alternative 1, it will remain at 59% of the Analysis Area.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would enhance both the horizontal and vertical diversity in the Analysis Area through proposed harvesting, reforestation, and wildlife habitat improvement activities. Vertical diversity would be enhanced by seedling and saplings growing up in the canopy gaps created as a result of individual tree removal. These activities would create a mix of age-classes.

48 Stands receiving treatments in either of the action alternatives would have improved vigor and be more resilient to disturbance. The harvested areas would contribute to a sustainable flow of forest products from the area.

Activities in Alternatives 2 and 3 that create age-class and species diversity would result in healthier, more productive stands and would promote sustainability of the forest.

Table V-4: Treatment Method by Stand Condition

Acres: High Risk Acres: Low Quality Totals ST SW UAM/OSR/ ST SW UAM/OSR/ High Low SAN/SAV SAN/SAV Risk Quality Alt 2,206 1,628 3,443 53 126 705 7,277 884 2 Alt 2,206 1,628 2,683 53 126 430 6,517 609 3 ST - seed tree SW – shelterwood OSR – overstory removal UAM –uneven-aged SAN - sanitation/thin SAV – savanna thinning

Although outside the spatial boundary on which these cumulative effects are based, similar treatments from various projects have occurred inside of the affected watershed boundary of the Shoal Creek Project. Approximately 8,693 acres of harvesting by methods similar to those described in this document have occurred in the last 10 years. Included in that total are 4,802 acres of regeneration harvests. Approved but yet to be completed are 1,754 acres of harvest as part of the Oak Decline and Forest Health Project. Companion projects to the harvests include 6, 407 acres (1,183 acres of which is yet to be completed) of site preparation for natural regeneration and 3,202 (187 of which is yet to be completed) acres of pre-commercial thinning. The effect of these past harvests and follow up treatments are similar to that as described for the Shoal Creek projects.

Timber harvesting has also occurred on private lands in and adjacent to the project area and can be expected to continue. Based on permanent plot FIA data collected in 1989 and 2005 there has been a 6.2% reduction in private timber land in the three counties included in the project area. Over the same time frame, there has been an increase of 11.4% in the non-forest acreage (It is assumed that % will hold true for private land inside the project area based on personal observation). Most of this change is attributed to timber harvest and land clearing for pasture and can be expected to continue at a similar rate over the next decade. Average annual volume removal from private land increased 13% from 1989 compared to 2003 but had dropped 54% by 2005. This trend is likely due to the fact that most private landowners willing to sell their timber did so beginning with the onset of oak mortality in the area (1980‟s) along with fairly good stumpage prices during that time period. It is expected that removal from private land will remain stable at 2005 levels for the foreseeable future.

49 ECONOMICS - EXISTING CONDITION

The Ouachita Ozarks Highland Assessment (OOHA) area (includes the Mark Twain National Forest) accounts for approximately 2.4% of the total United States output of forest products. The forest products industry is 5% of the industrial output, 3% of the employment and 3% of the employee compensation directly attributable in the OOHA area. Thirty-five of the 107 OOHA counties had at least double the average percentage output, employment, and/or employment compensation from the forest products industry. These counties derived an average 16% of their output, 8% of their employment, and 11% of their employment compensation from the forest products industry. The national forests influence about 1% of the Highlands‟ overall employment (1.9 million jobs). Of the three principal national forest programs affecting the Highlands‟ economy (timber, minerals and recreation), timber has the greatest overall influence on employment, employee compensation, and total income when all three forests are considered together.

Jobs and income in Washington and surrounding Counties are affected by management activities on the Mark Twain National Forest through direct employment in mining, guiding services, timber harvest, campground concession, forest regeneration and timber stand improvement contracts, as well as needed products and services that are generated from these activities and recreation activities on National Forest system lands. Priced commodities (revenues) from the Shoal Creek project would be timber sale receipts. The main non-priced benefits include dispersed recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, wildlife viewing, berry picking and so on.

Recreation is a major activity on the Potosi District, with a wide range of settings available for recreation from semi-primitive to motorized developed recreation areas. Many areas across the Forest receive very low use indicating that the supply of places to recreate exceeds the demand. Most recreation use occurs at the developed recreation sites such campgrounds, trails and boat launches. The nature of dispersed recreation is that it is flexible, based on the needs of the user and the characteristics of a piece of land at a given time. The visitor has the opportunity to choose and enjoy a wide variety of recreation experiences on the Mark Twain National Forest - an opportunity not duplicated on many other public lands. Non-local recreation users of the Analysis Area contribute to the local economy as they pass through or stay overnight in the area. Forest related recreation activities in Missouri, from the National Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Survey conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Survey, has contributed approximately 32.8 million in sales and 67.3 million in business activity annually in the state. This analysis focuses on incremental economic differences between the alternatives. The analysis includes only variable costs associated with the alternatives. Fixed costs, such as NEPA planning and analysis do not change among alternatives, these costs are not included. Furthermore, the costs included in the economic analysis are only those to be incurred by the Forest Service. Costs incurred by timber purchasers or other parties are not included. The estimates are based on historical costs for similar projects on the MTNF.

ECONOMICS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This project identified the need to improve forest and watershed health, while moving the project area toward the desired future condition. Early successional habitat will be created through even-

50 aged regeneration harvests such as, seed tree and shelterwood harvests. Oak decline is prevalent throughout the project area and many stands will be regenerated to combat this ongoing mortality problem. With implementation of Alternative 1, no vegetative treatments would be carried out. A future increase in the economic value of the timber resource would be lost because of the mortality and degrading of the wood in the trees. For the black and scarlet oak species, oak decline would continue to occur due to years of drought, growing on poor sites, the mature and over-mature condition of the forest. In addition, the infestation of declining trees by insects and disease would threaten the future of the timber industry. Economic benefit would be limited by not harvesting these trees prior to their death (Kurtz and Dwyer 1994). Normally there would be no monetary cost for the government with implementation of Alternative 1 other than the standard custodial or stewardship costs associated with managing a National Forest. In this project, a completely new set of circumstances will have to be dealt with including: increased fire suppression costs or hazardous fuel reduction costs due to more available fuels, accident claims (both bodily and property) of private citizens as well as Government employees, road maintenance concerns and hazards, increased wildlife habitat maintenance, and additional safety issues. In the short term, no change in local jobs or income would result from the implementation of Alternative 1, but there would be no monetary benefit from timber harvesting to the federal treasury. In the long term, forested stands in the project would produce lower value timber, revenues to the federal treasury would continue to be lower and local employment opportunities could be reduced. The Forest Plan goal for a sustained yield would not be met and any future economic benefit would be lost.

ECONOMICS - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Employment In Alternative 2, timber harvested as a result of vegetative treatments would provide economic benefits beyond revenues generated by the timber sales. These benefits include local employment of harvest crews, wood products industries, and the local and surrounding businesses associated with goods and services support. In the short term, income and jobs would be produced through timber harvesting, subsequent reforestation and wildlife activities. As the indirect employment is variable, the direct employment from this project can be analyzed and expressed as crew weeks. A crew week is equivalent to three individuals producing 50 thousand board feet (MBF) of timber harvesting and three individuals producing 30 acres of non-commercial treatment in a five day week.

Table E-1 shows the expected amount of crew weeks of employment needed to complete the proposed harvests and/or felling work associated with the non-commodity alternative. A crew week is the average of 15 acres a week for 3 person crew doing heavy to moderate mechanical work.

Table E-1: Crew week employment by alternative Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Crew Week 0 507 439

51 Future Economic Values In Alternatives 2 and 3 the value of remaining residual trees in stands treated by intermediate harvest should increase. Regenerated stands would provide sustained yields of timber for the future, thus providing future economic benefits. Timber management activities would improve the quality and size of preferred timber species, foster the establishment of higher value, shade- intolerant tree species, and provide for a sustained yield of high quality hardwoods and softwoods. Increased long range benefits for other resources include: habitat for wildlife species requiring early successional and semi-open areas, variety in canopy closure in mature stands, healthy mast producing stands, reduced potential fire severity, decreased fire suppression costs, and a less hazardous outdoor experience due to treatment of areas with heavy decline and mortality. While there would be costs to the government associated with the implementation of these alternatives, the costs would be offset by the revenues returned to the national treasury (under Alternatives 2 and 3), job production, the resulting tax base for federal, state, and local infrastructure, and healthy, productive forest land requiring less investment over time to remain available for multiple use by all forest visitors.

The Net Cash Flow shows that implementation of Alternative 2 and 3 would have a positive net return. The rank order by Net Cash Flow shows that Alternative 3 to be the most cost effective. A sustained yield of timber products would support the local economies in Alternative 2. A benefit cost ratio of 1.00 would assume that costs and benefits are equal. Alternatives 2 and 3 both have a positive benefit cost ratio greater than 1.00.

Benefit Cost Ratio

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

0

1.25 1.45

In considering the effects on recreation activities in the project area, it is recognized that the proposed management activities may negatively affect the recreationists in his or her use of the land scheduled for treatment in the short-term. Our experience, based on feedback from field personnel and visitors themselves, demonstrates that recreationists generally move to another location if harvesting affects a primary activity. Often a suitable setting is found within a few miles of the original site. On occasion a few users may quit coming to the Forest due to the interference of proposed activities with recreational opportunities, the visitors usually returns in a few years. However, certain activities increase the use for some recreationists as well, harvesting may enhance opportunities for hunting or viewing wildlife species that require or utilize a seedling component. In the Analysis Area, the balance of these effects indicates no significant effect on recreation income or related jobs.

52 Table E-2. Cash Flow Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives*

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Total Volume (MBF 0 25,350 21,942 equivalent) Total Cost $0 $-3,031,823.10 $-2,273,028.53

Total Revenue $0 $3,802,500 $3,291,300

Net Value $0 $770,676.90 $1,018,271.47

* From Quiksilver - economic analysis reports in project file. It should not be considered actual yields or losses nor does it attempt to analyze all resource values. We recognize that many of the values generated by the various alternatives (both positive as well as negative) involve goods and services that are not priced in the market place and are thus not represented in this comparison. These goods and services involve such things as the value of a hunting experience, a hike in the woods, watching wildlife, or the quality of water flowing from the Analysis Area. The effect each alternative has on these types of non-priced goods and services is found elsewhere within this Chapter in other resource sections. The cost of producing some of these non-priced goods, i.e. creating new wildlife habitat, is included in the total cost figures. Total Cost was computed by summing up all the wildlife projects, reforestation, roadwork, and other work needed to implement each alternative. Total Revenue was derived from multiplying the expected volume in each alternative with the estimated stumpage value by species. Net Cash Flow is the value left after subtracting Total Cost from Total Revenue. Economics - Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Effects Components Spatial boundary: The cumulative effects spatial boundary in regards to economics of Iron, Washington, and Crawford Counties was selected because when discussing the local economy, the county is a more definitive/political boundary in which to measure effects.

Temporal Boundary:

The cumulative effects temporal boundary of 10 years was selected because that is the life of the expected effects of the Shoal Creek project activities.

These boundaries were selected because this is the extent where the cumulative effects information would be measurable and meaningful and the effects would be relevant.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions: Vegetative management practices have occurred in all counties, on National Forest System lands in the past 10 years. No other projects other than that described in the Shoal Creek project are proposed for the next 10 years.

53 Private Lands Private lands in the effected counties is primarily open lands (pasture or hay) and timbered. Timber harvesting has occurred on these private lands in the past and it expected to continue in the future.

Cumulative Effects Discussion

The cumulative effects on economics from past activities, the proposed action and future foreseeable actions are at best difficult to measure but should be similar to the past ten years. One factor that has remained constant is that the local economy relies heavily on timber production, mining activities and recreation opportunities provided by the Mark Twain National Forest, as well as the associated indirect monetary benefits supporting these activities (food, fuel, equipment sales and other services). The counties included in this project area and surrounding counties have been involved in modern timber production for many decades. Recently, due to falling federal timber outputs, increasing harvest pressure has been placed on private lands. Stumpage rates have been stable but may see slight increases due to an improving economy (Missouri Timber Price Trends Quarterly Market Report, Vol. 13 No.2). On private lands, it is evident that some of the timber was liquidated, removing these lands from production for many decades. Additionally, red oak borer damage has drastically reduced the value of logs where infestations are high, and reduced the chances for sustainability over the short term until these lands can be regenerated to a more sustainable mix.

Under the no action alternative, this trend will continue. Over the long term, any of the action alternatives will help to alleviate pressure of liquidation of timber on private lands, provide market sustainability and increase value of all timberlands in the future by reducing high-risk, declining, low quality and borer damaged areas with healthy vigorous timber stands. In the short term, disturbance may displace some recreation opportunities but the sooner work to control the spread of oak decline and degradation from the red oak borer is accomplished, the sooner healthier stands and forested lands will move to a sustainable healthy condition.

SOILS - EXISTING CONDITION

The project area and surrounding areas lie within the Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District in the Salem Plateau Subdivision of the Ozark Plateau Physiographic Region. The project area lies within the Meramec River Hills Subsection of the Ozark Highlands Section. Within the Meramec River Hills Subsection the Landtype Associations identified within the project area are Huzzah Oak Woodland/Forest Hills, Huzzah-Courtois Oak Woodland Dissected Plain, Courtois Oak-Pine Woodland/Forest Hills, and Meramec River Oak Forest Breaks. Parts of the LTA which are the woodland/dissected plain have karst occurring in several areas and include sinkhole pond communities. Due to the thick sequences of dolomite composed of calcium magnesium carbonate, these rocks are highly soluble throughout the Ozarks and result in karst topography (Nigh and Schroeder 2002).

The Project Area lies within the Meramec River Watershed (8-digit hydrologic unit 07140102). The Project Area falls within two 11-digit hydrologic units (07140102030 and 07140102040) which total approximately 486 square miles or approximately 22% of the two 11-digit hydrologic units.

54 Major Soils and Parent Material

Soils formed from the Roubidoux material include Coulstone and Bender (highly leached, strongly acid, contains high percentages of fragments of chert and sandstone). The Gasconade formation which underlies the Roubidoux formation are generally the parent material for Rueter, Alred, and Hildebrecht (highly leached, strongly acid, contains high percentage of chert). The Eminence formation is dominated by beds of dolostone with small amounts of chert. Sonsac soils formed in this material. The Potosi formation is dominated by beds of dolostone with small amounts of chert. Goss, Moko, and Sonsac soils dominate these areas.

Loess (silty material deposited by wind) was deposited over the area during the most recent post glacial period and most has been eroded away by geologic and human processes though it does remain in gently sloping areas in broad ridgetops. The soils in the project area formed in alluvium (material deposited by water), colluvium (material transported by gravity), loess, and residuum (material weathered from bedrock). Some soils in the uplands are formed partly in loess and partly in residuum. Gravois and Hildebrecht are examples of this. Goss soils are often found on the steep side slopes off of those broad ridgetops and are formed from residuum material weathered from cherty dolostone. Soils formed in colluvium are similar to soils on surrounding uplands. Colluvium on stream terraces may have been in place long enough for the soils to have some horizon development. Along drainage-ways, the soils may have been in place long enough only for weakly developed horizons. Bloomsdale and Cedargap soils would be examples of this.

Differences in soils formed in alluvium depend on the bedrock in the uplands and general slope of the area. Material weathered from the sandstone of the Roubidoux Formation is sandier than that material weathered from the dolomite weathered from the Gasconade or Eminence Formations. Alluvium from steep slopes and narrow ridges have been primarily chert and gravel because it has been deposited by fast moving water from steep drainages. Deposits from fast moving water are coarse and deposits from slow moving water are fine. Coarse material would be deposited near stream channels or on narrow bottoms where streams can travel in greater velocity. Fine material is deposited on broader, more nearly level floodplains further from stream channels. Bloomsdale and Cedargap soils formed in coarse material while Horsecreek, Kaintuck, Razort, Racket, and Huzzah formed in fine material.

There are approximately 34 soil mapping units occurring on the project area. Seven mapping units are riparian soils and none are wetland soils. The majority of the mapping units are rated high and medium in compaction potential. Forest productivity is rated low for most of the soils in the project area and potential of damage to soil from fire is rated low to medium. Four mapping units contain soils with fragipans in the profile.

SOILS - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The stands that are proposed for treatment in this project cover a wide range of landscapes throughout the Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District. Many of the treatments in Alternatives 2 and 3 involve harvest of trees at different intensities. Thinning and tree harvest would leave remaining trees to occupy sites and maintain water budgets and nutrient cycles at current levels.

General Effects of Soil Disturbance – There are several mapping units which are located in the analysis area. Each of these mapping

55 units has been evaluated according to eight different parameters. These parameters are given different ratings which will be referred to in later sections. The ratings are defined below. Riparian Soils – This is expressed as yes or no in the Soil Characteristics table. Riparian soils are those soil mapping units likely to experience flooding usually due to their position on the landscape and possible sedimentation. Riparian soil series are listed in Appendix B in the Forest Plan.

Wetland Soils - This is expressed as yes or no in the Soil Characteristics table. Wetland soils are those soil mapping units containing soil series listed in the National and Missouri lists of hydric soils. Soils are one of the components used in delineation of jurisdictional wetlands.

Flooding frequency and duration – Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, or frequent. None means that flooding is not probable; rare means that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (chance of flooding is between zero and five percent in any year); occasional that it occurs infrequently under normal conditions (chance of flooding is between 5 – 50 percent in any year); and frequent if it occurs often under normal weather conditions (chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year). Duration is expressed as very brief if less than two days, brief if two to seven days, long if seven days to a month, and very long if more than a month. This is based on evidence in the soil profile, local information, and the relation of the soils on the landscape to historic floods.

Erosion Potential – Because soil is eroded off the surface horizon, erosion results in a loss of nutrients for forest productivity (Fisher & Pritchett, 1987). It also results in a loss of biodiversity of thousands of species of soil organisms numbering in the millions of total organisms which are lost to the site where the erosion takes place (Pierzynski, Sims, & Vance, 2000). In addition, erosion also results in a loss of carbon which was sequestered in the surface horizon (Boyle, 2002). Erosion potential is rated according to risk of erosion on forestland where normal practices are used in managing and harvesting trees. A rating of low indicates soil loss is not an important concern; a medium rating indicates that some attention to soil loss is required; and a high rating indicates that intensive treatments (such as seeding and mulching disturbed areas, water bars, etc.) or special equipment and method of operation are required to minimize erosion. Potential erosion hazard is primarily based on slope and erodibility as well as on soil depth.

There are various prediction models for soil erosion and more specifically rill and sheet erosion. The WEPP model has recently been used to predict erosion levels from harvesting activities. Use of the specifications in this Environmental Analysis (EA) would reduce all these erosion levels significantly and within Forest guidelines.

Soil Compaction Potential is rated according to the degree to which soil compaction restricts or prohibits tree growth and water infiltration. A rating of low indicates little or no restriction on the type of equipment that can be used; a medium rating indicates the use of equipment is seasonally limited, or that modified equipment (rubber-tired skidders rather than crawler-type tractors) are needed; and a high rating indicates that special equipment is needed or that use of such equipment is severely restricted by unfavorable soil characteristics. Steep slopes indicate a safety hazard for equipment.

Potential of damage to soil from fire is rated according to the degree to which soil characteristics are reduced in productive capacity from fire. The ratings (low, moderate, high) are made on the basis of texture, amount of coarse fragments, slope, and surface soil. Most of the soils associated with this proposal have a rating of low to moderate potential.

56

Suitability for Ponds is rated according to the soil properties and site features (usually slope) which affect water management structures. Limitations for pond development and maintenance are considered slight if soil properties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minor and easily overcome; moderate if the soil properties and site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and severe if soil properties and site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increase in construction costs, and/or increased maintenance are required. Soils best suited for ponds have low seepage potential (determined by permeability in the soil and depth to fractured bedrock or other permeable material). Excessive slope can affect the storage capacity of the pond.

Soil surface disturbance is one of the effects of the activities proposed. Management activities associated with vegetative treatments and associated activities in Alternatives 2 and 3 would cause some soil disturbance. Potential exists for soil compaction, soil puddling, soil displacement, and soil surface erosion as a result of heavy equipment operation on sites where management activities would occur. There would be little loss of landform from road reconstruction as these areas have already been disturbed. Soil surface disturbance is important because it has an impact on soil quality, maintenance, and sustainability. This disturbance would be expected to occur on or adjacent to skid trails and landings both during and after the activities take place. The Standards and Guides of the Forest Plan are designed to minimize the amount of disturbance from management activities. Assessment of proposed activities on specific sites would determine if the degree and extent of soil disturbance would cause appreciable change in soil properties to be considered detrimental to the long-term productivity of the land. Determination of effects is based on available research, the completed soil surveys for the Mark Twain National Forest, and professional judgment. Adherence to Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&G) and site-specific mitigation measures could be expected to result in no appreciable changes in the inherent long-term productivity of the land.

Soil limitations for the stands in the proposed alternatives range from slight to severe. Slope percentage and depth to water table are dominant factors which impose limitations. Erosion hazards are slight to moderate in most stands although the hazard can be rated as severe when slope percentages increase. The potential of damage to soil from fire ranges from low to moderate for most soils in most stands though the hazard can become severe on steep slopes.

Alternatives were evaluated to assess whether implementation of the proposed project would result in any detrimental or beneficial effects to the soil resource. Harvesting, site prep and timber stand improvement, and transportation system management projects can affect soil productivity and soil quality. Alternatives can be compared based on the relative effects of soil disturbance.

The Forest Service Internet-based interface to the Water Erosion Prediction Model (FSWEPP; Elloit et al 2000) was used as part of this analysis. Climate was simulated for thirty years at the Arcadia, Missouri Climate Station to obtain a range of wet and dry conditions. Erosion and sedimentation predictions must be evaluated with a full understanding of the uncertainties.

“At best, any predicted runoff or erosion value, by any model, will be within only plus or minus 50 percent of the true value. Erosion rates are highly variable, and most models can predict only a single value. Replicated research has shown that observed values vary widely for identical plots, or the same plot from year to year (Elliot and others 1994; Elliot and others

57 1995; Tysdal and others 1999). Also, spatial variability and variability of soil properties add to the complexity of erosion prediction (Robichaud 1996).

The preceding is excerpted from Disturbed WEPP (Draft02/2000) WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery (Elliot, Hall, Scheele. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center, February 2000) online from http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html

FSWEPP provides relative versus absolute results to estimate and compare the magnitude of effects of alternatives. The analysis allows a comparison of alternatives but does not predict the effects for a specific stand. The outputs are given in tons per acre. One ton of soil loss is approximately equal in weight to a uniform depth of 0.007 inches of soil over one acre (Troeh et al.1991). Models were run for silvicultural treatments with the following assumptions: 10 year climate events (climate station: Arcadia), silt loam soils, skeletal conditions (> 35 percent rock by volume), 200 foot slope length.

Alternative 1 No new management activities would take place, nor any associated activities with the proposed action. Therefore, no management related appreciable changes in productivity of the land would occur. Soils would be impacted by regular maintenance and use of roads as well as planned and ongoing natural resource management activities. In the absence of wildfire, current runoff and erosion pattern would be maintained. An upland erosion rate of less than one ton per acre per year (T/A/Y) is predicted by FSWEPP for stands on steep slopes in the absence of fire. Natural processes and functions would continue to occur as dead material decomposes. Actual soil organic matter may increase with an accompanying increase in microorganisms and fungi. Since there is no harvest, no carbon would be removed from the forest. Dead and dying trees would decay with carbon released to the atmosphere. Management activities in and adjacent to the project areas already planned would be carried out. Under this alternative, fuels will not be reduced nor will biomass be removed through silvicultural treatments. Fire suppression has resulted in increased fuel loading and possible loss of savanna and glade environments present during pre-settlement times (Heikens, 1999). Wildfires that could occur under conditions of increased fuel loading can be expected to burn at a higher intensity and over a larger area than would have occurred if fires had burned at historical fire frequencies. The probability of stand replacement wildfires could be expected to increase in the absence of fuel reduction through silvicultural treatments in this proposal. The stands in other alternatives where wildfire does not occur would maintain current runoff and erosion patterns. An upland erosion rate of less than one T/A/Y is expected for stands on steeper slopes and near water if fire is excluded. Fire exclusion may result in accumulation of hazardous amounts of fuels.

Lack of fuel reduction could result in stand replacement wildfires and increase the probability and levels of erosion and sedimentation from lands where these fires occur. FSWEPP modeling indicates that a high severity fire for conditions similar to those described above would produce a ten to fifteen fold increase in erosion (depending on slope) and a similar increase in sedimentation. According to the model, wildfire produces many times more erosion than do prescribed burns.

Wildfire control would more likely involve bulldozer constructed fire lines. Overland flow in firelines would further erode soils and be a source of sediment. A twelve foot fireline constructed by dozer along a 5,500 foot perimeter of the average 25 acre stand (the area affected by the

58 wildfire may significantly exceed 25 acres) would total approximately 1.5 acres (about 6.0 percent of a 25 acres steep stand could become an erosive fireline in the event of a wildfire). If the dozer lines are constructed on soils with fragipans, especially during periods of wet weather, the erosive potential would be increased and some of the soil structure would be destroyed.

In this alternative non-system roads would remain open which could increase the amount of sediment moving off site. In this alternative, there would be no silvicultural treatments and associated temporary road construction or road reconstruction. Under this alternative maintenance of Forest Service system roads would continue; therefore, implementation of the no action alternative would cause little changes to water quality and quantity within the Project Area and would not impair Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) designated uses.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Seed tree seed cut

Soil compaction for the stands scheduled for this treatment is medium to high. Effects of soil compaction have been mentioned above. Compaction occurs when ground based equipment is used in the operation.

Assuming a 25 percent canopy cover after completion of this treatment, erosion levels which could be expected from this treatment are influenced primarily by slope. Effects of soil erosion have been mentioned above. Soil erosion for most stands scheduled for this treatment is low to medium. Three stands (C24/S19; C34/S11; C36/S01) have areas within the stand of high soil erosion potential. Soil erosion would generally be greatest during the first year after harvest and revert back to pre-harvest levels three to four years after harvest and associated activities. Best management practices (BMP) for minimizing erosion have been given above. Several stands scheduled for treatment have areas with riparian soils. Occasional, brief flooding which may take place during the wet months of the year may result in increased sedimentation into adjacent streams. Adherence to BMP will minimize sedimentation.

Shelterwood seed cut

Soil compaction potential for the stands scheduled for this treatment is medium to high as for the seed tree cuts and clear cut stands. Effects of soil compaction have been mentioned above. Compaction occurs when ground based equipment is used in the operation. Best management practices for minimizing compaction have been given above.

30-50 percent cover is assumed for this treatment. Effects of soil erosion have been mentioned above. Soil erosion for most stands scheduled for this treatment is low to medium. No stands in this treatment have areas of high soil erosion potential. Soil erosion would generally be greatest during the first year after harvest and revert back to pre-harvest levels three to four years after harvest and associated activities. Soil erosion is generally lower in shelterwood cuts compared to clear cuts and seed tree cuts due to higher canopy cover at the completion of harvest, yarding, and associated activities. Best management practices for minimizing erosion have been given above.

Many stands scheduled for treatment occur on areas which have riparian soils over a portion of the stands. Occasional, brief flooding which may take place during the wet months of the year may result in increased sedimentation into adjacent streams. Adherence to BMP will minimize sedimentation.

59 Uneven-aged management

Soil compaction potential is rated as medium to high throughout all of the units on which this treatment is taking place. Effects of soil compaction have been mentioned above. Use of best management practices mentioned above would be effective in keeping soil compaction at minimal levels.

Soil erosion for most stands scheduled for this treatment is low to medium. One stand scheduled for treatment (C36/S2) has areas where high soil erosion potential exists within portions of the stand. Effects of soil erosion have been mentioned. Erosion levels would be similar to shelterwood stands due to the expected similarity in canopy cover at completion of the treatment. Use of best management practices mentioned above would be effective in keeping soil compaction at minimal levels.

Many stands occur on sites which have riparian soils over a portion of the stand area. Occasional, brief flooding which may take place during the wet months of the year may result in increased sedimentation into adjacent streams.

Overstory removal

40 – 50 percent canopy cover is estimated upon completion of this treatment. Erosion levels would be expected to be similar to shelter-wood and uneven-aged management treatments. Crown closure would be achieved in a few years and erosion levels would return to pre-harvest levels. Soil erosion potential is low to medium on the sites scheduled for this treatment. Soil compaction potential is medium to high. There are no riparian soils on these sites.

Thinning and sanitation cuts

40 – 50 percent canopy cover is estimated upon completion of this treatment. Erosion levels would be expected to be similar to shelter-wood and uneven-aged management treatments. Crown closure would be achieved in a few years and erosion levels would return to pre-harvest levels. Four stands (C4/S10; C34/S14; C35/S02; C103/S24) have areas of high soil erosion potential.

Many stands occur on sites which have riparian soils over a portion of the stand area. Occasional, brief flooding which may take place during the wet months of the year may result in increased sedimentation into adjacent streams.

Natural reforestation

Reforestation via natural regeneration is not a ground disturbing activity and would proceed as a natural function and process.

Timber Stand Improvement and Crop tree Release

Timber stand improvement via crop tree release would not leave bare ground open to erosion and runoff. Biomass felled and left on the ground would further reduce whatever minimal erosion may occur during heavy precipitation periods. Crop tree release would allow remaining trees to occupy sites and maintain water budgets and nutrient cycles at current levels. Positive impacts to the soil resource could be expected due to the trees remaining on site. Over time breakdown of

60 foliage and small branches would result in increased nutrient levels. Soil macro and micro- organism biodiversity would increase in number and functional groups.

Prescribed burning Alternative 2 The potential of damage to soil from fire is low to medium for most of the soils in the stands scheduled for this treatment. Six stands (C120/S08, 12, 16; C121/S05, 06, 07) have areas of high potential of damage from fire. Soil erosion potential for the stands scheduled for this treatment is low to medium. The effects of soil erosion have been given earlier. Many stands have riparian soils occurring at various areas within them. Fire lines associated with prescribed burning add compacted surfaces to the landscape. Compacted surfaces which result from skid trails can increase runoff into streams and channel extension. Fire trails within 100 feet of stream channels would have the highest probability for runoff and stream sedimentation. Water bars and re-vegetating skid trails would keep runoff and sedimentation to minimal levels.

Alternative 3 Prescribed burning is not a part of this alternative.

Designation of old growth habitat No ground disturbance is expected as a result of this activity.

Noxious weed control Alternative 2 Eliminating any state listed noxious weeds in the Shoal Creek project area would be a part of this alternative. Employment of herbicides is one tool which may be used. The usual herbicide for this treatment is glyphosate and a surfactant) and/or triclopyr. Glyphosate is not generally active in the soil. It is not usually absorbed from the soil by plants. Glyphosate and its surfactant are both strongly adsorbed by the soil. Glyphosate remains unchanged in the soil for varying lengths of time, depending on soil texture and organic matter content. The half-life of glyphosate can range from 3 to 130 days. Soil microorganisms can break down glyphosate, and in tests, its surfactant has a soil half-life of less than 1 week. Soil microorganisms break down the surfactant. The main break-down product of glyphosate in the soil is aminomethylphosphonic acid, which is broken down further by soil microorganisms. The main break-down product of the surfactant used with glyphosate is carbon dioxide (Infoventures 1995).

The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate and its surfactant are strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks. However, some recent work shows that glyphosate can be readily released from certain types of soil particles, and therefore may leach into water or be taken up by plants (Infoventures 1995). Glyphosate and its surfactant have no known effect on soil microorganisms. Of nine herbicides tested for their toxicity to soil microorganisms, glyphosate was found to be the second most toxic to a range of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes and yeasts. However, when glyphosate comes into contact with the soil it rapidly binds to soil particles and is inactivated. Unbound glyphosate is degraded by bacteria. Low activity because of binding to soil particles suggests that glyphosate's effects on soil flora will be limited (Infoventures 1995).

61 Glyphosate does not evaporate easily. Major products from burning treated vegetation include phosphorus pentoxide, acetonitrile, carbon dioxide, and water. Phosphorus pentoxide forms phosphoric acid in the presence of water. None of these compounds is known to be a health threat at the levels which would be found in a vegetation fire (Infoventures 1995).

Triclopyr is active in the soil, and is absorbed by plant roots. Triclopyr is adsorbed by clay particles and organic matter particles in soil. Microorganisms degrade triclopyr rapidly; the average half-life in soil is 46 days. Triclopyr degrades more rapidly under warm, moist conditions. 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol is the major initial product of degradation. It has a half- life of 30 to 90 days, and degrades to carbon dioxide and organic matter. Triclopyr is slightly toxic to practically non-toxic to soil microorganisms. The solubility is moderate to low. The potential for leaching depends on the soil type, acidity and rainfall conditions. Triclopyr should not be a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in soil. Triclopyr may leach from light soils if rainfall is very heavy. Sunlight rapidly breaks down triclopyr in water. The half-life in water is less than 24 hours.

Alternative 3 Noxious weed control is not a part of this alternative.

Construction of vernal pools 103 vernal pools for amphibians would be built under Alternative 2 and 3. The majority of the soils at these locations are gravelly and very gravelly silt loams. The major limitations to pool development are seepage and slope. Another limitation includes excavation of waterholes in areas which have soils with fragipans in the soil profile. When moist and under pressure, fragipans rupture suddenly rather than deforming slowly and soil structure would be degraded. These pools would be shallow (under 2 feet in depth and may dry up during summer months). The presence of a fragipan soil at a pool location would not be expected to be disturbed by the waterhole construction.

Glade reestablishment Alternative 2 Assuming tree extraction is not included in this treatment, no ground disturbance is expected as a result of this activity. Effects of prescribed burning on soils have been mentioned above.

Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 2 except no prescribed burning.

Savanna development Alternative 2 60 – 70 percent canopy cover is estimated upon completion of this treatment. Soil erosion potential for the stands scheduled for this treatment is low to medium. Soil erosion is generally lower in commercial thinning units compared to clear cuts due to higher canopy cover at the completion of harvest, yarding, and associated activities. Soil compaction is rated medium to high on all the units on which this treatment is taking place. Effects of soil compaction have been mentioned above. Compaction occurs when ground based equipment is used in the operation. Use of pre-designated skid roads, one pass over non-skid road areas, avoidance of wet soil conditions, and piling slash ahead of ground based equipment prior to covering the area can minimize compaction over the treatment areas. Effects of prescribed burning have been previously mentioned.

62

Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 2 except no herbicide treatments or prescribed burning.

SOILS - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative soil effects are the estimated additive changes in soil disturbance (principally soil erosion and soil compaction), forest productivity, and hazard of damage to soil from fire that might occur from the existing conditions, implementing the proposed project, current activities within the analysis area, plus any foreseeable actions.

Spatial Boundary:

The cumulative effects analysis area is the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. The Huzzah Creek sub-basin is 266 square miles and the Courtois Creek sub-basin is 220 square miles. The Project Area totals approximately 28 square miles 16% of the two 14-digit hydrologic units or 3 % of the 8-digit Meramec River Watershed. Cumulative effects on soils are best addressed from analyses based on a watershed or sub-watershed area. Effects on soils of the ground disturbing activities mentioned above can travel beyond a stand‟s boundaries in streams via sediment transport, so this is also addressed in the analysis of water resource effects. A map and description of the project area can be found in the introduction of this Environmental Assessment.

Temporal Boundary:

The time frame considered is ten years for the following reasons:

1.) Ten-year time frames provide a significant basis for measuring change in soil disturbance due to soil erosion and soil compaction. 2.) Increases in soil erosion from project and associated activities usually return to pre- project levels within three to five years. 3.) Soil compaction effects are variable and there is no information as to the time length for compacted soil to return to pre-project conditions in Missouri or in the Ozarks. Some information from the southeast U.S. indicates ten years is the average time for rehabilitation of compacted areas through natural processes. The source of this information is from a technical bulletin on the effect of heavy equipment on the physical properties of soils and long-term productivity done under the auspices of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) (Miller, Colbert, & Morris 2004).

Past and present activities that may have an effect on Soils In the analysis area, past activities include timber harvesting and associated road building, log landings, haul roads, mining, and wildlife openings construction and maintenance. The past activities of timber harvesting and wildlife openings in the analysis area have had no long-term negative impact on the soil productivity with the mitigation measures applied and strict contract administration. There is no evidence of accelerated erosion in the uplands. Areas where there have been timber harvests in the past have re-vegetated and there is no bare soil exposed in the closed cutting units. Some of the roads in the Project Area will be reconstructed. There are a number of unclassified non-system roads that are present in some of the areas that could be used for temporary haul roads. This will reduce the amount of new roads needed and will reduce the

63 amount of associated erosion. No appreciable long-term soil disturbance effects have been identified, primarily because of methods used and mitigation measures applied.

Reasonably foreseeable actions Non-native invasive plant control project This project was recently sent out requesting public involvement (scoping phase began 7/2006). The Proposed Action is to treat non-native invasive plant infestations on the Mark Twain National Forest, using an integrated combination of manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, prescribed fire, and biological control treatment methods. The two main chemicals used would be glyphosate and tryclopyr which both become inactive when bound to soil particles. Tryclopyr rapidly breaks down from sunlight when in water. This EIS is not expected to impact soil resources significantly.

Lead Mining Over the last ten years, through a series of acquisitions, the Doe Run Company has become the sole owner and operator of the existing underground mines along the Viburnum Trend. It is anticipated Doe Run will continue operation. Within the Cumulative Effects area; there are 6 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prospecting Permits (or part of) issued for mineral exploration, containing approximately 688 acres, and 16 BLM Leases (or part of) issued for exploration and development of lead-zinc resources, containing approximately 1,185 acres. For a fuller description of this, refer to the watershed and water resource sections of this document.

Road network The total road network includes Federal, State, County, Forest Service, and private drive ways. Unpaved, County Roads are the primary non-point pollution source within the cumulative effects analysis area; especially those county roads in riparian areas. None of the alternatives would increase the miles of county roads nor increase the maintenance frequency of these roads. Private drive ways on National Forest lands are under or will be placed under special use permit which requires road maintenance.

Vegetation Management Other than the projects described in the proposed action, no other silvicultural management is planned for the project area in the foreseeable future.

Over the past 10 years, harvesting has occurred on a total of 8,693 acres on the Potosi Ranger District portion of the area that is inside the Shoal EA watershed boundary (4,882 acres of regeneration harvest and 3,891 acres of intermediate harvest). Silvicultural systems used include clearcutting, seedtree, shelterwood, sanitation, thinning, and uneven aged management improvement cuttings. Follow up site preparation for natural regeneration has been done on 5,224 acres and timber stand improvement has been done on 3,015 acres. In addition, in the southeastern corner of the watershed cumulative effects analysis area, remaining work to be completed as part of the Oak Decline EIS and the Delbridge Hazardous Fuels Initiative (HFI) projects includes 965 acres of regeneration harvests, 789 acres of intermediate harvest, 1,183 acres of site preparation for natural regeneration and 187 of timber stand improvement. Future vegetative management projects with similar actions and effects will be proposed in the foreseeable future within the cumulative effects analysis watershed boundary both east and west of the Shoal Creek Project Area. The detailed proposed actions for those projects have yet to be developed. In 2003, Pine Fuel Reduction was implemented on 140 acres on the adjacent Salem Ranger District within the cumulative effects analysis area. In 2005, silvicultural activities were

64 implemented on 5,859 acres in the Crooked Creek Analysis Area on the adjacent Salem Ranger District.

Recreation Developed recreation sites in the project area include Red Bluff Recreation Area, Hazel Creek Campground, and a portion of the Trace Creek Section of the Ozark Trail. The existing facilities at Hazel Creek Campground (vault toilet, tables, fire rings, etc.) are scheduled to be removed in either CY 2007 or 2008. Thereafter, the site will be managed as a trailhead for the Ozark Trail. There are approximately 4 miles of the Ozark Trail that cross the project area which will continue to receive regular maintenance.

The Berryman Recreation Area and approximately 75% of the 26 mile Berryman National Recreation Trail are within the watershed boundary east of the project area. Recent improvements to the recreation area include replacing 2 old vault toilet buildings with one new one. No other improvements are planned in the foreseeable future. There are plans to do some major reroutes and reconstruction on the Berryman Trail but a detailed proposed action is yet to be determined.

Two sections of the Ozark Trail traverse the area. Approximately 6 miles of the Trace Creek Section in the southeast portion will continue to receive regular maintenance and approximately 13 miles of the Courtois Section in the eastern portion of the area will continue to receive regular maintenance. An additional 3.5 miles of the North Courtois Section has been proposed for construction to connect the trail to the Huzzah Conservation Area to the north. The exact location for this section is still to be determined.

Forest-wide OHV Study The proposed action is to conduct a three-year study to evaluate three motorized trail systems. This study would help the Forest Service determine the environmental and social impacts of OHV trails on the Mark Twain National Forest. The Potosi-Fredericktown Ranger District‟s portion of the OHV Study Project is located in the east central portion of the watershed area. Under this proposal, 34 miles of non-system road along with 1 mile of new construction would be opened to legal motorized traffic. Thirty three miles of non-system road would be closed and rehabilitated. Three trailheads would also be developed. A decision on this proposal is pending

Prescribed burns In CY 2008, a 4,021 acre landscape burn is planned and in CY 2010 a 6,000 acre landscape burn is planned; both within the cumulative effects analysis watershed boundary of the Courtois subwatershed.

Cumulative Effects Discussion Mining When released to land, lead binds to soils and does not migrate to ground water. The lead mining tailing ponds are located upstream of the project area; therefore, Forest Service actions as described in the Shoal Creek Project would not cause cumulative effects.

Road Network Maintenance of Forest Service system roads would continue under all alternatives, including the no action alternative. There may be cumulative effect changes to the aquatic biota in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks based on sediment entering stream courses from the existing and future road network; however, it will not come from System Roads on National Forest lands. The action

65 alternatives in the Shoal Creek Project Area allow closure of non-system roads on National Forest land and this action will help reduce erosion and the amount of sediment entering stream courses. There will be no cumulative effect changes to the existing water quality and quantity associated with the action alternatives in the Shoal Creek Project Area.

Vegetation Management Forest Service actions as described in Oak Decline EIS, Delbridge HFI, Crooked Creek projects and proposed Shoal Creek Project would not cause cumulative effects. Non-Point source contaminants of forestry activities, including temporary roads, as proposed in these projects should not have an adverse affect on the watershed condition within the Huzzah and Courtois subbasin watersheds provided Forest Plan Standard and Guides and BMP‟s are implemented.

Recreation Forest Service actions related to Sutton Bluff Recreation Site, the Ozark Trail, and the Sutton Bluff Motorcycle and ATV Use Area would not cause cumulative effects. Relocation of the trails would reduce the amount of soil erosion and would improve the condition of the watershed provided Forest Plan Standard and Guides and BMP‟s are implemented.

Forest-wide OHV Study This project, if approved, is a study designed to evaluate Off Road Vehicles‟ (ORV‟s) cumulative impacts. It is not known what adverse cumulative effects would result by allowing ORV‟s to use this particular area; hence, the study will have a monitoring plan to evaluate effects to the watershed.

Prescribed burns The proposed prescribed burn areas will not all be burned in the same year; rather, each burn area is scheduled on a 3-5 year rotation. The large landscape prescribed burns are low intensity and by nature extremely patchy. The amount of mineral soil exposed to sheet erosion would be very small compared to the same area consumed by wildfire. If BMP‟s are implemented there should be no cumulative effect changes to the condition of the watershed.

Forest-wide Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Control Project Cumulative Effects Most all treatment types (manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, prescribed fire and biological control) could have potential negative effects on the watershed without BMP‟s. Qualified forest personnel would determine which NNIP infestations would be treated, and which control method(s) would be used at each infestation site. If BMP‟s for all treatment types are implemented there should be no cumulative effect changes to the condition of the watershed.

SOILS – SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

The management activities proposed under this environmental analysis will result in some soil disturbance. This disturbance will be a result of temporary roads, fire line construction, logging, and prescribed burning. The temporary roads (for all types of harvest methods) and fire lines that are on the steeper slopes and/or cross intermittent or ephemeral drainages will be the primary source of erosion. The erosion increase will be highest during construction and eventually will be reduced as the roads become stable and vegetated. This may take up to one full growing season, but can be shorter if the re-vegetation and growing season are compatible. Closing and obliteration of the temporary roads is critical in bringing the erosion rate down to pre-harvest and

66 pre-construction levels. Using the mitigation measures listed in this assessment and the Forest Plan Standards and Guides will reduce the amount of erosion.

In the stands that will have regeneration harvest, seldom is more than 5% bare soil exposed within the cutting units if proper care is taken during the harvesting and timber stand improvement process. The slash acts as a protective cover for the soils and can help mitigate compaction if used during harvesting. The stands that will have prescribed fire will have potential for soil erosion. This erosion will result from the construction of fire lines and possibly from the burn unit. The increase in erosion from the burn unit is a direct result from fire intensity. Soil erosion is usually minimal when burning with a cooler fire due to the protective duff layer that is still present. If there is an increase in soil erosion it is usually of very short duration. On the stands that will have various selection harvests (seed tree, shelterwood, thinning, sanitation cuts, uneven-aged management, overstory removal, etc.), some minor soil erosion is expected to occur. In these stands there will be enough ground cover or slash to protect any bare mineral soil. Mitigation measures listed in Chapter 2 of this EA are effective in minimizing adverse impacts to the soils. Similar management activities will potentially be proposed in the reasonably foreseeable future and would be accompanied by the appropriate mitigation measures.

Losses of soil nutrient capital via erosion will be offset by precipitation and other atmospheric inputs occurring over time following the activities of the proposed action (Peterson, 1982) (Weaver and Brown, 1978) (Weaver and Jones, 1981). The population of soil organisms would be reduced in the short term where soil erosion takes place but would increase over time eventually to pre-harvest levels if erosion remains at minimal levels. Erosion and the associated decomposition of soil organic matter is difficult to estimate because this pool of organic carbon in the process of erosion is highly variable and a “moving target.” Eroded organic material mineralizes to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide at rates far in excess of the non-eroded counterparts due to loss of physical protection and the changes in environmental conditions caused by dislodgment and transport (Boyle, 2002). The flux of carbon through forest systems is highly variable as well, such that turnover of soil carbon lost through erosion could be replenished in time periods ranging from 2-100 years (Fisher and Binkley, 2000).

Alternative 1

In this alternative, current and on-going activities (including the activities under the Non-native invasive plant control project), would continue, but no new management activities would be initiated within the analysis area. Road reconstruction and maintenance would not take place nor would non-system roads be closed. This could result in additional erosion and sedimentation already taking place. Skid roads and temporary roads would not be constructed and would not create additional sources of erosion and sedimentation. Current ATV/OHV activity in the analysis area would continue as before. Oak decline would continue leading to dead and down trees. Salvage operations would not take place under this alternative. Dead and down trees would increase fuel levels leading to increased wildfire danger.

In the absence of wildfire, current runoff and erosion patterns would be maintained. An upland erosion rate of less than one ton per acre per year is predicted by FSWEPP for stands on moderate to steep slopes in the absence of fire. Natural processes and functions would continue to occur as dead material decomposes. Actual soil organic matter may increase with an accompanying increase in microorganisms and fungi. Since there is no harvest, no carbon would be removed from the forest. Dead and dying trees would decay with carbon released to the atmosphere.

67 Management activities in the project area and adjacent areas already planned would be carried out.

Alternative 2

Current and foreseeable actions include the proposed alternative and other actions in the cumulative effects analysis area. Refer to the vegetation and other sections for more information on the details of these proposals. The majority of these actions occur on soils with a low to medium erosion hazard and a medium to high compaction hazard. Some of the soils in these areas exhibit perched water tables during winter months due to the presence of fragipans in the soil profile and are subject to erosion, compaction, and destruction of soil structure. Adherence to the Forest Plan Standards and Guides, Regional Soil Quality Standards, mitigation measures in this Environmental Assessment, and strict timber sale contract administration would be critical in minimizing detrimental impacts to the soil resource. The effects of prescribed burning on soils are complex and depend on a host of factors but certain generalizations seem reasonably consistent. Dr. David Alban summarized these generalizations as follows: “ … burning has its most pronounced effect on the forest floor in which carbon (C), nitrogen (N), and sulfur (S) are volatilized, and calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), phosphorus (P), and other elements are left as ash. This ash is leached by rains into the mineral soil which increases its base saturation and pH. These changes also may have important effects on the microbial population of the soil…. Such soil changes are most pronounced during the first year after burns, but these properties usually revert to their pre-burn levels within a couple of years. ” (Alban 1977) Erosion levels may increase up to two years after a burn but usually revert to pre-burn levels within three to five years. There are many activities in this project which will result in a net improvement in watershed health. Road maintenance and other transportation actions, waterhole maintenance, trail re- location, watershed activities and other associated actions will be accomplished under this alternative. Other activities may result in short-term increases in erosion and displacement. These disturbances will return to pre-project levels over time. Expected erosion rates for various activities are located in the Project File.

Alternative 3

The cumulative effects of this alternative are similar to those of Alternative 2. In this alternative there would be no prescribed burning or herbicide use.

WATER - EXISTING CONDITION

This project lies within the Meramec River Watershed (8-digit hydrologic unit 07140102) in the Salem Plateau Subdivision of the Ozark Plateau Physiographic Region. The Meramec River is unique because it is the second longest free-flowing river in the state of Missouri (228 miles total length and 100% non-channelized or submerged by large impoundment). The Meramec River basin drains a total of 2,149 square miles of land. The 8-digit Meramec watershed is divided into seven 11-digit sub-basin watersheds. The project area is located in parts of two of these: the 11- digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. The Huzzah Creek sub-basin is 266 square miles (12.4%) of the Meramec watershed and the Courtois Creek sub-basin is 220 square miles (10.2%) of the Meramec watershed. The Project Area totals approximately 28 square miles 16% of the

68 combined Huzzah and Courtois Creek sub-basins or 3 % of the 8-digit Meramec River Watershed. The Project Area contains 12,772 acres of National Forest and 5,149 acres of non federal lands. Huzzah Creek (6th order stream) and Courtois Creek (5th order stream) are the two major drainages in the Project Area. The Courtois Creek flows into Huzzah Creek which flows into the Meramec River. At State Highway 8, Huzzah Creek is described as RE36J111; which means known upper perennial, warmwater, 7-day 2-year low flow 30-49.9 cfs, known gaining, and sunfish present (U.S. Forest Service, MTNF's Aquatic Ecological Classification System, 1982). At State Highway 8, the MTNF‟s AECS describes the Courtois Creek as RE36G111; which means known upper perennial, warmwater, 7-day 2-year low flow 10-29.9 cfs, known gaining, and sunfish present (U.S. Forest Service, MTNF's Aquatic Ecological Classification System, 1982). The Courtois Creek is higher in elevation than Huzzah Creek, resulting in a much higher gradient (48.4 feet/mile versus 9.1 feet/mile) (Blanc, et.al. 1998).

Classification and Designated Uses Classification and State of Missouri water quality standards can be found in the Code of State Regulations for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Division 20, and Chapter 7. Huzzah Creek from the mouth to T34N, R3W, Section 1, is designated for Livestock & Wildlife Watering (LWW), Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life and Human Health – Fish Consumption (AQL), Cool Water Fishery (CLF), Whole Body Contact Recreation (WBC –A [swimming]) and Secondary Contact Recreation (WBC – B [fishing, wading, boating]). Courtois Creek from the mouth to T35N, R1W, Section17, is designated for Livestock & Wildlife Watering (LWW), Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life and Human Health – Fish Consumption (AQL), Cool Water Fishery (CLF), Whole Body Contact Recreation (WBC –A [swimming]) and Secondary Contact Recreation (WBC – B [fishing, wading, boating]). The entire Project Area falls within the above designations for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Both Huzzah and Courtois Creeks are designated as “Outstanding State Resource Waters” from their mouths to State Highway 8. That part of the Project Area north of State Highway 8 falls within the above designation for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. “Outstanding State Resource Waters” have: 1) a high level of aesthetic or scientific value, 2) an undeveloped watershed, and 3) located on or pass through lands which are state or federally owned or held in easement for conservation purposes. The primary purpose of this designation is to maintain and protect the existing water quality. These two streams (Huzzah and Courtois creeks) are subject to special effluent limitations as required in MDNR Title 10 Code of State Regulation (CSR) 20-7.015(6). There are no existing or proposed wastewater treatment facilities on National Forest lands within the Project Area. There are no streams designated for industrial use or as a drinking water supply within the Project Area. Missouri is a riparian water rights state. The quantity withdrawn may not be so much that it adversely affects another riparian water user utilizing water from the same source. Under riparian water rights law, landowners have the right to use the water that is beside or below their lands, but they do not own it (MDNR, 2003). The MTNF has no existing or proposed water withdrawn proposals within the Project Area.

Springs Springs are the primary outlet points for groundwater moving through karst groundwater systems, and the Salem Plateau is host to an estimated 1,500 springs. Some springs are seeps and fens, in which the water flows out of sand, soil or gravel with no discernable outlet. Calcium,

69 magnesium, and bicarbonate, are the predominant dissolved components in the water due to the predominantly dolomite formations in which the water resides and travels. Fens have saturated soils from alkaline groundwater, while seeps have a primary source of saturated soils from neutral, acidic, or saline groundwater. There are 15 unnamed springs in Huzzah Creek portion of the Project Area and 3 unnamed springs in the Courtois Creek portion of the Project Area. These unnamed springs within the project area have an estimated flow less than 1 cubic feet per second (cfs) or < 448.8 gallons per minute (gpm). These springs are sources of cool water refuge to aquatic biota. Specific standards and guidelines require the Forest Service to manage springs, seeps, and fens to protect their natural features. There is no commercial harvest of timber proposed within a 100 feet radius. All vegetation management within springs, seeps, and fens are designed to protect their natural features. An Example of BMP‟s for seeps and fens include fencing to prevent establishment of illegal ORV trails. It would be highly unlikely springs would be effected by Forestry Operations using Best Management Practices (BMP‟s). Springs, seeps, and fens would not be negatively impacted by the proposed actions in the Shoal Creek Project.

Surface Water Quality Monitoring The Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) obtains a large quantity of data pertaining to the water resources of Missouri each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of Missouri. This data is published annually in report series, entitled "WATER RESOURCES DATA - MISSOURI." A copy of USGS Water Resource Data for water years 2002 – 2005 can be found in the project file. Also, the data collected can be located at USGS Missouri Water Science Center web site http://mo.water.usgs.gov/publications/index.htm

The USGS has an active surface water station (07014000) on Huzzah Creek near Steelville, MO. Water quality data for the period October 2001 to September 2005 did not exceed State standards except for one fecal coliform exceedence on 5/9/2002 (USGS, Water Resource Data, 2002-2005).

Table WQ-1. USGS Station 07014000 (Huzzah Creek near Steelville, MO) for water years 2002-2005. Selection of state standards used for comparison of values at each site are based on MDNR use designations corresponding to the section of stream sampled and include the following: AQL – Protection of Aquatic Life and Human Health-Fish Consumption, CLF – Cool-Water Fishery, LWW – Livestock and Wildlife Watering, WBC-A – Whole Body Contact Recreation (A = swimming) Sources: (USGS Water Resources Data Missouri Water Years 2002-2005 and MDNR Title 10 CSR 20-7).

State Standards Measure Exceedence Parameter AQL CLF LWW WBC-A Min-Max Temperature (oF) (cool 84.0 Maximum 42 -74 0/24 water fishery) pH 6.5 to 9.0 7.5 – 8.2 0/24 Oxygen, dissolved 5.0 Minimum 7.7 – 15.3 0/24 (mg/L) (cool water fishery)

70 Coliform, fecal (colonies < 200 21 – 100 1/24k / 100 ml) swim except 5/9/2002 was 1300 Bacteria, E. coli < 126 <1 – 120 0/24k (colonies / 100 ml) swim Hardness (mg/L as 86 - 220 N/A CaCO3) Nitrogen, Total 0.1-32.11 <0.01 - 0/24 Ammonia (mg/L as N) <0.04 Phosophorus, Total2 <0.02 - 0/24 (mg/L as P) <0.06 Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) 9-1503 <0.05 - 0/10 <1.25 Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) 172-3374 <1.0 - <6.0 0/4 k Non-ideal count of colonies (too large a sample, colonies merged). Fecal coliform: 12 of 24 samples were non-ideal counts. The 12 ideal counts ranged 20 – 100 except for one sample on 5/2002 which was 1300. E. coli bacteria: 15 of 24 samples were non-ideal counts. The 9 ideal counts ranged from <1 – 110.

1 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for cool-water fishery. Levels are pH and temperature dependent. For specific criteria at varying pH and temperatures consult Table B of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality. 2 State standard for phosphorus is currently unavailable. The Environmental Protection Agency currently recommends a maximum of 0.1mg/L for rivers (Christensen and Pope 1997). 3 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for all waters. Levels are hardness dependent. For specific criteria at varying hardness consult Table A of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality. 4 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for cool water fishery. Levels are hardness dependent. For specific criteria at varying hardness consult Table A of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality.

The USGS has an active surface water station (07014200) on Courtois Creek at Berryman, MO. Water quality data for the period October 2001 to September 2005 did not exceed State standards except for one fecal coliform exceedence on 5/9/2002 (USGS, Water Resource Data, 2002-2005).

Table WQ-2 USGS Station 07014200 (Courtois Creek at Berryman, MO) for water years 2002-2005. Selection of state standards used for comparison of values at each site are based on MDNR use designations corresponding to the section of stream sampled and include the following: AQL – Protection of Aquatic Life and Human Health-Fish Consumption, CLF – Cool-Water Fishery, LWW – Livestock and Wildlife Watering, WBC-A – Whole Body Contact Recreation (A = swimming) Sources: (USGS Water Resources Data Missouri Water Years 2002-2005 and MDNR Title 10 CSR 20-7).

71 State Standards Measure Exceedence AQL CLF LWW WBC-A Min-Max Parameter Temperature (oF) (cool 84.0 Maximum 38.7 – 77.7 0/24 water fishery) pH 6.5 to 9.0 7.0 – 8.3 0/24 Oxygen, dissolved (mg/L) 5.0 Minimum 6.9 – 15.1 0/24 (cool water fishery) Coliform, fecal (colonies / 200 <1 - 590k 1/24 100 ml) Bacteria, E. coli (colonies 126 1 – 150k 0/24 /100 ml) Hardness (mg/L as 78 - 240 N/A CaCO3) Nitrogen, Total 0.1-32.11 <0.01 - <0.10 0/24 Ammonia (mg/L as N) Phosophorus, Total2 <0.02 - <0.06 0/24 (mg/L as P) Lead, Dissolved (ug/L) 9-1503 <0.08 - <3.21 0/8 Zinc, Dissolved (ug/L) 172-3374 <1.0 - <32.0 0/8

k Non-ideal count of colonies (too large a sample, colonies merged). Fecal coliform: 8 of 24 samples were non-ideal counts. The 16 ideal counts ranged <1 – 118 except for one sample on 5/2002 which was 590. E. coli bacteria: 19 of 24 samples were non-ideal counts. There was one non-ideal count on 5/2002 of 150. The 5 ideal counts ranged 21 – 46. The 5/2002 non-ideal count is not considered an exceedence.

1 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for cool-water fishery. Levels are pH and temperature dependent. For specific criteria at varying pH and temperatures consult Table B of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality.

2 State standard for phosphorus is currently unavailable. The Environmental Protection Agency currently recommends a maximum of 0.1mg/L for rivers (Christensen and Pope 1997).

3 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for all waters. Levels are hardness dependent. For specific criteria at varying hardness consult Table A of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7- Water Quality.

4 Based on maximum chronic and acute standards for cool water fishery. Levels are hardness dependent. For specific criteria at varying hardness consult Table A of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality.

303(d) list Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Law requires that states identify those waters for which current pollution control measures are inadequate. The Proposed 2004/2006 303(d) list

72 dated October 11, 2006, is a list of waters not meeting state water quality standards, for which adequate pollution control requirements have not yet been put into place and for which a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) document has not yet been written. Within the Project Area there is a 3.0 mile segment on the Courtois Creek „Water Body Identification Number‟ (WBID) WBID-1943 listed in the 2004 Missouri Water Quality Report (MDNR, 2004) and the Proposed 2004/2006 303(d) list dated October 11, 2006 as impaired for aquatic use. The pollutants are identified as lead and zinc with the source being the Viburnum Mine Tailings. These ponds are located up stream, outside of the Project Area. Water from the tailings areas including stormwater runoff is discharged into Indian Creek which feeds into the Courtois. The permitted design flow in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is approximately 7 million gallons per day and makes up nearly all the water flow in Indian Creek. The water in Indian Creek flows into and impairs the above listed 3.0 mile segment on the Courtois Creek (MDNR, 2002). In the event of a failed dam, large quantities of sediment (tailings) would flow into Courtois basin, moving downstream to Huzzah creek. Tailings dams are regulated structures under the Missouri Dam Safety Law contained in Chapters 236.400-236.500 of the revised Statutes of Missouri. Within the project area, there are no tailings ponds or waste disposal ponds on National Forest lands. None of the alternatives, including the no action alternative, would affect these facilities.

Ground Water For the purpose of resource evaluation, Missouri has been divided into seven groundwater provinces. The Project Area is located in the Salem Plateau groundwater province (Brookshire, 1997). Groundwater quality in the Salem Plateau groundwater province is generally good. In most areas of the province, groundwater quality meets Missouri public drinking water standards with little or no treatment. The water is generally a moderately-mineralized calcium- magnesium-bicarbonate type. The most important aquifer in the Salem Plateau is the Ozark aquifer. Nearly every town, city, and rural water district produce most, if not all, of their water from this aquifer. It also is tapped by the vast majority of private domestic wells. The Ozark aquifer in the Salem Plateau is recharged by precipitation. The most significant geologic condition that influences groundwater recharge is the presence of Karst features (Miller & Vandike, 1997). There are six known caves within the Project Area; five in the Huzzah sub- watershed and one in the Courtois sub-watershed. The karst features associated with these caves will be protected in accordance with Forest Plan standard and guides. There is no commercial harvest of timber proposed within 100 feet of the edge of a cave entrance. All vegetation management around the cave and the cave entrance are designed to protect biota and natural features within the cave. This action will help protect the karst features associated with these caves and maintain existing ground water quality and quantity. Contaminants on the surface could eventually reach the groundwater; however, the likely sources would be improper waste disposal or accidental spills of potential contaminants; such as tailing ponds outside the project area (Miller and Vandike, 1997). It would be highly unlikely ground water would be affected by Forestry Operation using Best Management Practices (BMP‟s).

Potential Pollution Types and Impacts associated with Forestry Operations Forestry Operation practices may affect water; however, effects are of relatively short duration, three to ten years, are often difficult to detect and usually cause no permanent degradation of beneficial water uses (MDNR, March 2000, revised January 2004). Forestry practices which could affect sediment, nutrients, organic debris, temperature, streamflow, and turbidity, are summarized below.

73 Sediment: According to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report “Chapter 3- Management Measures for Forestry” (EPAMMF 2003) states, "Sediment is often the primary pollutant associated with forestry activities. Sediment is often defined as mineral or organic solid material that is eroded from the land surface by water, ice, wind, or other processes and is then transported or deposited away from its original location. Sediment transported from forest lands into waterbodies can be particularly detrimental to benthic organisms and many fish species." This same report goes on to say, "Suspended sediments increase water turbidity, thereby limiting the depth to which light can penetrate which can affect aquatic vegetation photosynthesis. Suspended sediments can also damage the gills of some fish species, causing them to sufficate, and can limit the ability of sight-feeding fish to find and obtain food. Turbid waters tend to have higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen levels which can harm vegetation and aquatic biotic". The State of Missouri Nonpoint Source Management Plan (dated March 2000, revised January 2004) „Report on Silviculture‟ (condensed from the original document,"A Final Report on Missouri Silvicultural and Watershed Protection Practices" produced in 1987 by the Silvicultural and Watershed Protection Practices Committee convened and chaired by the Missouri Department of Conservation) states (in reference to turbidity),"Fish species are variable in sensitivity to sedimentation and increases in turbidity. Trout, smallmouth bass and rock bass, some darters and madtoms are more sensitive than creek chubs and green sunfish. … High levels of turbidity may occur immediately following timber harvesting, but sediments settle quickly. The sediment may smother some benthic species while benefiting others. However, the increased flows in riffles are able to clear the cobbles and gravel of sediment providing a healthy benthic habitat. As forests regrow following harvest, turbidity levels return to a normal level." The “State of Missouri Nonpoint Source Management Plan Report on Silviculture” states, "Sediment movement is related to the amount of soil disturbance, percentage of the area utilized by the road system, slope, slope length, amount of rainfall, and other factors. Generally, sediment yields the first year following timber harvest are increased. However, there is little scientific evidence that sediment generated by silvicultural activities has interfered with beneficial water uses in Missouri. Once the silvicultural treatment is completed, vegetative growth and leaf fall begin to stabilize soil movement on the area. Within a three- to four-year period, sediment yield returns to pretreatment levels. Analyses of sediment yields on forest land nationwide, for both undisturbed and harvested forest land where BMP are both used and excluded, show approximately 25 percent of the studies denote yields of about 0.02 tons per acre per year; 75 percent of the studies did not exceed 0.25 tons per acre per year and about 9 percent of the studies, exceeded 1 ton per acre per year. Sedimentation following clearcut harvesting in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas with no BMP is documented at 0.106 tons per acre; selection method harvesting resulted in 0.017 tons per acre the first year. … Clearcut harvesting using BMP resulted in a 0.019 to 0.025 tons per acre annual soil loss while clearcutting with no BMP resulted in 0.04 to 0.27 tons per acre annual soil loss in a Pennsylvania study. …”Nearly 90 percent of the erosion from timber harvesting can be traced to the logging road system.” The BMPs found in this document were considered during the developed of the 2005 Revised Forest Plan. In most cases the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan exceed the measures stated in this document, and in every case that is the minimum protection. Based on these facts, it would be anticipated that similar activities done under the guidance of the forest plan would yield few impacts.

The book “Sediment in Streams – Sources, Biological Effects, and Control” (Waters, 1995) offers several methods of reducing erosion from logging roads. Road location, water barring, drainage diversion, re-vegetating the area after use are just a few of the effective measures that can be

74 implemented to significantly reduce the erosion from temporary roads and skid trail and prevent the sediment from directly entering stream courses. The methods described in this book are common practice on the Mark Twain National Forest. Nutrients: The EPA's Management Measures for Forestry (EPAMMF 2006) states, "Sudden removal of large quantities of vegetation through harvesting can also increase leaching of nutrients from the soil system into surface waters and ground waters by disrupting the nitrogen cycle. Excessive amounts of nutrients may cause enrichment of waterbodies, stimulating algal blooms." Algal blooms are episodes of excessive aquatic plant growth usually associated with a sudden increase in nutrient levels. The State of Missouri Nonpoint Source Management Plan Report on Silviculture (MDNR, March 2000, revised January 2004) states," Available data do not indicate any large detrimental increase in dissolved nutrient concentrations in stream flow as a result of silvicultural activities. Nitrate concentrations of 0.83 milligrams per liter (or < 1 ppm) are documented in the stream flow of a Missouri watershed after harvesting. Nitrate concentrations in water samples from a buffer strip are approximately 0.4 milligrams per liter. In all study cases, concentrations have remained below the (Missouri) drinking water standard of 10 ppm for nitrates." The MDNR 2000 Report on Silviculture states, "Studies in Missouri have documented that forested areas release less nitrogen to streams than other land uses" Jacobson (2004) under Implications for the Ozarks of Missouri states on p. 18 that, "Downstream effects of timber harvest on dissolved constituents in water will be small. Timber harvest pulses can disrupt nutrient cycling and release pulses of nutrients to streams; however, these pulses are short-lived and relatively small in magnitude. Effects of timber harvest on water quality are certainly small when compared to effects of alternative land uses such as agriculture and urbanization." Organic Debris Resulting from Forest Activities: The EPAMMF of 2006 states, "Organic debris can adversely affect water quality by causing increased oxygen demand (due to decay) resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels in watercourses. Logging slash and debris deposited in streams can alter streamflows by forming debris dams or rerouting streams, and can also redirect flow in the channel, increasing bank cutting and resulting sedimentation. … Naturally occurring large woody debris in streams can also create physical habitat diversity, which can be beneficial to (fish) and can stabilize streambeds and banks." Land use practices, such as gravel mining and conversion of riparian areas to pasture has altered stream flow and created debris dams in many Ozark streams. Organic debris, such as slash generated from timber harvest, decays rapidly and if not placed in a stream course or riparian area would have little to no hydrological effects. Temperature: According to the EPAMMF of 2006, "Increased temperatures in streams … can result from vegetation removal in the riparian zone from either harvesting or herbicide use. These temperature increases can be dramatic in smaller (lower order) streams, adversely affecting aquatic species and habitat. Increased water temperatures can also decrease the dissolved oxygen holding capacity of a waterbody, increasing … oxygen demand … and accelerating chemical processes." According to the State of Missouri Nonpoint Source Management Plan Report on Silviculture (MDNR, March 2000, revised January 2004), "Missouri‟s water quality standards set maximum temperatures of 90 degrees F for most waters, 84 degrees F for certain Ozark rivers designated as cool water fisheries and 68 degrees F for areas below large springs designated as cold water fisheries. … Very extensive harvest might cause water quality exceedance in some of the smaller classified streams, but typically sized harvests in Missouri should not cause exceedence of temperature standards in classified waters." Streamflow: The EPAMMF of 2006 states, "Increased streamflow often results from vegetation removal. Tree removal reduces evapotranspiration, which increases water availability to stream

75 systems. The amount of the streamflows increase is related to the total area harvested, topography, soil type, and harvesting practices. Increased streamflows can scour channels, erode streambanks, increase sedimentation and increase peak flows." Research entitled, Downstream Effects of Timber Harvest in the Ozarks of Missouri (Jacobson 2004) states, “…For timber harvest in which forest is regenerated after cutting, increases in water yield would be expected. Most of the increase would be expected as base flow, measurable in small basins, but probably not measurable in basins that are large enough to mix in varied land- use types. The water-yield effect would be transient and would decrease to background levels in 10 years or less as evapotranspiration increased with vegetation regrowth.” Turbidity: In (MDNR, March 2000, revised January 2004), "Missouri's water quality standards state there shall be no color that will cause substantial visible contrast with natural appearance of the stream or its beneficial uses. Water flowing through stream calibration equipment prior to forest harvesting indicates turbidity levels of 0.3 to 20 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units), representing pristine levels of water quality. Following a harvest, turbidity levels ranged from 0.6 to 42 NTU on harvests using buffer strips while without buffer strips 0.8 to 69 NTU. Harvesting does impact benthic life with sediments and cause some low-level turbidity. Increased levels of turbidity, associated with harvesting activities, appear to be associated with peak storm flow events". Research entitled, “Downstream Effects of Timber Harvest in the Ozarks of Missouri” (Jacobson 2004) states “Storm-flow increases may be significant in small basins, but because of high temporal variability in originating storms, the effects may be difficult to measure. The ability to detect storm-flow increases attributable to timber harvest will decrease with basin size as flood- routing conditions in the riparian zone and a greater variety of land-use types influence hydrologic responses.” As the forest regrows, turbidity levels return to normal.

WATER - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 1: No changes would be made to the existing 26.4 miles of National Forest System roads within the project area. Routine maintenance on approximately 18.6 miles of system road would continue. These maintained roads would continue to provide access for both Forest Service management activities and public enjoyment of the area.

No reconstruction of system roads would occur. Abandoned non-system roads contribute sediment to streams which could lower existing water quality. Implementation of the no action alternative could cause changes to water quality and quantity within the Project Area; but not of the magnitude to impair MDNR- designated beneficial water uses.

Alternative 2: In this alternative, use of commercial harvest and precommercial thinning would be used to improve forest health, wildlife habitats, and natural communities.

Routine maintenance of approximately 18.6 miles of system road would continue. The effects of road maintenance would be the same as in alternative 1. In addition, approximately 7.8 miles of system road would be reconstructed. Road reconstruction would improve motorized access to the Shoal Creek project area. The reconstructed roads could be safely used by high-clearance and/or commercial vehicles, as the drivers would not encounter

76 mudholes, ruts, or tree limbs whacking their vehicles. Sight distance along the roads would be improved. The reconstructed roads would have less erosion, and thus less sedimentation, due to their hardened driving surface. The area‟s roaded natural experience would be enhanced as well. Approximately 7.3 miles of non-system road would be converted to system road and reconstructed. Designating the road as a system road authorizes it for public motorized access, complimenting the roaded natural recreation setting. Reconstruction of the roads would have same benefits as described above.

Approximately 48 miles of non-system road would be decommissioned. Motorized use on the unneeded roads would be eliminated. Decommissioning would return the land back into suitable areas for natural resource production (wood products, wildlife habitat, forage, etc). These unneeded roads would no longer be a source of soil erosion and sedimentation. Numerous non-system roads are currently managed under special use permits for access to private land (totaling approximately 23.6 miles). Other non-system roads have been identified as potential candidates to be managed under special use permit. If it is determined access is not necessary or no longer needed for any of these roads, they will be decommissioned also.

According to (MDNR, March 2000, revised January 2004), nearly 90 percent of the erosion from timber harvesting can be traced to the logging road system. Of primary concern is how temporary roads accelerate the delivery of sediment to steams and rivers. Jacobson (1999) stated “Ozarks landscapes do not have particularly severe problems with landslides and road-fill failures. Still, accelerated runoff from roads and high erodibilty of graveled road surfaces presents considerable potential for increased sediment delivery. Roads can act as a source of sediment and as a source of enhanced storm-flow runoff to first-order stream channels. Increased runoff in low-order stream channels may initiate bed and bank erosion downstream or contribute to continued upstream migration of headcuts.” Many effective techniques in preventing erosion in timber-harvest operations have been developed, particularly for logging roads. Erosion from the roadbed can be reduced greatly by surfacing roads with gravel and by providing cross-drainage to the forest floor with water bars and particularly, the broad-based dip. Use of buffer strips is one of the oldest means of preventing sediment from reaching streams. Buffer strips create stable streamflow, stabilize streambanks, reduce suspended sediment and turbidity, lower summer water temperatures, and filter chemical and organic pollution. With implementation of these BMPs, the proposed logging road system would have no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Non-Point source contaminants of forestry activities, including temporary roads, as proposed in this alternative should not have an adverse effect on water quality and quantity, so long as Best Management Practices are implemented. The proposed crop tree release would improve wildlife habitats and restore natural communities. Pre-commercial thinning using a chainsaw to release desired crop trees would expose little to no mineral soil. Crop tree release (pre-commercial thinning), as proposed in this alternative, would not have an adverse effect on water quality and quantity, so long as Best Management Practices are implemented. Prescribed Burning: The Shoal Creek project identifies ten areas for prescribed burning (Table WQ-3).

77 Table WQ-3. Prescribed burns proposed in the Shoal Creek Project Area. Name of burn Size of Existing New New Total Purpose of Burn burn Fire hand bladed fire line Fire Fire line line line RBC Burn 81 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.5 To improve habitat for running acres buffalo clover where it was once known to occur. Vogt Glade 60 0.3 0.8 0.2 1.3 To reduce woody competition in a acres glade complex and around a “hanging” fen. Brazil 794 1.1 0.5 4.0 5.6 To reduce woody sprouts and Savannah acres develop woodland conditions. Richter 186 0.6 0.9 1.0 2.5 To reduce woody sprouts and Savannah acres develop woodland conditions. Czar Savannah 502 1.2 0.6 3.6 5.4 To reduce woody sprouts and acres develop woodland conditions. Sugartree Burn 344 2.2 0.2 1.8 4.2 To encourage pine-oak regeneration acres and reduce woody vegetation around a small fen. Y Hwy Burn 83 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.5 To encourage pine-oak regeneration. acres Harmony Burn 4,969 10.7 2.2 7.3 20.2 To reduce hazardous fuels within the acres entire burn area and to develop woodland conditions on 1,686 acres within the burn area. Berryman 105 1.7 0.25 0 1.9 To reduce woody sprouts and Bottomland acres develop woodland conditions. Burn Brazil 75 1.0 0.4 0 1.4 To reduce vegetation prior to Bottomland acres planting areas with bottomland Burn hardwoods Totals 7,199 19.6 7.4 18.6 45.5

The proposed prescribed burns would not have a negative impact on water quality. A low intensity, landscape prescribed burn for fuel reduction or wildlife is by nature extremely patchy. The proposed site preparation burns are old fields located near streams. A site preparation burn early in the CY would expose the soil for a shorter period of time than a fall burn; yet still allow planting of young seedlings before the sap rise in the spring. The local effect of a given prescribed burn on streams varies depending on the intensity of the fire, which is directly related to the time of the year the burn takes place. The primary concern is how the fire accelerates the delivery of sediment to the surface water system. The intensity of a wildfire could have negative effects on streams by exposing mineral soil to sheet erosion; whereas, a low intensity prescribed fire which did not burn down to mineral soil, would not contribute a significant sediment load into the Huzzah and Courtois watersheds. A site preparation burn in the spring would expose soils for a short period of time but the area would quickly green-up. A spring site preparation burn would not contribute a significant sediment load into the Huzzah and Courtois watersheds. There is approximately 20 miles of existing fireline. Approximately 7 miles of new hand line and 19 miles of new bladed fire lines would be needed. Bladed fire lines could cause soil erosion and allow sediment to enter stream courses. It is critical to intercept and retain sediment between the fire line and a receiving stream. Bladed fire lines will not have an adverse effect on water quality; so long as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures as listed in this document are implemented. Prescribe burning of the woods would not release mercury into the

78 atmosphere unless items containing mercury were to be burned (John Ford, per. Com.). Prescribe burns will not include trash dumps that may contain common house hold items such as thermometers, button batteries, thermostats, fluorescent light bulbs; items known to contain mercury. Streambank Stabilization Each of these five areas listed in Table WQ-4 are showing evidence of severe streambank erosion, most of which has been caused by removal of trees within the riparian area and open riparian cattle grazing during the 1900-1940 period before the land was acquired as National Forest. Red Bluff is located in the Huzzah sub-watershed. The remaining sites are located in the Courtois sub-watershed. Table WQ-4. Streambanks proposed to be stabilized. Site Name Linear length Bank height Stream Subwatershed (feet) (feet) affected affected Timberline 317 5 Courtois Courtois Berryman 528 8 Courtois Courtois Red Bluff 250 4 Huzzah Huzzah Murry Hill 1003 6 Courtois Courtois Hazel Creek 500 5 Hazel Courtois

This proposed project consists of approximately 2,598 feet of stream bank that is showing signs of toe instability and a sloughing off of the bank above it. The streams are cutting into the bank. The riparian is sparse and the stream bank has little to no vegetation. Sections of the stream bank fall into the streams during rain storm events. These storm events cause significant scour at the toe and up the bank. The proposed action is to stabilize these sections of stream banks. The eroded stream bank will be graded to a 2:1 to 4:1 slope and compacted. Stream bank material will be excavated out of a shallow trench at the base of the eroding bank with a track hoe. The base elevation of the trench will be below the elevation of the streambed. Rock will be placed below normal stream flow and up and over the top of the bank, if needed. Rock, cedar trees, turf re-enforcement mats, and biodegradable blankets may be used to hold the soil in place until vegetation is established. Both rooted stock and cuttings will be planted between the rock and along the water edge. All disturbed areas will be seeded with a native seed mix for soil stabilization. Native tree/shrub seedlings will be planted along the bank and back into the riparian zone. Due to the velocity of water that attacks the stream banks, benway weirs (rock jetty) may be used at the upstream end of the cut bank areas. This would slow the velocities of the water hitting the bank, slowing down the erosional process. It would refocus the main flow of the channel into to the center of the river, instead of at the bank location.” All activities involving soil disturbance will be conducted during periods of normal or low water flow periods. Heavy equipment use in the stream will be limited to the amount of time absolutely essential for the project. All federal and state permits, such as a Corps of Engineers 404 permit and State of Missouri 401 permit will be obtained. The five revetment projects will lessen the amount of soil movement and the potential for sediment to enter the streams; which will help maintain MDNR- designated beneficial water uses, including the protection of aquatic life, for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. The proposed action will have a positive impact on aquatic species and habitats in Huzzah and Courtois watersheds. Approximately 100 acres of open fields (Table WQ-5) will be converted to riparian by planting native hardwoods, such as silver maple, hackberry, northern red oak, sycamore, green ash,

79 cottonwood, and hazelnuts. Planting native hardwoods trees and shrubs will reduce soil erosion. The newly created buffer strips will provide benefits including reduction of sediment entering stream courses and increase the amount of shade to maintain water temperatures suitable for cool water aquatic species. The Courtois Creek is higher in elevation than Huzzah Creek, resulting in a much higher gradient (48.4 feet/mile versus 9.1 feet/mile) (Blanc, et.al. 1998). It is extremely important to provide a large tree riparian zone along high gradient streams. Over the past 100 years, erosion and deposited sediment has changed the form of Huzzah and Courtois Creeks to make them wider and shallower. The primary missing habitat type is deep pools. This is the case for most Ozark streams. Creating large tree riparian zone along the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks will help restore stream morphology, including deep pools. Also, a large tree riparian buffer strip is needed to provide large woody debris, another missing habitat component. Establishing a large tree riparian area would improve water quality and quantity, improve aquatic habitat and be a benefit to aquatic species in the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks.

Table WQ-5. Acres of bottomland hardwood establishment proposed. Name Location Stream affected Subwatershed Size of area (acres) T R Section affected Murry Hill T36N, R1W, Courtois Courtois 5 Section 29 Berryman T37N, R2W Courtois Courtois 49 Section 13 & 14 Brazil T36N, R1W, Courtois Courtois 47 Section 8

Herbicide use: In this alternative, it is proposed to use herbicides. The use of Triclopyr and Glyphosate herbicides is proposed on 20 acres as part of site prep for bottomland hardwood tree planting; 41 acres to eradicate noxious weeds; and the equivalent of one acre to treat the stumps of cut trees on 1,363 acres of savannah development and 844 acres of savannah maintenance (Table WQ-6).

Table WQ-6: Proposed herbicide treatments

Proposed Activity Acres to # acres where Targeted plant Herbicide Application be direct species to be (s) proposed Method restored application of controlled for use herbicide is proposed

Bottomland 5 1-2 (20%) Ky-31 fescue, Triclopyr Manual – Hardwood Japanese direct foliar Glyphosate Reestablishment - honeysuckle, application Murry Hill multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza

Bottomland 49 8-10 (20%) Ky-31 fescue, Triclopyr Manual – Hardwood Japanese direct foliar Glyphosate Reestablishment - honeysuckle, application Berryman multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza

Bottomland 47 9-11 (20%) Ky-31 fescue, Triclopyr Manual – Hardwood Japanese direct foliar

80 Reestablishment - honeysuckle, Glyphosate application Brazil multiflora rose, sericea lespedeza

Noxious Weed 56 41 (73%) Sericea lespedeza Triclopyr Manual – Control – Comp. direct foliar Glyphosate 121 Stand 18 application

Savannah 2,207 1 Sprouts from Triclopyr Manual – Development & sassafras, red applied to Glyphosate Midstory Control maple, black oak, freshly cut red oaks stumps

For Glyphosate “the likelihood of direct acute toxic effects on aquatic invertebrates or longer term direct effects on any fish species seems extremely remote based on central estimates of the hazard quotient and unlikely base on upper ranges of the hazard quotient” (page 4-43 Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). Based on standard animal bioassays for carcinogenic activity in vivo, there is no basis for asserting that glyphosate is likely to pose a substantial human health risk” (page 3-2 Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). For Triclopyr, the formulation BEE is more toxic to fish and other aquatic species than the formulation TEA. For Triclopyr TEA, risks to aquatic species are low over the entire range of application rates that may be used in Forest Service programs (page 4-26 Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). For Triclopyr BEE, risk to aquatic species is more hazardous when used near bodies of water, where runoff to open water may occur (page 4-27 Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). The evidence for human carcinogenicity is marginal and Triclopyr has a low order of acute lethal potency (page 3-1 Triclopyr – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment). Reference USDA-Forest Service, 2005, pesticide risk assessments. On line at: (Glyphosate) http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.htm (Triclopyr) http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/weeds/Triclopyr_profile.pdf Aerial application of herbicides has a greater potential to adversely affect water quality than ground- based applications, especially if herbicides are applied under unfavorable conditions, such as on windy days, or if they are applied directly to watercourses. In this alternative, there will be no aerial application of herbicide. In this alternative, no herbicide will be applied directly to standing/live water, such as seeps, fens, spring, pond, or flowing stream. Only aquatic herbicide formulations of glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides will be used near aquatic systems. All safety measures identified on the manufacturers label and in the appendix of this document will be followed. Aquatic herbicide formulations would be used in bottomland hardwood planting areas (approximately 18-23 acres where those acres fall within RMZ‟s and WPZ‟s). For noxious weed control and mid-story control, no herbicides will be used in the riparian management zone (RMZ) and water protection zone (WPZ). The careful selective use of herbicides can provide a safe and cost-effective means to site prep, control noxious weeds and create savannah by stump treating cut trees. The adverse effects on water quality and fisheries due to herbicide applications typically result from not following the specific application directions on the manufacturers label for the chemical being used, which can lead to improper application, such as applying too much or not observing buffers around watercourses. Only trained personnel would recommend, use, or supervise the application of herbicides. With implementation by holder of a current MO Certified Pesticide Applicator‟s license and using herbicide in accordance with label directions, there should be no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses, including protection of aquatic life.

81 Fencing fens: All spring, seeps, and fens located in the Project Area will be protected in accordance with Forest Plan standard and guides. In this alternative, it is proposed to place a fence around Town Branch Fen and Huzzah Fen to protect them from ORV traffic. The fences would be constructed of wire, using cedar or metal corner posts. No heavy equipment would be used on the wet soils of the fens, during fence construction. This action will help protect the spring like features associated with these fens and benefit surface and ground water quality and quantity. Vernal ponds construction: In this alternative, it is proposed to construct 103 vernal ponds to maintain and improve amphibian habitat. Vernal pools would be constructed using a small dozer and the average size of a vernal pool would be about 400 square feet. The vernal pools would be designed so that they are irregular in shape and have a “natural” appearance in the forest. Long-term maintenance of these vernal pools is expected to be limited to some cutting of brush around them; most of the vernal pools are expected to be maintenance free. The construction of an average vernal pond will require excavation of approximately 45 cubic feet of mineral soils. This is a small amount of mineral soils as compared to a linear road prism. Still, the excavated soils would be subject to sheet erosion during rain storm events. Sediment transported from forest lands into waterbodies can be particularly detrimental to benthic organisms and many fish species. Fish species are variable in sensitivity to sedimentation and increases in turbidity. Trout, smallmouth bass and rock bass, some darters and madtoms are more sensitive than creek chubs and green sunfish. It is important to minimize soil erosion. This can be accomplished by stabilization of excavated material or by intercepting and retaining sediment between the site of its origin and a receiving stream. Site selection is the most critical factor to reduce and minimize soil erosion. Site selection will avoid highly erosive soils, steep slopes, and ephemeral channels. Any water discharge would be directed onto undisturbed forest litter or rocks. Vegetation will be established on excavated mineral soils. This action would reduce the amount of sediment moving off vernal pond sites and help maintain MDNR-designated beneficial water uses for the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. The construction of vernal ponds will not have an adverse effect on water quality and quantity or change biological biota in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks.

Table WQ-7. Summary of Activity Effects for Alternative 2 Activity Measure (approximate) Potential Effects upon Water Quality The use of commercial harvest to Commercial harvest -- Sediment generated by silvicultural improve forest health, wildlife Seed tree – 2366 acres. treatments and associated road habitats, and natural Shelterwood – 1871 acres. construction and operation could communities and associated Uneven-age – 2314 acres. enter streams and alter natural system road maintenance, road Overstory removal – 69 ac. relationships between the biota and reconstruction, road converting Thin/Sanitation – 2157 ac. the stream substrate by changing and temporary road construction TSI/release – 889 acres. the condition of the substrate. With followed by obliteration. Transportation: frequent road maintenance and -road maintenance 19 mi implementation of BMP‟s, there -road reconstruction 8 mi. would be no effect on MDNR - -convert non-system road designated beneficial water uses. and reconstruct 7 mi. -decommission non-system roads 48 mi. The use of crop tree release 3421 acres. Precommercial thinning using a

82 (precommercial thinning) to chainsaw to release desired crop improve wildlife habitats, and trees would expose little to no natural communities. mineral soil. This action would have no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses. The use of prescribed burning to Fuel reduction – 7199 acres Prescribed burning reduces reduce existing fuel loading, and 19 miles of new bladed vegetation cover. The fire lines improve wildlife habitat and site fire lines. would be lightly bladed or disked. preparation for bottom land Sediment generated by these hardwood reestablishment. activities could enter streams and alter natural relationships between the biota and the stream substrate by changing the condition of the substrate. With implementation of BMP‟s, there would be no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses. Streambank stabilizations projects Five streambank The potential for sediment to enter including revetments to stabilize stabilization revetment stream courses during storm events eroding stream banks. projects that total is high. Stabilizing stream banks approximately 2598 feet of will reduce the amount of mineral stream bank. soil exposed. This action will help maintain MDNR designated beneficial water uses for Courtois and Huzzah creeks. The use of Triclopyr and 20 acres of site prep With implementation by holder of a Glyphosate herbicides is proposed 41 acres noxious weed current MO Certified Pesticide on 20 acres as part of site prep for 1 acre equivalent on cut tree Applicator‟s license and using bottomland hardwood tree stumps. herbicide in accordance with label planting; 41 acres to eradicate directions plus protective measures noxious weeds; and the identified in the pesticide risk equivalent of one acre to treat the assessments and this document; stumps of cut trees on 1,351 acres there should be no effect on of savannah development and 937 MDNR- designated beneficial acres of savannah maintenance. water uses, including protection of aquatic life. The use of fencing to protect 2 fens The potential for ORV traffic to Town Branch Fen and Huzzah destroy fens is high. Placing a Fen fence around the fens will reduce illegal ORV traffic. This action will help protect this water resource. The replacement of culverts on Washington County road Existing culverts restrict & impede two roads/stream crossings to 657 on Town Branch water flow. Existing culverts have improve Aquatic Organism (T36N,R1W,Sec.13); and increased the water velocity. These Passage. Washington County road culverts may plug with wooded 657 on Courtois Creek debris and divert water over the (T36N,R1W,Sec.8). road; resulting in erosion and sediment entering stream course. Larger culverts, concrete box

83 culverts or bottomless arc pipes would simulate natural steam flow and allow aquatic organism passage. The construction of 103 vernal 103 vernal ponds Any water discharge would be ponds to maintain and improve directed onto undisturbed forest amphibian habitat litter or rocks. Vegetation will be established on excavated mineral soils. This action would reduce the amount of sediment moving off vernal pond sites and help maintain MDNR-designated beneficial water uses for the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks.

Alternative 3 (No Action): This alternative would be the similar to Alternative 2, except there would be 1) no prescribed burning to: reduce fuel loading or improve wildlife habitat; 2) no herbicide use: to eradicate non native invasive species, to site prep open fields for planting hardwoods trees, and to control hardwood sprouting in savannah areas; 3) no commercial savannah cuts and no non-commercial midstory cutting treatments in existing savannah. The direct and indirect effects for all other project proposals would be the same as Alternative 2.

WATER - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative water effects are the estimated additive changes in surface and ground water that might occur from the existing conditions, implementing the proposed action or alternatives to it, current activities, plus any foreseeable actions. Spatial boundary: The cumulative effects analysis area is the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. The Huzzah Creek sub-basin is 266 square miles (12.4%) of the 8-digit Meramec watershed and the Courtois Creek sub-basin is 220 square miles (10.2%) of the 8-digit Meramec watershed. The Project Area totals approximately 28 square miles 16% of the two14-digit hydrologic units or 3 % of the 8-digit Meramec River Watershed. The Project Area contains 12,772 acres of National Forest and 5,149 acres of non federal lands; all within the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. Cumulative effects on water are best addressed from analyses based on a watershed or sub-watershed area.

Temporal boundary:

The time period is 10 years because “water-yield effect would be transient and decrease to background levels in 10 years or less as evapotranspiration increased with vegetation regrowth” (Jacobson, 2004).

84 Past and present activities that may have an effect on Water: In the United States Geological Survey Report 94-333 (Jacobson and Primm 1994) the following observations summarize the probable qualitative changes to runoff, soil erosion and riparian erosional resistance on parts of the Ozarks landscape relative to man‟s impact: “Valley bottoms have the longest history of disturbance from their natural condition because they were the first to be settled, cleared, and farmed. The lowered resistance to stream erosion that results from removing or thinning riparian woodland would have been a significant factor, especially on small to medium sized streams for which bank stability and roughness provided by trees are not overwhelmed by discharge. Disturbance of bottomland riparian forest increased as free-range grazing and crop production, expanded and reached a peak in the post-timber-boom period. Headward extension of the channel network because of loss of riparian vegetation may have increased conveyance of the channel network (and hence flood peaks downstream) and removed gravel from storage in first and second order valleys at accelerated rates. This hypothesis is supported by a lack of other source areas for gravel and by observations that gravel came from small stream valleys, not off the slopes.” Much of what Jacobson and Primm (1994) described above occurred before establishment of the MTNF in the 1930‟s. This lowered resistance to stream erosion resulted from removing the riparian woodland. Without a riparian corridor, there was increase in the size of the stream channel network, which removed gravel and placed the gravel in Huzzah and Courtois Creek. During rain storm events, the existing gravel load is remobilized and transported downstream. Mining Operations (a point source pollution concern)

The upper Huzzah and Courtois sub-basins lie within the Viburnum Trend, also known as the “new lead belt”. Since 1955, roughly four thousand core holes have been drilled within the Salem-Potosi forest unit in developing and delineating the Viburnum Trend. It is anticipated that exploratory and development operations will continue. The Doe Run Viburnum Mine Tailings located near Viburnum, MO, are upstream and outside the Project Area. Water from mine operations, tailings areas, and stormwater runoff is discharged into Indian Creek, which flows into and impairs a 3.0 mile segment on Courtois Creek „Water Body Identification Number‟ (WBID) WBID-1943 which is listed in the 2004 Missouri Water Quality Report (MDNR, 2004) and listed in the Proposed 2004/2006 303(d) list dated October 11, 2006, as impaired for the pollutants lead and zinc. Indian Creek (WBID-1946) and a tributary to Indian Creek (WBID-3663) are outside and upstream of the Project Area but within the cumulative effects analysis area and both sites are listed as impaired for lead and zinc. The presence of mine tailings (finely ground rock) stored behind dams in side drainages of Courtois Creek represents a threat in the form of sediment pollution and lead contamination to aquatic life. Failure of these dams would allow large quantities of tailings to quickly enter the Courtois. There are no tailings ponds or waste disposal ponds on National Forest lands within the Project Area or within the cumulative effects analysis area. Since the Doe Run Viburnum Mine Tailings ponds are upstream of the Project Area, none of the alternatives, including the no action alternative, would have a positive or negative impact on impaired waters.

Non-point pollution concerns

The primary non-point pollution concern within the cumulative effects analysis area is the road network. The lack or road maintenance and land disruption from road and bridge construction results in increased sediment loads to receiving water systems. The total road network which includes Federal, State, County, Forest Service, and private drive ways contributes sediment to the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Unpaved, County Roads are the primary non-point pollution source within the cumulative effects analysis area; especially those county roads in riparian areas. None of the alternatives would

85 increase the miles of county roads nor increase the maintenance frequency of these roads. The action alternatives for the Shoal Creek Project would decommission approximately 48 miles of non-system roads on National Forest lands. While these Forest Service non-system roads are less than half the width of county roads and traffic is light; decommissioning will reduce the amount of sediment moving off site and help maintain MDNR designated beneficial water uses for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. In-stream gravel mining is another non-point pollution concern within the cumulative effects analysis area. Gravel removal from and adjacent to, stream channels can alter stream channel form, may increase sedimentation and turbidity, may aggravate flooding problems, and can have negative impacts at, below and above the removal location. To avoid negative impacts associated with in-stream gravel mining, the Forest Service plans to obtain gravel for road construction and maintenance from limestone quarry sources. In-stream gravel mining is not a permitted activity on National Forest lands.

Reasonably foreseeable actions Lead Mining Over the last ten years, through a series of acquisitions, the Doe Run Company has become the sole owner and operator of the existing underground mines along the Viburnum Trend. It is anticipated Doe Run will continue operation. Within the Cumulative Effects area; there are 6 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Prospecting Permits (or part of) issued for mineral exploration, containing approximately 688 acres, and 16 BLM Leases (or part of) issued for exploration and development of lead-zinc resources, containing approximately 1185 acres. Lead mining effluent can contain suspended and dissolved metals including cadmium, lead, and zinc which can be toxic to aquatic species. A study by MDNR (2002) indicated the aquatic communities are impaired in Indian Creek and a 3.0 mile segment of Courtois Creek. The permitted design flow in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is approximately 7 million gallons per day and makes up nearly all the water flow in Indian Creek. The permit authorizes wastewater discharge from the mine facilities in accordance with the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. The NPDES permit must be in compliance with the Missouri Clean Water Law (Chapter 644 R.S. as amended) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500, 92nd congress as amended). Exploration and development operations associated with prospecting permits and leases on National Forest lands will comply with the above laws.

Road network The total road network includes Federal, State, County, Forest Service, and private drive ways. Unpaved, County Roads are the primary non-point pollution source within the cumulative effects analysis area; especially those county roads in riparian areas. None of the alternatives would increase the miles of county roads nor increase the maintenance frequency of these roads. Private drive ways on National Forest lands are under or will be placed under special use permit which requires road maintenance.

In-stream gravel mining Sand and gravel mining operations on the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks are expected to continue. Private landowners who mine stream gravel for personal use are exempt from obtaining a permit. Commercial operators are required to obtain sand and gravel removal permits. In 2004, MDNR adopted new regulations designed to protect water quality while allowing for the excavation of sand and gravel from riparian environments.

Vegetation Management Other than the projects described in the proposed action, no other silvicultural management is planned for the project area in the foreseeable future.

86 Over the past 10 years, harvesting has occurred on a total of 8,693 acres on the Potosi Ranger District portion of the area that is inside the Shoal EA watershed boundary (4,882 acres of regeneration harvest and 3,891 acres of intermediate harvest). Silvicultural systems used include clearcutting, seedtree, shelterwood, sanitation, thinning, and uneven aged management improvement cuttings. Follow up site preparation for natural regeneration has been done on 5,224 acres and timber stand improvement has been done on 3,015 acres. In addition, in the southeastern corner of the watershed cumulative effects analysis area, remaining work to be completed as part of the Oak Decline EIS and the Delbridge HFI projects includes 965 acres of regeneration harvests, 789 acres of intermediate harvest, 1,183 acres of site preparation for natural regeneration and 187 of timber stand improvement. Future vegetative management projects with similar actions and effects will be proposed in the foreseeable future within the cumulative effects analysis watershed boundary both east and west of the Shoal Creek Area. The detailed proposed actions for those projects have yet to be developed. In 2003, Pine Fuel Reduction was implemented on 140 acres on the Salem Ranger District within the cumulative effects analysis area. In 2005, silvicultural activities were implemented on 5,859 acres in the Crooked Creek Analysis Area on the adjacent Salem Ranger District.

Recreation Developed recreation sites in the project area include Red Bluff Recreation Area, Hazel Creek Campground, and a portion of the Trace Creek Section of the Ozark Trail. The existing facilities at Hazel Creek Campground (vault toilet, tables, fire rings, etc.) are scheduled to be removed. Thereafter, the site will be managed as a trailhead for the Ozark Trail. The approximately 4 miles of the Ozark Trail that crosses the project area will continue to receive regular maintenance. The Berryman Recreation Area and approximately 75% of the 26 mile Berryman National Recreation Trail are within the watershed boundary east of the project area. Recent improvements to the recreation area include replacing 2 outdated vault toilet buildings with one new one. No other improvements are planned in the foreseeable future. There are plans to do some major reroutes and reconstruction on the Berryman Trail but a detailed proposed action is yet to be determined. Two sections of the Ozark Trail traverse the area. Approximately 6 miles of the Trace Creek Section in the southeast portion will continue to receive regular maintenance and approximately 13 miles of the Courtois Section in the eastern portion of the area will continue to receive regular maintenance. An additional 3.5 miles of the North Courtois Section has been proposed for construction to connect the trail to the Huzzah Conservation Area to the north. The exact location for this section is still to be determined.

Forest-wide OHV Study The proposed action is to conduct a three-year study to evaluate three motorized trail systems. This study would help the Forest Service determine the environmental and social impacts of OHV trails on the Mark Twain National Forest. The Potosi Ranger District‟s portion of the OHV Study Project is located in the east central portion of the watershed area. Under this proposal, 34 miles of non-system road along with 1 mile of new construction would be opened to legal motorized traffic. Thirty three miles of non-system road would be closed and rehabilitated. Three trailheads would also be developed. A decision on this proposal is pending Prescribed burns In CY 2008, a 4,021 acre landscape burn is planned and in CY 2010 a 6,000 acre landscape burn is planned; both within the cumulative effects analysis watershed boundary of the Courtois sub-watershed.

Non-native invasive plant control project The proposed action is to treat NNIP infestations on the Mark Twain National Forest using an integrated combination of manual, mechanical, chemical, cultural, prescribed fire and biological control treatment methods.

87 Cumulative Effects Discussion Mining Tailings dams are regulated structures under the Missouri Dam Safety Law contained in Chapters 236.400-236.500 of the revised Statutes of Missouri. The NPDES permits for tailing ponds are no- discharge permits and do not spill except in extreme rain events. The tailing ponds are located upstream of the project area; therefore, Forest Service actions as described in the Shoal Creek Project would not cause cumulative effects as related to the structural integrity of tailing pond dams. The permitted design flow in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Indian Creek is approximately 7 million gallons per day and makes up nearly all the water flow in Indian Creek. The permit authorizes wastewater discharge from the mine facilities in accordance with the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. The NPDES permit must be in compliance with the Missouri Clean Water Law (Chapter 644 R.S. as amended) and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Public Law 92-500, 92nd congress as amended).

There may be cumulative effect changes to the aquatic biota based on existing future water quality associated with 303d listed sites; however, it will not come from National Forest lands.

Road Network Maintenance of Forest Service system roads would continue under all alternatives, including the no action alternative. There may be cumulative effect changes to the aquatic biota in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks based on sediment entering stream courses from the existing and future road network; however, it will not come from System Roads on National Forest lands. The action alternatives in the Shoal Creek Project Area allow closure of non-system roads on National Forest land and this action will help reduce erosion and the amount of sediment entering stream courses. There will be no cumulative effect changes to the existing water quality and quantity associated with the action alternatives in the Shoal Creek Project Area.

In-stream gravel mining Improper extraction of sand and gravel can reduce water quality, impair stream resources for aquatic life, and destabilize the streambed and banks. The destabilization of bed and banks can lead to damages to public infrastructure such as bridges and private property. The Forest Service does not permit in- stream sand and gravel removal on National Forest lands. There may be cumulative effect changes to the existing water quality and quantity associated with the Huzzah and Courtois Creek watersheds; however, it will not come from in-stream gravel mining on National Forest lands.

Vegetation Management Forest Service actions as described in Oak Decline EIS, Delbridge HFI, Crooked Creek projects and proposed Shoal Creek Project would not cause cumulative effects. Non-Point source contaminants of forestry activities, including temporary roads, as proposed in these projects should not have an adverse affect on water quality and quantity within the Huzzah and Courtois subbasin watersheds. These projects would not impair MDNR- designated uses; provided Forest Plan Standard and Guides and BMP‟s are implemented.

Recreation Forest Service actions related to Sutton Bluff Recreation Site, the Ozark Trail, and the Sutton Bluff Motorcycle and ATV Use Area would not cause cumulative effects. In fact, relocating trails would reduce the amount of soil erosion and would improve water quality. There would be no changes to water quality and quantity associated with Huzzah and Courtois Creeks which would impair MDNR- designated uses; provided Forest Plan Standard and Guides and BMP‟s are implemented.

88 Forest-wide OHV Study This project, if approved, is a study designed to evaluate ORV‟s cumulative impacts, including water resources. It is not known what adverse cumulative effects would result by allowing ORV‟s to use this particular area; hence, the study will have a monitoring plan to evaluate effects to the existing water quality and quantity associated with Huzzah and Courtois Creek watersheds.

Prescribed burns The proposed prescribed burn areas will not all be burned in the same year; rather, each burn area is scheduled on a 3-5 year rotation. The large landscape prescribed burns are low intensity and by nature extremely patchy. The amount of mineral soil exposed to sheet erosion would be very small compared to the same area consumed by wildfire. If BMP‟s are implemented there should be no cumulative effect changes to the existing water quality and quantity associated with the Huzzah and Courtois Creek watersheds.

Forest-wide Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Control Project Most all treatment types (manual, mechanical, cultural, chemical, prescribed fire and biological control) could have potential negative effects to water quality without BMP‟s. Qualified forest personnel would determine which NNIP infestations would be treated, and which control method(s) to be used at each infestation site. For herbicides, there would need to be a human health risk assessment for the applicator, a biological assessment for aquatic species and a water quality impact assessment. If BMP‟s for all treatment types are implemented and herbicide use assessments indicate no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses; there should be no cumulative effect changes to the existing water quality and quantity associated with the Huzzah and Courtois Creek watersheds.

WATER – SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

Alternative 1 In this alternative, current and on-going activities, including system road maintenance, would continue, but no new management activities would be initiated on National Forest land. The Vegetation Management projects, including Oak Decline EIS, Delbridge HFI, Crooked Creek EA, and Allotment Management Plans, are covered under previous analyses and decisions. Forest Service foreseeable future actions related to Recreation projects, Forest-wide OHV Study, Prescribe burns, Minnie Turnbough Land Exchange, and Forest-wide Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Control, would be covered under a separate analysis. Sediment tops the list of pollutants in rivers; with nutrients the 2nd most important pollutants (EPAMMF 2003). Over a 10-year period, Non-Point Source (NPS) contaminants of non-system roads (approximately 48 miles) could contribute to the amount of sediment entering Huzzah (6th order) and Courtois (5th order) Creeks. These non-system roads within the project area would remain open under this alternative. Over this 10-year period, the amount of sediment entering stream water courses would most likely increase. Implementation of the no action alternative could cause changes to water quality and quantity within the Project Area; but not of the magnitude to impair MDNR- designated beneficial water uses.

Alternatives 2 and 3: Surface water resources are classified and have designated beneficial uses as presented in Tables G and H of the Rules of the Department of Natural Resources Division 20-Clean Water Commission Chapter 7-Water Quality (November, 2005). These waters must meet or exceed established criteria as defined in Table A of the above Rules. MDNR- designated uses associated with Huzzah and Courtois within the Project Area are: Livestock & Wildlife Watering (LWW), Protection of Warm Water Aquatic Life and Human Health – Fish Consumption (AQL), Cool Water Fishery (CLF), Whole Body Contact

89 Recreation (WBC –A [swimming]) and Secondary Contact Recreation (WBC – B [fishing, wading, boating]).

Sediment yield and associated aquatic habitat degradation are minimized on timber lands compared to alternative land uses, such as cropland and urban areas; because impacts associated with forestry operations, such as timber harvest and prescribed burning, involve short pulses of disturbance instead of persistent disturbance (Jacobson, 2004).

Forest Service actions as described in Vegetation Management projects, including Oak Decline EIS, Delbridge HFI, Crooked Creek EA, and Allotment Management Plans, would not have cumulative effects to water quality and quantity associated with the two 11-digit hydrologic unit cumulative effects analysis area. These projects would not impair MDNR- designated uses; provided Forest Plan standard and guides and BMP‟s for these projects and the proposed Shoal Creek project are implemented.

The land acreage within the resources cumulative effect analysis area consists of the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) sub-basin watershed; which total approximately 486 square miles. Approximately 222 square miles (or 46 %) is National Forest land and 264 square miles (or 54 %) is land in other ownerships, mostly private ownerships. Therefore, during the next decade, other landowners would determine land uses on approximately 54 % of the cumulative effect analysis area. Water quality and quantity would depend in large part on how these lands are managed; especially lands not under National Forest ownership. National Forest lands are managed to provide good examples of water quality protection and form the basis for MTNF‟s efforts to promote water quality protection on both public and private land. Protecting riparian corridors will help to reduce and filter surface runoff as well as provide stream bank and channel stability. Potential Point Source Pollution include lead mine tailing ponds. Potential non- point pollution sources include gravel surface roads, in-stream gravel mining and livestock grazing in riparian areas. Increased land clearing and higher runoff associated with cattle grazing in riparian areas, in-stream gravel mining and the county road network in riparian areas will negatively impact stream habitat quality. It will take the cooperation of county, state, and federal agencies to work with all landowners, including one of the most important landowners, the Doe Run Mining Company, within the two 11-digit cumulative effects analysis area watershed to find ways to minimize point and non- point pollution and its impacts.

WILDLIFE - EXISTING CONDITION

Wildlife Habitat Objectives and Management Indicator Species/Communities

The Forest Plan identifies habitat objectives that are to be used to indicate viable populations of terrestrial wildlife on the Mark Twain National Forest. Each habitat objective represents a particular forest condition that projects should strive to achieve in order to ensure ongoing viability of wildlife species on the Forest. This does not necessarily mean that projects must achieve these habitat conditions within the 10-year planning period, but rather, that each project planned on the Forest should either move the area toward these conditions or, at least, not preclude moving the area toward them in the future. For wildlife habitat, the following Forestwide objectives are identified in the Forest Plan (FLRMP 1-4). Improve woodland conditions on at least 10,500 acres to provide habitat for summer tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman‟s sparrow, and eastern red bat. Increase the proportion of managed native grasslands to that of exotic cool season grasses from the current 46% native grass to 55% native grass to provide habitat for northern bobwhite.

90 Maintain forest, closed woodland, or open woodland cover over 85% or greater of Mark Twain National Forest acres to provide habitat for worm-eating warbler. Treat at least 4,000 acres of glades to reduce woody vegetation to provide habitat for Bachman‟s sparrow. Designate permanent old growth on 8%-12% of each 2.1 management area.

The Shoal Creek project proposes two alternatives that would strive to meet these wildlife habitat objectives.

The majority (95%) of the project area is within the 2.1 MP; the other 5% is in the 6.3 MP. The 6.3 MP does not have specific objectives identified in the 2005 Forest Plan for wildlife; however, the 2.1 MP does.

The 2.1 MP general objective for wildlife is to distribute regeneration openings across the landscape proportionate to Ecological Landtypes (ELTs) and natural communities present in the area. The Shoal Creek project contains two Landtype Associations (LTA). The western part of the project area is within the Oak-Hickory Hills LTA; the eastern part of the project area is in the Oak-Pine Hills LTA. Table WL-1 identifies the desired conditions for wildlife habitat within the 2.1 MP as they compare to the existing conditions within the project area.

Table WL-1. Forest Plan desired conditions for wildlife habitat within the 2.1 MP as they compare to the existing conditions within the project area.

Desired Condition Existing Project Area Need for change Conditions Areas with old growth There is no designated old Need to designate old growth characteristics comprise 8% to growth in the project area, and habitat to ensure long-term 12% of the management area. no stands over 175 years of age. availability of this habitat in the project area.

Regeneration openings < 1% of project area is forest in Need to maintain 8-15% of the comprise 8% to 15% of each the 0-9 yr age class; 8.6% of the 2.1 MP in the project area as management area. MP contains forest stands with early successional habitat in the less than 40% canopy cover but form of regeneration openings these stands are > 10 years old. less than 10 years old. From 1% to 5% of these There are no regeneration Need to create regeneration regeneration openings are < 2 openings < 2 acres in size in the openings that are < 2 acres in acres in size. project area. size. Natural communities are Dominated by closed canopy Need to increase open and distributed similar to historical forest stands composed of black closed woodland conditions and vegetation patters. and red oak favor post oak and white oak over red and black oaks . Early Successional Habitat (Regeneration Openings) Early successional habitat is an important component of wildlife habitat on the landscape and for this analysis, is considered as any stand of trees less than 10 years old, created by natural or human-related disturbances, and with a canopy cover of less than 40% (US Forest Service 2006). There is also some early successional habitat provided along roads, field edges, and powerline corridors but this is generally minimal when considered at the landscape level. Early successional habitat is generally dominated by herbaceous plants and shrubs and trees producing soft mast.

91 Within the project area, early successional habitat, when defined as forest stands less than 10 years old, is very limited. As shown in Table WL-1, there is less than 1% of early successional habitat on the National Forest in the form of stands of trees that are less than 10 years of age. This is a reflection of the lack of timber harvesting that has been done in the project area over the past decade.

There is some early successional habitat, however, in forest stands that are more than 10 years old but still have less than 40% canopy cover. These stands represent approximately 8.6 % of the project area. An additional 1.6% of the MP could be considered early successional habitat since it supports brush and grassland habitats (such as old fields, powerline corridors, etc.).

There is some early successional habitat present on the private lands; however, this can not be easily quantified. The majority of the private lands in the project area, however, are either mature forest or cleared lands for residences and pasture, none of which provides the same type of early successional habitat as stands of trees less than 10 years in age.

Old Growth Habitat Old growth habitat is also an important habitat component for wildlife and should be provided across the landscape to ensure viability of several species that require large, old trees, downed woody material, snags, and varying structure. The desired condition characteristics of old growth are variable, and depend upon the natural community type of the site, as well as local site conditions, and ecological disturbance factors. The age at which old growth develops is also variable and desired condition characteristics are based upon not only age, but also canopy, presence or absence of midstory, ground layer, presence or absence of snags and woody debris, and fire effects. Generally, stands of trees must reach older age classes (such as 175 years) before many old growth characteristics develop. According to the 2005 Forest Plan FEIS, about 13,600 acres of trees on the MTNF are older than 150 years, and only 3,300 acres older than 175 years; approximately 8% of the forested portion of the MTNF is at old growth age.

Within the project area, there is no designated old growth, and there are no stands over 175 years old. The Shoal Creek project proposes old growth designation of many of the oldest stands in the project area, as well as stands that are in bottomlands, and around caves or other sensitive habitats.

Native Grasslands and Artificial Openlands For this analysis, native grasslands are considered to be glades, native prairies, and seeded/planted native grass on appropriate sites. Artificial openlands are considered to be old fields, abandoned non-native and highly degraded pastures, cool-season pastures, food plots and warm season plantings on inappropriate sites (US Forest Service 2005). Grasslands with native species and artificial openlands cover about 3 percent of the MTNF (2005 Forest Plan FEIS). The Forest Plan puts emphasis on management of artificial openlands and native grasslands. In particular, the Forest Plan direction discourages artificial openlands and encourages development and maintenance of native grasslands where the historic range of natural variability was former grassland. Both artificial openlands and native grasslands are important to wildlife species, especially early successional species and some game species.

Within the Shoal Creek project area, there are many artificial openlands, most of which occur on private lands. Some artificial openlands on National Forest exist in the form of abandoned fields acquired through land acquisitions and powerline rights-of-way. A review of the project area indicated that approximately 723 acres of artificial openlands exist on the National Forest in the

92 project area (based upon CDS data 6/29/06). The majority of these openlands support non-native and invasive grasses such as Kentucky-31 fescue. None of these openlands would be considered native grasslands, although some are old fields that were converted to native warm season grasses during the 1980s and 1990s.

Management Indicator Species and Communities Also identified in the Forest Plan are several species and communities considered to be indicators of the general forest condition and its ability to provide for overall wildlife species‟ viability. These species are considered Management Indicator Species and Management Indicator Communities (MIS and MIC). The identification of MIS/MIC provides a means of monitoring and evaluating the effects of actions on biotic resources, natural communities, habitats, and specific species (2005 Forest Plan FEIS). The criteria used for selecting MIS/communities and the habitat associations for each MIS are discussed in the 2005 Forest Plan FEIS. Five MIS and three MIC‟s have been identified for the Shoal Creek project (refer to Table WL-2).

Table WL-2. Management indicator species and communities for the Shoal Creek project area. Northern bobwhite Red bat Summer tanager Glades Bachman‟s sparrow Open Woodlands Worm-eating warbler Groundwater seepage communities (fens, acid seeps)

These MIS/communities are connected to many of the desired conditions that have been identified in the Forest Plan for the 2.1 MP. Refer to Table WL-3 for a crosswalk of the MIS and their associated habitat objectives.

Table WL-3. Forest Plan desired conditions that have been established for the 2.1 MP and the MIS that are associated with each of these conditions. Desired Conditions MIS that would be expected to utilize this desired condition Areas with old growth characteristics comprise 8% to Worm-eating warbler, Red bat 12% of the management area. Regeneration openings comprise 8% to 15% of each Northern bobwhite, Summer tanager, Red bat management area. From 1% to 5% of these regeneration openings are < 2 Northern bobwhite, Summer tanager, Red bat acres in size. Natural communities are distributed similar to Bachman‟s sparrow, Worm-eating warbler, historical vegetation patterns. Northern bobwhite, Summer tanager, Red bat

It is important that the Mark Twain National Forest monitor the population and status trends of these MIS/communities in order to evaluate the effectiveness of planned activities and how these activities may influence MIS/communities. Table WL-4 shows the most recent information regarding MIS/communities trends for the period of 1980 to 2000.

93 Table WL-4. Population and status trends of MIS/communities. Trend on the Ozark-Ouachita MIS/MIC Trend Statewide Plateau (most of the MTNF) Northern bobwhite Decreasing Decreasing Summer tanager Stable to slightly increasing Stable to slightly increasing Bachman‟s sparrow Decreasing. Extremely rare. Decreasing. Extremely rare. Worm-eating warbler Slightly increasing to stable Stable to slightly decreasing Red bat State trend unknown but generally Unknown. Likely secure. secure throughout its range Glade communities Declining Declining Open Woodland Declining Declining communities Groundwater seepage Declining Declining communities Source: Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD; Red Bat: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer; Glade, open woodland, groundwater seepage communities: Nelson 2005.

Based upon the information in Table WL-4, MIS/communities that may be declining on the Mark Twain National Forest are northern bobwhite and worm-eating warbler. Reasons for these declines are not fully known. Although northern bobwhite and worm-eating warbler populations may be declining, they are still considered a relatively common species on the National Forest and are frequently observed. The decline in glade communities, open woodland communities and groundwater seepage communities can be attributed to many threats. Glade communities and open woodland communities, in particular, have likely become degraded as a result of fire suppression over the past several decades. Fire suppression also may have contributed to the decline in northern bobwhite, also, since this species is frequently associated with fire-maintained grasslands and woodlands.

For this analysis, it is assumed that the population levels of MIS/communities within the Shoal Creek project area are the same as the population levels identified in Table WL-4 for the Ozark- Ouachita Plateau. Field surveys conducted in preparation of this analysis indicated that all of these MIS/communities are present within the project area, with the exception of Bachman‟s sparrow.

Roads and Wildlife Currently, the analysis area contains several hundred miles of maintained and unmaintained roads. The majority of these roads are state or county roads (refer to Table WL-5). The presence of roads can directly affect habitat for many species. Direct effects can include habitat loss and fragmentation, edge effects, and increased mortality and disturbance of wildlife.

Table WL-5. Analysis area road types. Type of road Approximate miles State or County Highway 125 miles FS System Roads 65 miles Non-system roads 70 miles Total Miles 260 miles Source: MTNF GIS layer (shoalcreek_all_roads.shp created 1/26/07 by LMM)

94 Different wildlife species are affected by road systems in different ways, depending upon their habitat requirements and general life histories and behaviors. Various studies have indicated that, depending upon the species involved, some wildlife species are more tolerant of roads than others. Roads tend to create a distinct habitat, generally favorable to species that prefer edge habitats. For forest interior species, this could be detrimental; whereas, for other species, this may increase the amount of suitable habitat available to them.

“Road density” is often a useful index to determine the effect of roads on wildlife populations. High road densities in an area are often associated with a variety of negative human effects on several wildlife species (US Forest Service 2000). Even in a landscape of high average road density, a few large areas of low road density may be the best indicator of suitable habitat for large vertebrates (US Forest Service 2000). In the Adirondacks, for instance, the population of black bears was found to be inversely related to road density (US Forest Service 2000). Mountain lions have been found to establish home ranges in areas with lower road densities than the average in an area (Ercelawn 1999).

Another index associated with road density that may be used to determine the effects of roads on wildlife is the “road effect zone”. The “road effect zone” is the zone or distance from a road in which wildlife species are directly or indirectly affected by activities occurring on or along the road. The effects of roads can extend some distance from their centers, so that their “effective widths” can be many times their actual widths. Research has determined that this “road effect zone” varies depending upon the type of wildlife species being considered. For example, in a Tennessee study, researchers found a 60% decrease in arthropods within 50 ft (15 m) of roads (King and DeGraaf 2002). Other research indicates that large mammals tend to avoid roads and areas within 328 to 656 ft (100 to 200 m) of roads (Ercelawn 1999). Depending upon the edge habitat created by a road, some birds have been found to avoid habitat within 328 ft (100 m) of a forest edge and have lower nesting success within 164 ft (50 m) of forest edges (Ercelawn 1999). Other studies, however, have indicated that nest survival for some forest interior birds does not differ within 492 ft (150 m) and beyond 492 ft (150 m) from maintained forest roads (King and DeGraaf 2002), so further research in this area is warranted.

The type of road design and use also plays a key role in the effects of roads upon wildlife. Roads that are paved and have high traffic volumes, in which traffic is traveling at a high rate of speed, would be expected to have a greater “road effect zone” than unpaved roads with low traffic volumes. Black bears, for example, have been found to almost never cross heavily used roads, but cross roads with little traffic more frequently (Ercelawn 1999). Bobcats have also been found to cross paved roads less than expected (US Forest Service 2000). Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles also are influenced by road conditions and traffic use. Some roads have been determined to be barriers to movement of eastern chipmunks and white-footed mice, and frog and toad density near paved roads has been found to decrease with increasing traffic density (Ercelawn 1999).

Road width also has an influence on its effect upon wildlife and their habitat. Generally speaking, the wider the road, the greater the edge effect it may have upon wildlife species. This may also be influenced by the surrounding landscape adjacent to the road. Roads that are wide enough to create a large gap in the forest canopy, for instance, could potentially fragment habitat for canopy-dependent birds and wildlife species and create corridors by which predators can enter the forest and affect wildlife populations (US Forest Service 2000). In general, biological invasion of predators and undesirable edge species, whether they be plant or animal, is another negative effect of extending roads into forest interiors (US Forest Service 2000).

95 With regards to forest fragmentation, one group of species that tends to be of great concern is the forest-interior birds. This group represents birds that tend to prefer large tracts of contiguous, mature forest, located away from edge habitats and openings. Where this habitat does become fragmented by edge and openings, these species may be especially vulnerable to cowbird nest parasitism and general nest predation. In a study conducted by King and DeGraaf (2002), the effect of forest roads on the reproductive success of forest-dwelling passerine birds was studied. The results of this research indicated that small (< 26 ft; 8 m wide) forest roads had no negative effects upon the reproductive success of forest passerine birds nearby, and that there was no evidence that ovenbirds, a species known to be sensitive to fragmentation, actively avoided nesting near roads within this width range. While there may be some consensus that the effects of forest roads varies with road width and density, this study by King and DeGraaf indicated that roads < 26 ft (8 m) wide, and areas with a road density < 2.7 mi/sq.mi (1.7 km/km2), are below the threshold at which significant negative effects on forest birds appear.

In this analysis, the road width and type of road design were taken into account when determining a “road effect zone” for each alternative. It has been assumed in this analysis that the State and County roads have an effective width of 656ft (200m), Forest System roads have an effective width of 328 ft (100m) and non-system roads have an effective width of 164 ft (50m) extending from either side of the road. Temporary roads were not always included in calculating “road effect zones” because they are generally < 26 ft (8 m) wide and are temporary in nature. When they were included, they were assumed to have an effective width of 164 ft (50m).

Federally Threatened & Endangered Species The Forest Service is legally required to provide protection to insure survival of federally listed species. In Missouri, fourteen federally-listed species are considered to have habitat or known populations on the Mark Twain National Forest. These species and their most current population trends in Missouri are identified in Table W-6.

Table WL-6. Federally listed and candidate species and their population trends in Missouri. Species Trend Species Trend

Gray bat Stable to Increasing Scaleshell mussel Decreasing

Indiana bat Stable Tumbling Creek cavesnail Decreasing

Bald eagle Increasing Ozark hellbender Decreasing

Topeka shiner (fish) Decreasing Hine’s emerald dragonfly Unknown

Sheepnose mussel Decreasing Running buffalo clover Stable

Virginia sneezeweed Stable to Increasing Spectaclecase mussel Decreasing

Pink mucket Stable Mead’s milkweed Decreasing pearlymussel Source: FY 2004 MTNF Monitoring & Evaluation Report, p. 13; Natureserve

96 The US Fish and Wildlife Service identified these species in an e-mail to the Forest Biologist, dated 5 January 2007. Of these fourteen species, five are considered likely to occupy the Shoal Creek project area (Table W-7).

Table WL-7. Federally listed species considered likely to occur or have habitat within the Shoal Creek project area. Status Common Name Associated habitat in the project area Threatened Bald eagle Forest along large streams, reservoirs and lakes Endangered Running buffalo clover Open, well-lit stream sides Endangered Gray bat Caves; riparian areas Endangered Indiana bat Caves; forests Endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly Groundwater fed, limestone or dolomite grassy wetlands or fens

Gray bats and Indiana bats are known to use caves and forage in the project area. Bald eagles have been observed foraging in the project area during the winter months. Hine‟s emerald dragonfly has been documented in a fen (small wetland) in the project area. Running buffalo clover was introduced to a site in the project area during 1995 but monitoring of this site since has indicated that the population may no longer be extant.

There is no federally-designated critical habitat on the Mark Twain National Forest for any of the species considered in this BE. Critical habitat for the Hine‟s emerald dragonfly on the Mark Twain National Forest is being considered but none of this proposed critical habitat would likely be within the Shoal Creek project area.

Additional information regarding these species can be found in the federally-listed species BE prepared for the Shoal Creek project (see Appendix A).

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and other Species of Concern All of the species identified by the Regional Forester as Sensitive Species and that are known or likely to occur on the Mark Twain National Forest are considered in this EA . The Regional Forester‟s Sensitive Species list was first issued on March 8, 1994, and later updated on October 13, 2006. This latest list contains 110 plants and animals (see Appendix A).

Species considered in detail in this EA were determined by information from field surveys, plus a review of the Missouri Heritage 2006 database. This review indicated that the following RFSS are known to occur in the project area (refer to Table WL-8).

97

WL-8. Regional Forester Sensitive Species known to occur in the project area.

Species Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Type Group

Campylium stellatum var. Yellow starry fen moss Plant Wetland stellatum Carex sterilis Sedge Plant Wetland Carex tetanica Rigid sedge Plant Wetland Dendroica cerulea Cerulean warbler Bird Riparian Juglans cinerea Butternut Plant Riparian Ophiogomphus westfalli Westfall’s snaketail Insect Aquatic/Riparian Parnassia grandifolia Grass-of-Parnassus Plant Wetland/Riparian Rudbeckia fulgida Orange coneflower Plant Riparian Spiranthes ovalis var. erostellata Oval ladies tresses Plant Riparian Stenonema bednariki Mayfly Insect Aquatic/Riparian Vertigo meramecensis Bluff vertigo Gastropod Bluff

In addition to these RFSS species, there are other plants and animals listed by the state as species of “Conservation Concern”. These species are identified in the “Missouri Species and Communities of Conservation Concern Checklist (January 2007).”

A review of this checklist, as well as field survey and MTNF Heritage data indicated that the following Species of Concern are known to occur in the project area (refer to Table WL-9).

WL-9. Species of Concern that are known to occur in the project area.

Scientific Species Common Name Habitat Type Status Name Group Missouri/range Accipiter Sharp-shinned hawk Bird Forest (evergreens) S3/G5 striatus Aneura Liverwort Plant Wetland SU/G4? maxima Bromus Brome grass Plant Riparian S3/G5 latiglumis Bromus Satin brome Plant Riparian S3/G3G5 nottowayanus Hemidactylium Four-toed salamander Amphibian Wetland/Riparian S4/G5 scutatum Hendersonia Cherrystone snail Gastropod Bluff S3/G5 occulta Lilium Turk’s cap lily Plant Wetland/Riparian S1/G5 superbum Myotis Northern Bat Mammal Forest/Cave S3/G4 septentrionalis Ochrotomys Golden mouse Mammal Forest S3?/G5 nuttalli

98

Scientific Species Common Name Habitat Type Status Name Group Missouri/range Seratella Mayfly Insect Aquatic/Riparian S2/G4 frisoni Tachopteryx Gray petaltail Insect Aquatic/Wetland S3/G4 thoreyi Typhlotriton Grotto salamander Amphibian Cave S2S3/G4 spelaeus S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable; S4 = apparently secure; S5 = secure; SU = unrankable G1 = critically imperiled; G2 = imperiled; G3 = vulnerable; G4 = apparently secure; G5 = secure

As shown in the above tables, each RFSS or Species of Concern can be associated with one or more primary habitat type. The following habitat types and their associated species are known to occur within the project area:

 Riparian: Represented in the project area as habitat along the edges of streams and includes most bottomland hardwood forest habitats.  Aquatic: Represented in the project area as aquatic environments such as springs, ponds, streams and rivers.  Forest: Represented in the project area primarily by forested uplands and hillsides on both private and National Forest lands involved.  Grassland: Represented in the project area by pasture and farmland on private lands, and some artificial openlands on the National Forest.  Glade: Represented in the project area as habitat within the limestone/dolomite glades.  Wetland: Represented in the project area as habitats that include seeps, springs, and fens.  Bluff: Represented in the project area as habitat along the edges and within bluffs and rock outrcrops.  Cave: Represented in the project area as caves and the habitats within the cave.

Additional information regarding these species can be found in the RFSS and Species of Concern BE prepared for the Shoal Creek project, (see Appendix A of the EA).

Birds (emphasizing Neotropical Migrants) The Shoal Creek project area offers a wide variety of habitats, nearly all of which are occupied by various neotropical migratory birds during the spring through fall months. Many of these neotropical migrants breed within the project area. Approximately 181 species of birds are known or likely to be found within Crawford or Washington counties, which include the project area (MOFWIS). Of these181 species, approximately 115species would be considered likely to use the project area regularly as breeding habitat and nearly half of the species that may breed in the project area are considered neotropical migrants (Jacobs and Wilson 1997). Many other neotropical migrants may not breed in the project area, but do use the area as “stopover” habitat during their migration to summer and wintering grounds.

Neotropical migrant birds, as well as many other bird species, are susceptible to a wide variety of factors that may influence their populations. Two of the most recognized management issues that have been determined to be important to maintaining populations of breeding birds, especially neotropical migrants, are: Avoiding fragmentation and loss of suitable breeding habitat, particularly forest habitat

99 Monitoring & limiting opportunities for nest predation and parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds and other wildlife.

Currently, 33 species of birds have been identified as Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area (Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000). These priority species represent birds that deserve special conservation efforts that will ensure their viability (refer to Table WL-10).

Table WL-10. Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area that are likely or known to occur within the Shoal Creek project area. Swainson‟s warbler Prothonotary warbler Ovenbird Summer tanager Cerulean warbler Louisiana waterthrush Pileated woodpecker Wood thrush Kentucky warbler Field sparrow Carolina chickadee Red-headed woodpecker Worm-eating warbler Orchard oriole Chuck-will‟s widow Loggerhead shrike Prairie warbler Northern bobwhite Blue-winged warbler Purple finch Whip-poor-will Brown thrasher Yellow-billed cuckoo Rusty blackbird Acadian flycatcher Great-crested flycatcher Yellow-throated warbler Bewick‟s wren

Field surveys also revealed the presence of many more bird species in the project area, several of which are neotropical migrants.

Salamanders Missouri has a wide-diversity of amphibians, which is likely a reflection of the diversity of habitats available. A total of 42 species of amphibians are known from the state, plus an additional eight subspecies or races (Johnson 1997). Of these, 23 are salamanders, including 6 species of Ambystomatidae salamanders (aka, mole salamanders) and 10 species of Plethodontidae salamanders (aka, lungless salamanders). These two families of salamanders are of particular concern to forest managers because they occupy forested landscapes and are not strictly associated with aquatic environments. Regardless of species, salamanders are most always found in areas that are cool, moist, and shaded. Salamanders can frequently be found in habitats such as springs, seeps, fens, riparian areas, fishless ponds, caves, rock outcrops, and forests of various ages. Caves, springs, seeps, fens, riparian areas, and rock outcrops are considered important habitats in the Forest Plan and have specific standards and guidelines for protection of these habitats (FLRMP 2-1 to 2-42).

In March 2001, the Forest Service completed a Supplemental Information Report (SIR) regarding information on lungless salamanders and this SIR is incorporated by reference. The report was made in response to public concern about recent research describing the decline of these species and effects of timber treatments on salamander populations. The SIR concluded that the 1986 Forest Plan addressed habitat needs for these species and acknowledged the importance of dead and down woody debris. The 2005 Forest Plan follows this precedent set by the 1986 Forest Plan, and expands the level of protection to many of these habitats such as rock outcrops and riparian areas. The standards and guidelines in the 2005 Forest Plan also incorporate many of the recommendations made in the publication “Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Midwest”, which was produced by the Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002).

Within the project area, the majority of amphibians, including all species of plethodontid salamanders (refer to Table WL-11), are likely restricted primarily to the forested areas, particularly areas that remain somewhat moist such as bottomlands, north-facing slopes, and areas around springs, seeps, fens, ponds, streams, caves, and vernal pools, ditches and road ruts (J.

100 Briggler, pers. comm. w/ J. Eberly, 2/05). This is likely due to the fact that these forested environments provide canopy cover that maintains moist conditions, plus a high-density of cover in the form of large woody debris and leaf litter. Within the project area, large woody debris may be somewhat limited within the forest, since the majority of the forest land is second-growth forest. Research by Herbeck and Larsen (1999) found that second-growth forests generally support less large woody debris than old growth or young in-regeneration forests, but that they do not have significant differences in moisture content when compared to old growth forest. Other habitats, including agricultural and urban environments, may also provide habitat for some amphibians, especially many species of frogs, and some ambystomatid and salamandrid salamanders, but to a lesser degree. In these environments, these species would be primarily restricted to ponds, lakes, and streams, and wet areas (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002).

Table WL-11. Salamanders known or likely to occur within the Shoal Creek project area (Johnson 1997; LMills, pers. observ.).

Lungless salamanders Mole salamanders Other salamanders

Southern redback salamander Spotted salamander Central newt Dark-sided salamander Marbled salamander Mudpuppy Four-toed salamander Ringed salamander Slimy salamander Grotto salamander Longtail salamander Cave salamander

WILDLIFE – DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Wildlife Habitat Objectives and Management Indicator Species/Communities – Direct and Indirect Effects Many of the wildlife habitat objectives that have been identified for the Mark Twain National Forest in the 2005 Forest Plan would not be approached if Alternative 1 is implemented, as shown in Table WL-12.

Table WL-12. Forest wildlife habitat objectives that may be affected by Alternative 1. Activities proposed that would move Forestwide Objective the project area towards this objective Improve woodland conditions on at least 10,500 acres to There are no activities proposed that provide habitat for summer tanager, northern bobwhite, would improve woodland conditions. Bachman‟s sparrow, and eastern red bat. Under Alternative 1; all forest stands would remain in their current conditions and any existing woodlands would gradually move towards closed canopy forest, and lose their woodland characteristics.

Forestwide Objective 1.4b: Increase the proportion of There are no activities proposed that managed native grasslands to that of exotic cool season would increase the proportion of native

101 grasses from the current 46% native grass to 55% native grass grasslands to that of exotic cool season to provide habitat for northern bobwhite grasses. Forestwide Objective 1.4c: Maintain forest, closed woodland All of the National Forest in the project or open woodland over 85% or greater of Mark Twain area would approach forest and closed National Forest acres to provide habitat for worm-eating woodland conditions, all of which could warbler. likely be used by worm-eating warbler.

Forestwide Objective 1.4d: Treat at least 4,000 acres of glades No activities are proposed that would to reduce woody vegetation to provide habitat for Bachman‟s reduce the woody vegetation within sparrow. glades or improve habitat for Bachman‟s sparrow. Forestwide Objective 1.4e: Designate permanent old growth No old growth would be officially on 8% to 12% of each 2.1 and 6.2 management area, and on designated, but all of the National Forest 15% to 20% of each 6.1 management area. in the project area would approach old growth conditions because no activities are proposed.

Many of the wildlife habitat objectives that have been identified for the Mark Twain National Forest in the 2005 Forest Plan would be partially achieved if Alternatives 2 and 3 were implemented as shown in Table WL-13.

Table WL-13. Forest wildlife habitat objectives that may be partially achieved under Alternatives 2 and 3. Activities proposed that would move the project area Forestwide Objective towards this objective Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Improve woodland conditions on at least 7,019 acres of prescribed 982 acres of thinnings 10,500 acres to provide habitat for summer burning tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman‟s 982 acres of thinnings sparrow, and eastern red bat. 1,363 acres of savannah cuts 2,207 acres of midstory treatment

Forestwide Objective 1.4b: Increase the There are no activities There are no activities proportion of managed native grasslands to proposed that would proposed that would that of exotic cool season grasses from the specifically target conversion specifically target current 46% native grass to 55% native grass of exotic cool season grasses to conversion of exotic cool to provide habitat for northern bobwhite native grasslands. The 7,019 season grasses to native acres of prescribed burning, grasslands. None of the 1,363 acres of savannah activities proposed in development & 2.207 acres of Alternative 3 would midstory treatment would likely encourage native encourage native grass grass development in development in forested stands. forested stands. Forestwide Objective 1.4c: Maintain forest, 80% of the NF in the project 80% of the NF in the closed woodland or open woodland over area would have >40% canopy project area would have 85% or greater of Mark Twain National cover; 70% of the NF in the >40% canopy cover; Forest acres to provide habitat for worm- project area would have no 74% of the NF in the eating warbler. timber harvesting activities & project area would have 11.4% of this would be no timber harvesting designated for future old activities & 11.4% of this growth. would be designated for future old growth. Forestwide Objective 1.4d: Treat at least Few glades occur in project Same as Alternative 2.

102 4,000 acres of glades to reduce woody area; One glade is proposed vegetation to provide habitat for Bachman‟s for woody vegetation removal sparrow. to improve habitat for glade species. Forestwide Objective 1.4e: Designate 3,577 acres of old growth are Same as Alternative 2. permanent old growth on 8% to 12% of the to be designated, representing 2.1 management area. 11.4% of the 2.1 MP in the project area.

Early Successional Habitat (Regeneration Openings) Under Alternative 1, there would be no activities occurring that would create regeneration openings and provide early successional habitat. As a result, populations of species that prefer early successional habitat, such as rabbits, prairie warbler, ruffed grouse, and white-eyed vireo, would be expected to decline in the project area. The amount of shrub-scrub habitat in the project area would continue to decline as areas of National Forest reach older ages and are not subjected to timber treatments or prescribed burning. Alternative 1 would not contribute to the desired condition of maintaining 8%-15% of the 2.1 MP in regeneration openings, as specified in the Forest Plan.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 2,366 acres would be harvested using the seedtree cutting method. Because this method would reduce the canopy cover to less than 40% within the treated stands, these acres would be considered as “regeneration openings.” In addition, there would be 762 acres harvested using the shelterwood method or sanitation method that would leave a canopy cover of less than 40%. Because some of the uneven-aged management cutting would also leave small pockets less than 2 acres in size of canopy cover < 40%, it is being estimated that 20% (or 463 acres) of the land that would be cut using uneven-aged management methods would also be considered “regeneration openings.” Therefore, the amount of National Forest in the project area that would be considered a “regeneration opening” would increase by 3,591 acres, or 11.4%, under this alternative. All of this would be within the 2.1 MP.

Early Successional Habitat

7000 Alternative 1

6000 Alternatives 2 & 3

5000

4000

Acres 3000

2000

1000

0 Forest stands less Brush & grassland Forest stands with than 10 years old areas less than 40% canopy cover, regardless of age

103 Since the existing level of forest habitat less than 10 years of age is below the desired conditions for the 2.1 MP, an increase in this habitat component is desired to provide habitat for wildlife species that prefer young forest conditions and scrub-shrub habitat. Other activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, such as thinning, savannah cuts and prescribed burning, would also contribute habitat for these species, but are not included in calculations for this objective because they would not likely result in a canopy cover of less than 40%. Overall, however, species dependent upon early successional habitat are well-provided for in the project area on National Forest. Although less than 1% of the project area is considered to be forest less than 10 years of age, brushlands and forest stands within < 40% canopy cover (regardless of age) make up approximately 10% of the 2.1 MP.

Use of herbicides to reduce stump sprouting in the proposed savannah development areas, to release hardwood plantings in bottomlands from herbaceous competition, and to control sericea lespedeza in Compartment 121 Stand 18 would have little effect upon early successional habitat. By using herbicides to reduce non-native invasive plant infestations in Stand 18, the quality of the understory early successional habitat would be improved. Without control of sericea lespedeza, the early successional habitat in this stand would likely become dominated by this non-native invasive plant.

Old Growth Habitat Correspondingly, the implementation of Alternative 1 would result in an increase in more mature forest stands within the project area, particularly those stands that would meet old growth criteria. Over time, the percentage of National Forest in the project area that meets old growth criteria would increase, barring some unforeseen event that prevents these stands from reaching full maturity, such as an insect infestation, wildfire, or weather event. However, under Alternative 1, there would also be no designation of forest stands for future old growth; therefore, the distribution of old growth within the project area would not necessarily be contiguous or in large blocks within the project area, nor may there be any retention of these old growth stands beyond the next 10 year entry period. In the short-term (next 10 years) however, habitat for species that prefer old growth and mature, closed canopy forest conditions, such as pileated woodpecker, wood thrush, and eastern gray squirrels, would be expected to increase.

Woodland habitat in the old growth condition would decrease in the short term under Alternatives 2 & 3, but increase over the long term. Currently, there is no designated old growth in the project area, and no stands greater than 175 years of age. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 174 forest stands, representing 3,577 acres (11.4% of the 2.1 MP), would be designated for old growth development. These stands were selected using one or more of the following criteria: The stands represented the oldest aged stands in the project; The stands surround caves, some of which harbor endangered species; That stands are located in stream corridors with sensitive wetland habitats.

Old growth habitat within the project area on National Forest would be provided under Alternatives 2 and 3 at levels well within the desired objectives for the 2.1 MP. An increase in this habitat component is desired to provide habitat for wildlife species that prefer old growth conditions. Most of the designated old growth would be located in riparian areas and would be interconnected. In the future, this would provide more contiguous and larger blocks of old growth habitat within the project area than currently exists or than would be provided if all of the acres currently meeting the old growth definition are designated. This would improve habitat conditions for species that require unfragmented tracts of mature and old growth forest. The designation of old growth would move the project area towards the Forest-wide objective for the

104 2.1 MP. Areas designated as old growth would be managed within the range of natural variability for natural communities (2005 Forest Plan FEIS).

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 would have no direct or indirect effects upon areas proposed for old growth designation. None of the areas where herbicide use would occur are proposed for old growth designation.

Native Grasslands and Artificial Openlands Alternative 1 would not involve any activities that would increase the proportion of native grasslands to exotic cool season grasses in the project area. Under Alternative 1, no prescribed burning or glade rehabilitation activities that may encourage some native grass development within forest stands would be done. As a result, species such as northern bobwhite would not be benefited by this alternative, and habitat for these species on the National Forest in the project area would gradually decline.

None of the activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would specifically target conversion of exotic cool season grasses to native grasslands in the project area. However, the prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 2, along with savannah development and midstory treatment activities proposed, would encourage some native grass development within forest stands. This would benefit northern bobwhites, especially if the burning is done repetitively, and over the long-term, as planned.

Some artificial grassland habitat would be lost under Alternatives 2 and 3 due to bottomland hardwood establishment activities. Approximately 101 acres of existing artificial openland would be converted to forest land due to this activity. This may decrease the amount of suitable habitat for some grassland species such as northern bobwhite, but would improve habitat for species dependent upon riparian forests such as cerulean warbler. Under Alternative 2, the amount of artificial openland lost due to bottomland hardwood establishment would be greatly exceeded by the several thousand acres of burning and savannah development proposed.

Alternative 3 would not be expected to increase native grassland development. No native grasslands or artificial openlands would be created or maintained under this alternative.

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 would not have a direct effect upon any native grasslands because no herbicide use is proposed in areas known to support native grasslands. Some artificial openlands would be affected by herbicide use associated with the bottomland hardwood establishment proposed. Bottomland hardwoods would be established in some of the existing artificial openlands. Use of herbicides to prepare the sites for planting and to release planted trees from herbaceous competition is proposed in these artificial openlands. This would reduce the amount of herbaceous vegetation on approximately 20 acres of the 101 acres of artificial openland. This is a desired effect; many studies have indicated that bottomland hardwood establishment in these areas would likely be much less successful without chemical control of competing herbaceous vegetation as compared to other methods (Refer to Table WL- 19) (Lockhart, Keeland, McCoy et.al. 2003; Nix 2004; Stanturf, Conner, Gardiner et.al. 2004).

Open Woodlands Under Alternative 1, there would be no activities proposed that would create or maintain open woodland conditions. Because Alternative 1 does not propose any timber treatments or burning, any forest stands in the project area that currently have open woodland characteristics would gradually lose those characteristics as they become more mature and not subjected to disturbances

105 such as prescribed burning and timber treatments that would allow sunlight to penetrate the forest canopy. As a result, species such as summer tanager may show declines under Alternative 1.

Currently, many of the stands proposed for treatment in Alternatives 2 and 3 consist of dense canopies with very little development of a shrub or herbaceous understory, due primarily to the lack of sunlight reaching the ground in these stands. Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose timber cutting methods that create canopy conditions suitable to woodland habitats. However, in Alternative 2, more woodland conditions would be created or maintained than in Alternative 3 because Alternative 2 proposes savannah cuts, midstory treatment, and prescribed burning. Prescribed burning is essential to maintaining open woodland habitats. Therefore, Alternative 2 would likely indirectly benefit species such as summer tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman‟s sparrow, and eastern red bats more than Alternative 3.

Worm-eating warblers should be well-provided for in the project area under both Alternatives 2 and 3, given the abundance of mature forest and the lack of activities planned on approximately 70% of the National Forest in the project area. This species may also be benefited by activities that approach open and closed woodland conditions, such as thinnings, uneven-aged management, and savannah cuts. Worm-eating warblers are ground-nesting birds, preferring to nest in the leaf litter of mixed deciduous forest within a landscape of large, contiguous tracts of mature forest interspersed with understory patches of dense shrubs (Natureserve 2006). These conditions would be maintained on 80% of the National Forest in the project area by either no treatments under Alternatives 2 or 3 or by some treatments that encourage woodland development or maintain semi-closed canopy conditions. Since Alternative 3 proposes slightly less timber cutting, plus no prescribed burning, it may be slightly more beneficial to worm-eating warblers than Alternative 2.

Herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to have direct effects upon areas where open woodlands are proposed for development. These areas are proposed for midstory control using herbicides (cut-stump treatments). The areas to be treated represent approximately 2,207 acres of the project area; however, the amount of herbicide used for these treatments is estimated to cover less than 1 acre because herbicide use would be restricted to only cut stumps.

The effect that this herbicide treatment is expected to have upon open woodland development is positive. The desired condition of these open woodland areas is one of a semi-open canopy dominated by mature white oaks, post oaks, and/or shortleaf pines. Beneath this semi-open canopy, an open midstory is desired; in turn, the open midstory would be above an understory dominated by native forbs, grasses, and shrubs. To create this desired condition, periodic burning is necessary, and to a limited extent, is successful in achieving these conditions.

However, because fire has been suppressed in many of these areas for several decades, shade- tolerant trees such as red maple now dominate the midstory. These shade tolerant trees have well-established root systems and do not succumb easily or quickly to burning, even when burns have been repeated for several years. If these trees do eventually become top-killed as a result of burning, they still continue to re-sprout from the root system. Given the narrow parameters that land managers must stay within to conduct prescribed burns, it is likely that burning alone in these areas will seldom occur at high enough intensities to effectively reduce stump sprouting (Chiang, Arthur and Blankenship 2005). Frequently, re-sprouting is prolific and leads to a dense understory of woody saplings, which overtop any herbaceous vegetation (Chiang, Arthur and Blankenship 2005; Dolan and Parker 2004; Arthur, Paratley and Blankenship 1998). This is not a desirable condition, and in many cases, if the stump sprouting is not controlled, the understory becomes more dominated by undesirable, shade-tolerant trees than it was prior to any burning.

106

Glyphosate and triclopyr (herbicides) have been used successfully to effectively control stump- sprouting (Walter, Garrett and Godsey 2004; Lewis, Groninger and Loftis 2006; Dolan and Parker 2004). When combined with prescribed burning, this can be a particularly effective method of creating open midstory conditions (Dolan and Parker 2004). The initial application of herbicide to the cut stump would kill the root system, preventing re-sprouting. After this initial herbicide treatment, the open conditions desired would then be maintained with periodic prescribed burning, without further herbicide treatments. This would be more likely to create the desired open woodland conditions than using non-herbicide methods (Refer to Table WL-14).

Table WL-14. Control Methods for Woody Stump Sprouts in Areas Proposed for Savannah/Woodland Development

Cost/ acre Suitability to Short-term Long-term Effectiveness Site Effectiveness Good – sites Good to Fair – most Fair to Poor – most species Prescribed Fire $37/acre could be burned stump sprouts would be (e.g., red maple, sassafras, and are proposed reduced immediately black gum, sourwood) would for burning in following re-sprout prolifically the next Alternatives 2 & burning 4, 5, 6 growing season following 3 each burn 4, 5, 6 Good – sites are Good – herbicide Good –herbicide treatment Herbicide Use $54- all accessible by treatments shown to be on cut stumps greatly $87/acre foot immediately effective at reduces re-sprouting7, 8, 9; reducing stump effective control of stump sprouting, especially on sprouting improves red maple 7, 8, 9 understory light conditions 4, 5, 6 Hand Pulling/Digging Not applicable to sites: Woody stump sprouts cannot be pulled or dug by hand. Mowing Not applicable to sites: Sites are forested and not suited to mowing. Mulching Not applicable to sites: Mulching not effective or appropriate for control of woody sprouts.1 Grazing Not applicable to sites: Sites are not in grazing allotments. Biological Control Not applicable to sites: Biological controls not authorized on the MTNF at this time. Boiling Water/ Boiling Not applicable to sites: Methods not effective for control of woody sprouts. 2, 3 Sugar Foam Water Application Crop Conversion Not applicable to sites: Sites are forested and not suited to tilling. Method/Tilling 1Tu, Hurd and Randall 2001; 2 Cleary 2004; 3 www.tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/tools 2/12/07; 4 Chiang, Arthur and Blankenship 2005; 5 Dolan and Parker 2004. 6 Arthur, Paratley and Blankenship 1998; 7 Walter, Garrett and Godsey 2004; 8 Lewis, Groninger and Loftis 2006; 9 D. Moore email 1/17/07

107 Table WL-15. Control Methods for Herbaceous Competition in Areas Proposed for Bottomland Hardwood Establishment

Cost/ Suitability to Short-term Effectiveness Long-term Effectiveness acre Sites Good – sites Poor –not well suited to Poor – nearly impossible to Hand $378/acr easily species with extensive root remove root system; could not Pulling/Digging e accessed by systems1 easily remove woody vegetation foot and 4wd Labor intensiveness likely to & vines equipment yield poor results; many re- sprouts from roots expected Good – sites Fair to Poor – would top kill Poor – impossible to remove Mowing $45/acre easily competition but would not kill root systems; annual mowing accessed by root systems. would be needed foot and 4wd equipment Good – sites Good to Fair: may kill some Poor: prolific re-sprouting Prescribed Fire $37/acre have been annuals and less hardy from roots and seed bank previously perennials; not expected to kill expected; burning would not be burned most root systems possible after young trees have been planted Good – sites Good – Triclopyr & Fair to Good –Initially, 2 to 3 Herbicide Use $54- easily glyphosate both shown to be follow-up treatments may be $87/acre accessed by effective for control 2, 4 needed to control seed bank foot and 4wd especially when combined with germination 2, 4 Herbicide use equipment burning; top kills plants and shown to be more effective than kills root systems to prevent re- mowing to control competition 3, sprouting. 8, 9 Mulching Good – sites Poor - not suited to perennial Poor – nearly impossible to $1,230/ easily weeds or to large areas of remove root system; prolific re- acre accessed infestation1; labor intensiveness sprouting from roots and seed likely to yield poor results; bank expected; vines would many re-sprouts from roots likely over-top mulch expected 1 $25,000 Good – sites Fair to Poor – treatment may Poor – Not suited to perennial Boiling Water/ startup easily reduce some plants but some weed control; unknown how Boiling cost 7 accessed by woody vegetation could not be system would work against re- Sugar Foam $7,000/a foot and 4wd treated; not expected to kill sprouting 5, 6 Re-sprouting and Water cre equipment root systems seed germination expected. Application Would be difficult to maneuver around planted trees. Grazing Not applicable to sites: Not a grazing allotment Biological Not applicable to sites: Biological controls not authorized on the MTNF at this time Control Crop Conversion Not applicable to sites: Forest plan restricts extensive ground disturbance within bottomlands Method/Tilling (aka Riparian Management Zones) 1Tu, Hurd and Randall 2001; 2 Jordan, Lund and Jacobs 2002; 3 Stanturf, Conner, Gardiner, et.al. 2004; 4 D. Moore email 1/17/07; 5 www.tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/tools 2/12/07; 6 Cleary 2004; 7 Quarles 2001; 8 Lockhart, Keeland, McCoy, et.al. 2003; 9 Nix 2004

Glades There would be no glade rehabilitation activities under Alternative 1. This alternative would not move the project area towards the Forestwide goal of treating woody vegetation and using prescribed fire to enhance glades. As a result, there would be no benefits to species such as the

108 Bachman‟s sparrow and these glades would continue to be overtaken by cedars and other woody vegetation. The glade rehabilitation activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would move the project area towards the Forestwide goal of treating woody vegetation in 4,000 acres of glades. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, woody vegetation would be removed in one of the glades in the project area. This glade, in particular, has evidence of several rare plants occurring in it and these plants would benefit from the more open conditions created by burning and woody vegetation removal. This would benefit species such as the Bachman‟s sparrow by creating a more open condition within these glades and encouraging growth of herbaceous vegetation, which is likely more typical of the historical condition these glades were once in, prior to decades of fire suppression (Nelson 2005). The 7,019 acres of prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 2 would also improve glade habitats that may be inside the proposed burn area. Because Alternative 3 does not propose any burning of glade habitats, it would be less beneficial to glades and glade species than Alternative 2.

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 would have no direct or indirect effects upon glades. No herbicide would be directly applied to glades. No glades are known within any of the proposed herbicide treatment areas. If glades are found, they will not be treated with herbicides and any herbicide use near the glades would be done according to 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Groundwater Seepage Communities Alternative 1 would not be expected to have any direct effects upon groundwater seepage communities. However, under Alternative 1, no activities would occur that could indirectly improve the water quality of these communities or protect the fens from soil disturbance. Activities that would not occur under Alternative 1 include fen fencing, road decommissioning, and erosion control activities. No prescribed burning, which also could benefit these communities, would occur under Alternative 1. The only activities proposed that would have a potential effect upon groundwater seepage communities is prescribed burning, which is proposed in Alternative 2, and fen protection activities, which are proposed in both alternatives.

There are some fens and seeps located within some of the prescribed burning units. However, prescribed burning would not occur at times when these seeps and fens are likely to be adversely impacted by this activity (that is, on days when the fens or seeps are completely dry) because prescribed burns are not typically done during periods of extreme dry weather that would create these conditions. Burning would occur when the fens still have some wet soil, creating a “top” burn of vegetation but leaving the substrate and root systems intact. Such a burn could have a rejuvenating effect upon the fens and seeps and could increase the availability of suitable habitat for groundwater seepage communities because many of these communities are being overtaken by encroaching woody vegetation. To benefit many of these communities, they should be maintained in a grassy, open condition, and this condition may be maintained by periodic burning.

Fen protection would involve placing a protective fence around the fen area. This fence would serve to protect the fen from soil disturbance caused by all-terrain vehicles or feral pigs. The fence would be placed on the dry soils on the edge of the wetland. This fencing is expected to benefit the fen habitat by protecting it from soil disturbance and other activities that could destroy these sensitive wetlands.

109 Other than prescribed burning and fen protection activities, the remaining activities associated with these two alternatives would not be expected to have any direct impact upon groundwater seepage communities because of 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines that have been incorporated into the Proposed Action for these alternatives. These 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines would restrict potentially damaging activities near a known fen or seep.

Although botanical surveys identifying the location of fens and other rare habitats have been completed within the project area, there is always a slight potential that an undiscovered fen occurs in the project area and could be indirectly affected by activities occurring near it, prior to its discovery. Such activities could be the felling of trees during mechanical timber treatments or construction of dozer line, etc. However, this potential for indirect effects upon an undiscovered fen is considered very low since most of the area has been thoroughly surveyed by a botanist and others.

Mechanical timber treatments and harvest that result in the removal of the majority of the overstory could increase the amount of water movement on and beneath the soil surface, since few trees would be available to absorb this water through their root systems. Such changes in water movement and availability could potentially have an indirect adverse effect upon nearby seeps and fens. This increase in water would be offset somewhat, however, by the proliferation of stump sprouts originating from the cut trees and more open, drier conditions created by overstory removal, as well as by the designated buffer zones.

However, several 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines have been incorporated into these alternatives that would minimize the potential for soil movement from dozerlines, temporary roads, and other soil-disturbing activities. With implementation of these 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines, no soil movement is expected to occur at rates that would adversely affect the water quality of adjacent seeps and fens. Past monitoring of similar projects on the MTNF has indicated that soil movement levels were well within the allowable soil loss established in the Forest Plan (US Forest Service 2002). By restricting mechanical treatments and other activities near a seep or fen, the potential for waterflow alteration is expected to be minimized.

The introduction of herbicides proposed for use under Alternative 2 (triclopyr and glyphosate) into any groundwater seepage community would be undesirable and unintentional because these communities tend to support a diverse array of aquatic plants and organisms that may be sensitive to herbicides.

Some studies indicate that glyphosate can have adverse effects upon fish, tadpoles, and amphibians (Relyea 2005a, 2005b). Many of these adverse impacts upon aquatic organisms in these environments, however, occurred in simulated settings that did not represent realistic use or follow use of the herbicide according to manufacturer‟s label instructions (Monsanto 2005; Langeland 2006). No unreasonable adverse effects are predicted from the normal used of glyphosate herbicides (or the surfactants within the herbicides) when used as directed on the manufacturer‟s label (Monsanto 2002). As with glyphosate, triclopyr also has been speculated to have adverse effects upon aquatic organisms, and some studies have found evidence of possible neurological effects of triclopyr in fish. The effects, however, were only observed at lethal or near-lethal exposure levels (Durkin and Diamond 2002). Triclopyr herbicides have been specifically tested for malformations in frogs and no significant effects were noted. In very high concentrations, some mortality or immobility of tadpoles was noted (Durkin 2003b). In some cases, the surfactant used in the herbicide formulation, and not the herbicide itself, may be the cause of potential adverse effects.

110 For instance, the POEA surfactant used with some formulations of glyphosate may be much more toxic to aquatic organisms than the glyphosate (Durkin and Diamond 2002); triclopyr formulations containing butoxyethyl esters as opposed to triethylamine salt, for instance, should not be used around water because the ester will not disperse in water and may cause problems to aquatic organisms (M.Frank email 2/8/07).

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to have no direct or indirect effects upon groundwater seepage communities (springs, sinkholes, fens, etc.) because no herbicide would be directly applied to any of these areas; no herbicide would be directly applied to any standing or live water; all known groundwater seepage communities, streams, and other sensitive habitats (such as cave entrances) would be identified as “no-spray” areas during project implementation; all herbicides would be applied in accordance with the manufacturer‟s label; all herbicides would be applied according to 2005 Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

These precautions are expected to prevent any indirect effects upon these habitats as a result of spray drift or flashback. Although some research does indicate that glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides may have adverse effects upon aquatic organisms, many of these adverse effects occurred at high doses or as the result of direct exposure to the herbicide, sometimes on more than one occasion (Monsanto 2005; Langeford 2006; Relyea 2005a, 2005b). If unintended exposure of herbicide to groundwater seepage communities did occur as a result of activities proposed in Alternative 2, the effects upon aquatic organisms would be expected to be less severe than those shown by laboratory studies because exposure would likely be indirect (such as from spray drift) and at lower doses. Generally speaking, the likelihood of adverse effects of glyphosate on aquatic invertebrates seems extremely remote and aquatic plants are less sensitive than the most sensitive aquatic animals (Durkin 2003a).

Northern Bobwhite Northern bobwhite populations are expected to respond negatively within the project area if Alternative 1 is implemented. The northern bobwhite is associated with early successional habitat, particularly scrub-shrub habitats, and in a forested landscape, early successional habitats are considered optimum. Alternative 1 does not propose any activities that would create pockets of early successional forest habitats across a landscape already dominated by poor northern bobwhite habitats in the form of mature forest and tall fescue pastures. There would be no prescribed burning to improve habitat for northern bobwhite by providing frequent habitat disturbance that is essential to preventing the loss of early successional habitats within a woodland setting. Studies have shown that the numbers of individual northern bobwhites are lower in areas not managed by fire than those that are burned. (Natureserve 2006). No glade enhancement activities that would benefit this species by creating pockets of herbaceous vegetation within forested stands would occur under Alternative 1.

Northern bobwhite populations are expected to respond favorably within the project area if Alternatives 2 or 3 is implemented. In a forested setting, the northern bobwhite is associated with early successional habitat, particularly scrub-shrub habitats. The timber treatments proposed in these alternatives would create pockets of early successional forest habitats across a landscape otherwise dominated by poor northern bobwhite habitats in the form of mature forest and tall fescue pastures. The prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 2 would improve habitat for northern bobwhite to a greater extent than Alternative 3 by providing frequent habitat disturbance that is essential to preventing the loss of early successional habitats within a woodland setting.

111 Studies have shown that the numbers of individual northern bobwhites are higher in areas managed by fire than those that are not burned. The prescribed burning conducted may disturb northern bobwhites while they are nesting, but most burning is likely to occur outside the nesting season of northern bobwhites. Should an individual be disturbed by burning, she would most likely re-nest that same season (Natureserve 2006). Glade rehabilitation activities proposed also would benefit this species by creating pockets of herbaceous vegetation within forested stands. Frequently, in unmanaged mature forest settings interspersed with glades, northern bobwhites are restricted to the glade habitats because the glades are where the best early successional habitat usually remains.

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 is not expected to have direct effects upon northern bobwhites because northern bobwhites should not be directly exposed to herbicide. Indirect exposure to northern bobwhites is possible. Indirect exposure to herbicide may occur if northern bobwhite are feeding or moving through herbicide treated areas. Northern bobwhites may come into contact with treated vegetation and may feed on treated vegetation or seeds. It is likely that the potential for exposure to herbicide would be higher in the bottomland hardwood establishment areas and the sericea lespedeza control areas than in the areas where cut-stump treatments are proposed. This is because the application of herbicide in the cut-stump treatments would be limited only to stumps, but in the other areas, foliar application of herbicide would occur.

Many studies regarding the effects of glyphosate and triclopyr upon birds have been conducted. Some of these studies involved northern bobwhite. In one study, northern bobwhites consumed a diet treated with glyphosate for 5 days, and glyphosate had no effects upon them at the highest doses tested (Monsanto 2002). Other studies conducted in various bird species did not find any evidence of neurological effects on birds, and some of these studies involved tests on quail (Durkin and Diamond 2002). Most data does not suggest any specific unique toxicity to glyphosate in birds compared to mammals (Durkin 2003a). Studies regarding the effects of triclopyr have had similar results. Generally speaking, triclopyr has been documented as being “practically non-toxic to only slightly toxic to birds” (Durkin 2003b). Studies conducted in birds and other animals have not provided evidence of direct neurotoxicity from triclopyr exposure, even at the maximum tolerated doses (Durkin and Diamond 2002). Based upon this research, toxic effects upon northern bobwhite as a result of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 would be unexpected and unlikely.

Northern bobwhites may also be indirectly affected by the changes in habitat conditions created by the proposed herbicide use. Such indirect effects are expected to be positive and desirable. Some studies regarding the use of herbicides to improve habitat for northern bobwhite have indicated that northern bobwhites respond favorably to such treatments. For instance, where herbicides have been used to created open midstory conditions (such as is proposed in Alternative 2 on 2,207 acres), the response of northern bobwhites has been encouraging, particularly when these herbicide treatments are combined with prescribed burning (Jones and Chamberlain 2004).

Summer Tanager Alternative 1 would have little effect upon summer tanagers, although the lack of activities such as prescribed burning and thinnings to create semi-open forest canopies may result in a long-term decline in habitat quality for this species in the project area. Summer tanagers are frequently found in open and closed woodland settings, and under Alternative 1, woodland characteristics would gradually be lost as forest stands become older and are not subjected to disturbances such a prescribed burning and timber treatments.

112

The summer tanager is associated with deciduous hardwoods and pine-hardwood forests. As a species that nests in the upper branches of trees and gleans insects from the forest canopy, it is most likely dependent upon the canopy layer of forests. Summer tanagers have been found to use forests in a variety of conditions.

Studies have shown that summer tanagers will utilize forest stands that have been managed by uneven-aged management methods, prescribed burning, and even-aged management methods (Smith, et.al, 2004; Tappe et.al. 2004). The timber treatments proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be expected to have a negative effect upon summer tanagers. It is assumed that the density of summer tanagers in stands proposed for even-aged management treatments would be lower than in stands proposed for uneven-aged management treatments because even-aged management generally leaves less canopy cover. However, even in these areas, several reserve trees would be retained and summer tanagers are expected to still use these habitats.

The increase in shrub-scrub habitat that would be created by both even and uneven-aged management techniques would likely benefit summer tanagers by increasing the abundance of insects, and arthropods, upon which tanagers feed. Some summer tanagers may be disturbed during nesting activities by tree-felling activities that occur between May and July, but because summer tanagers are stable and increasing in their range, the loss of some nests would be considered insignificant to their population. In some cases, the summer tanagers may renest. Prescribed burning may also improve habitat for summer tanagers by creating more diverse and open forest stands. Some research has shown that summer tanager numbers increase in burned plots, when compared to unburned plots (Smith et.al. 2004). Therefore, Alternative 2 may be slightly better for summer tanagers than Alternative 3, because it proposes prescribed burning.

The use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 is not expected to have direct effects upon summer tanagers and indirect exposure to summer tanagers is considered unlikely. Summer tanagers are not expected to come into contact with herbicide treated vegetation primarily because treated vegetation would be low to the ground and summer tanagers tend to feed and move in the midstory and overstory of forested stands. Should, however, summer tanagers be indirectly exposed to treated vegetation, the effects to birds would likely be minimal and unmeasurable (Durkin 2003a, 2003b).

There is a chance that summer tanagers could be indirectly exposed to herbicide by ingesting insects that have been indirectly exposed to herbicide. Such exposure, however, is considered very unlikely, and adverse effects upon summer tanagers as a result of such exposure are considered remote. Studies regarding the effects of glyphosate upon insects have indicated that both oral and topical dosing has no adverse effects to honeybees at rates much higher than would be present in the treated areas. Risks to other terrestrial arthropods studied (wasps, mites, carabid beetles, and green lacewings) were found to be low to moderate. Generally, no toxic effects from glyphosate were observed to beneficial anthropods in these studies (Monsanto 2002). Studies of triclopyr have also found it to be “practically non-toxic to honeybees” (Durkin 2003b).

Summer tanagers may also be indirectly affected by the changes in habitat conditions created by the proposed herbicide use. Such indirect effects are expected to be positive and desirable. In particular, the effect of herbicides upon open woodlands (described under than section) may benefit summer tanagers by creating more open mid-story conditions and herbaceous understory vegetation. The use of herbicides to create higher quality woodland conditions than may be created by non-herbicide methods would likely benefit summer tanagers.

113 Bachman’s Sparrow Alternative 1 would not benefit Bachman‟s sparrows, already considered extremely rare. The lack of prescribed burning, glade rehabilitation activities, and timber treatments under Alternative 1 would prevent the creation of habitat for this species in the project area. Any existing suitable habitat for this species on the National Forest in the project area, such as in some glades, would continue to become more unsuitable, as it is further degraded by cedar and woody vegetation encroachment.

Bachman‟s sparrows, while becoming increasingly rare, would likely be benefited by some of the activities proposed in Alternatives 2, and to a much lesser degree, Alternative 3. Particularly, the prescribed burning activities proposed in glade habitats in Alternative 2 would improve habitat for this species by restoring existing cedar-dominated glades to their historic open, herbaceous vegetation condition. Timber management (including even-aged management), when combined with prescribed burning, also may create some suitable habitat for this species (2005 Forest Plan FEIS; Natureserve 2006). None of the activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 are expected to reduce the availability of habitat for this species or impact individuals. It is possible that this species does not even occur in the project area, given its scarcity.

The effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 upon Bachman‟s sparrow would be similar to that described for the summer tanager. Both species of bird feed on insects, and both species prefer open woodland conditions. Therefore, effects of herbicide upon their habitat and food would be similar. Unlike summer tanager, however, Bachman‟s sparrows tend to forage and move through the understory and midstory of forest stands and openings. This may slightly increase their risk of exposure to herbicide treated vegetation as compared to summer tanagers. However, if exposed to treated vegetation, the effect upon Bachman‟s sparrows would be the same as described for summer tanager. That is, the effects of exposure to glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides would likely be minimal and unmeasurable (Durkin 2003a, 2003b).

Worm-eating Warbler As ground nesters, worm-eating warblers are most vulnerable to activities that could disturb the leaf litter during their breeding season. Under Alternative 1, there would be no disturbance to nesting worm-eating warblers. The principle management concern for this species is that large tracts (740 to 2400 acres) of unfragmented forest be maintained. Under Alternative 1, all of the National Forest in the project area would approach a mature forest condition. While private lands may fragment some of this National Forest, over the entire landscape of the project area, the majority of it is in a mature forest condition, and with implementation of Alternative 1, it would continue to provide many large tracts of forested habitat for this species.

As ground nesters, worm-eating warblers are most vulnerable to activities that could disturb the leaf litter during their breeding season. All of the ground-disturbing activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 have the potential of disturbing nesting worm-eating warblers. In particular, nests may be destroyed by prescribed burning and timber treatments. Prescribed burning, however, would most likely occur outside of the nesting period. Even if nests are disturbed by burning and other activities, the loss of a few individual nests would not be expected to have a significant effect upon worm-eating warbler populations in the project area. This species will frequently re-nest if nest disturbance occurs prior to July. Since prescribed burning is not proposed in Alternative 3, this alternative may be slightly better for worm-eating warblers than Alternative 2.

114 Some studies have also indicated that this warbler is probably tolerant of many different forest management and logging practices, and uneven-aged management and thinning may create favorable conditions; the species may even nest in even-aged management areas as young as 7 years old if several hardwoods are left standing in the stands (such as would be done in seedtree and shelterwood harvest areas in Alternatives 2 and 3) (Natureserve 2006).

The principle management concern for this species is that large tracts (740 to 2400 acres) of unfragmented forest be maintained. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 80% of the National Forest in the project area would remain in a mature forest/woodland condition with > 40% canopy cover. While some of this National Forest may be fragmented by private lands, over the entire landscape of the project area, the majority of it is in a mature forest condition, and even with implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3, it would continue to provide many large tracts of forested habitat for this species.

The effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 upon worm-eating warblers would be similar to that described for summer tanager and Bachman‟s sparrow. Like those two species of birds, worm-eating warblers also feed primarily on insects. Therefore, effects of herbicide upon their food source would be similar. Unlike summer tanager and worm-eating warbler, however, worm-eating warblers are not necessarily associated with open woodland habitats. While they may be found in those habitats, they also are commonly found using closed canopy forest with dense understory and leaf-litter. Because worm-eating warblers nest on the ground and most frequently feed and move in the understory of forested stands, they may be slightly higher at risk for herbicide exposure than summer tanagers. However, their risk of exposure is still considered extremely low. If exposed to herbicide, studies indicate that adverse effects to glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides upon birds would likely be minimal and unmeasurable (Durkin 2003a, 2003b).

Eastern Red Bat The eastern red bat is a forest species and prefers areas with deciduous trees, where it can roost in the tree foliage, usually 5 to 20 feet above the ground. It has been found in the project area and is common on the Potosi-Fredericktown District. It is non-migratory in part of its range, including that of the project area, and likely overwinters beneath leaf litter, in trees, or under bark or in hollow branches. It avoids caves and buildings. The red bat is likely benefited by management that maintains an overstory of trees, with a fairly open understory and midstory. Because it roosts in trees, the site must be open underneath to allow easy exist and entry. The red bat feeds on flying insects within forested areas and generally forages near the forest canopy at or above the treetop level or along streams or lake margins (Natureserve 2006). Given that the species prefers open forest habitats, Alternative 1 would not likely benefit it. Alternative 1 would not create open midstory and forest conditions that may be preferred by this bat. Alternative 1 also does not propose creation of vernal ponds and maintenance of existing ponds within the project area. Therefore, habitat conditions for bats would not be improved by providing additional water in upland forest settings, where water is often not available.

Given that the species prefers open forest habitats, Alternative 1 would not likely benefit it. Alternative 1 would not create open midstory and forest conditions that may be preferred by this bat. Alternative 1 also does not propose creation of vernal ponds and maintenance of existing ponds within the project area. Therefore, habitat conditions for bats would not be improved by providing additional water in upland forest settings, where water is often not available.

115 Because red bats frequently roost in the leaf litter, they could be impacted by prescribed burning activities and other activities that disturb the leaf litter. It is assumed that activities that disturb the leaf litter and foliage probably affect few of these animals at any given time, given that their habit of foliage roosting permits quick perception of surroundings and allows for faster response times. In the project area, which is dominated by deciduous forest, there are infinite opportunities for alternate roost locations, and eastern red bats likely would utilize an alternate roost, if disturbed. The impact that prescribed burning has on red bats using the leaf litter is unknown and whether or not eastern red bats or any other foliage roosting bats experience significant annual mortality from dormant season burning is unknown (Carter, et.al. 2002). In most cases, however, prescribed burning would be conducted during the spring or fall seasons, during periods when eastern red bats are not likely hibernating beneath the leaf litter. Still, because no prescribed burning is proposed in Alternative 3, it may be slightly better for red bats than Alternative 2, although any benefits may be offset by the lack of woodland development/maintenance in Alternative 3.

These alternatives also both propose creation of vernal ponds and maintenance of existing ponds within the project area. These fishless ponds could be utilized by some eastern red bats as water sources. The presence of additional vernal ponds created under these alternatives would likely improve habitat conditions for many bats that forage in the uplands of the project area where water is often not available. Road ruts created by skid trails and temporary roads would also be frequently used by bats as water sources.

The risk of exposure of the eastern red bat to herbicides proposed for use in Alternative 2 is considered very low. The greatest possibility for eastern red bats to be directly exposed to herbicide would likely be in the areas proposed for cut-stump treatments to control stump sprouting. The eastern red bat is known to roost in leaves on the forest floor, so there is a slight chance that herbicide applied to the cut stump could inadvertently drift onto leaves under which the bat is roosting. However, this scenario is considered extremely remote because eastern red bats would most likely flush when approached by anyone applying herbicide, and spray applied directly to stumps is not likely to drift, and if it did drift, the chances of the drift landing on a roosting eastern red bat are extremely remote.

Although no particular studies could be found regarding the effects of triclopyr and glyphosate herbicides upon bats, extensive studies have been conducted to determine the effect of these herbicides upon mammals, primarily laboratory mammals such as rats, mice and rabbits (Monsanto 2002). It is assumed that the effects upon small laboratory mammals would be similar to those upon bats. These studies found that glyphosate exposure resulted in minimal effects to mammals; the most notable effect upon mammals was loss of body weight (Durkin 2003a). Many of these studies involved doses to mammals that would be much higher than those found in field settings. Another study of the effects of glyphosate and glyphosate herbicides found that, when used according to label directions, the herbicides had no “unreasonable adverse effects to mammals”. This study concluded that mammals, including the tiny meadow vole, would not be expected to encounter harmful levels of glyphosate even through multiple exposure routes, including food, water and direct contact (Monsanto 2002). The effects of triclopyr upon small mammals (laboratory animals) also have been well studied, although perhaps not to the extent as glyphosate since glyphosate has been researched for over 30 years. Triclopyr studies conducted in rodents, dogs, and monkeys have not provided evidence of direct neurotoxicity, even at the maximum tolerated doses (Durkin and Diamond 2002). At very high levels, toxic effects upon mammals may occur, but there is little information indicating that triclopyr has direct adverse effects on the nervous, endocrine, or immune systems of mammals (Durkin 2003b).

116 Another risk to eastern red bats of herbicide exposure would be through their food. Eastern red bats feed almost exclusively on insects, therefore, any insects that come in contact with treated vegetation and are then consumed by eastern red bats may indirectly expose the bat to herbicide. However, studies regarding the effects of glyphosate upon insects have indicated that both oral and topical dosing has no adverse effects to honeybees at rates much higher than would be present in the treated areas. Risks to other terrestrial anthropods studied (wasps, mites, carabid beetles, and green lacewings) were found to be low to moderate. Generally, no toxic effects from glyphosate were observed to beneficial arthropods in these studies (Monsanto 2002). Studies of triclopyr have also found it to be “practically non-toxic to honeybees” (Durkin 2003b). Eastern red bats also may forage on emerging aquatic insects. Although some research does indicate that glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides may have adverse effects upon aquatic organisms, many of these adverse effects occurred at high doses or as the result of direct exposure to the herbicide, sometimes on more than one occasion (Monsanto 2005; Langeford 2006; Relyea 2005a, 2005b). If unintended exposure of herbicide to aquatic invertebrates did occur as a result of activities proposed in Alternative 2, the effects upon these aquatic organisms would be expected to be less severe than those shown by laboratory studies because exposure would likely be indirect (such as from spray drift) and at lower doses. Generally speaking, the likelihood of adverse effects of glyphosate on aquatic invertebrates seems extremely remote (Durkin 2003a).

Eastern red bats may also be indirectly affected by the changes in habitat conditions created by the proposed herbicide use. Such indirect effects are expected to be positive and desirable. In particular, the effect of herbicides upon open woodlands (described under than section) may benefit eastern red bats by creating more open midstory conditions and herbaceous understory vegetation. The use of herbicides to create higher quality woodland conditions than may be created by non-herbicide methods would likely benefit eastern red bats. High-quality woodland habitats with open midstories and herbaceous understories likely improve the bats‟ ability to forage for insects below the forest canopy and increase the diversity and abundance of food (insects).

Roads and Wildlife Under Alternative 1, there would be no change in the existing road density on National Forest within the project area because no new roads would be constructed as part of this alternative, and no existing roads would be decommissioned. Currently, the road density within the project area is approximately 2.4 mi/sq. mi. This road density estimate includes all State, County, Private, and USFS System and Non-System roads that have been identified within the project area.

Based upon research by King and DeGraaf (2002), a road density of 2.4 mi/sq. mi is below the threshold at which significant negative effects on forest birds generally appear. This indicates that the road density is not at a level that would jeopardize any forest birds‟ continued viability within the project area.

In Alternative 1, approximately 28,391 acres would be considered within the “road effect zone”. Some wildlife species would be expected to avoid this “road effect zone” due to the likelihood that road noise, human activities, and edge effects would be greater within this zone than outside it. In particular, activities that may impact game species such as hunting, trapping, and poaching would be expected to be higher within this zone than outside it because these areas are more easily accessed by people. Other activities, such as gathering plant materials for medicinal or commercial uses, and general wildlife observation would also be expected to be higher within these zones. These zones would also be most likely to harbor or introduce non-native plant species, many of which are considered noxious weeds (Table WL-16).

117

Table WL-16. Summary of Road Effects Indices for Alternative 1. Units of Measure Potential Effects upon Wildlife As road density increases, negative impacts upon wildlife such as habitat disturbance, Road Density 2.4 mi./sq. mi. road kill, and changes in their population distributions would likely also increase. These zones represent areas in which wildlife species would be most vulnerable to Acres within “Road Effect Zones” 28,391 human activities and habitat conditions created by the roads. No. of “road-free” areas > 500 acres on These areas would offer the best blocks of National Forest within project area habitat on National Forest in the project area 5 for species that tend to avoid roads and human use areas. No. of documented records or rare These species would benefit from not being species within road effect zones. 12 located in road effect zones, where they may be vulnerable to direct & indirect impacts from vehicles.

Because Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the decommissioning of approximately 47 miles of existing, non-system roads within the project area, it will reduce the existing road density within the project area from 2.4 mi./sq. mi to 2.0 mi/sq. mi. This road density estimate includes all State, County, Private, and USFS System roads that would likely be maintained within the project area if these alternatives are implemented. If the temporary roads that would be constructed in these alternatives are added to the equation, the road density within the project area would be 2.5 mi./sq. mi.

Based upon research by King and DeGraaf (2002), a road density of 2.0 mi./sq. mile is below the threshold at which significant negative effects on forest birds generally appear. This indicates that the road density is not at a level which would jeopardize any forest birds‟ continued viability within the project area.

In Alternatives 2 and 3, approximately 28,245 acres would be considered within the “road effect zone”. If temporary roads that would be constructed in these alternatives are added to the equation, then 28,972 acres would fall within this zone. Some wildlife species would be expected to avoid this “road effect zone” due to the likelihood that road noise, human activities, and edge effects would be greater within this zone than outside it. In particular, activities that may impact game species such as hunting, trapping, and poaching would be expected to be higher within this zone than outside it because these areas are more easily accessed by people. Other activities, such as gathering plant materials for medicinal or commercial uses, and general wildlife observation would also be expected to be higher within these zones. These zones would also be most likely to harbor or introduce non-native plant species, many of which are considered noxious weeds.

118

The contribution that roads may be making within the project area to overall fragmentation of interior forest habitat would not change from the existing situation under Alternative 1. Because no roads will be decommissioned under this alternative, there would be no reduction in edge effect that may be occurring as a result of existing roads in the project area. Conversely, no new roads would be constructed under this alternative; therefore, there would be no increase in fragmentation or edge effect as a result of new roads on National Forest.

Currently, there are approximately 5 blocks of National Forest within the project area that are > 500 acres and are not crossed by any known roads (i.e., “road-free”). In Alternative 1, this number would not change. Areas that do not have permanent roads and do not have timber regeneration activities occurring within them would offer the best habitat for species that require large tracts of mature forest. For species that are more tolerant of habitat fragmentation, but tend to avoid areas of human activity, all of the “road-free” areas would offer them the best suitable habitat on National Forest in the project area, regardless of whether or not timber regeneration activities occurred in these blocks.

No unique communities or rare or listed-species would be expected to be further impacted directly by roads under Alternative 1. There are 12 documented records of rare species occurring

119 within the road effect zones of the project area. Effects to these unique species or their habitats as a result of roads would not be expected to change from the existing situation because this alternative does not propose any changes to the existing road conditions, locations, or maintenance.

In Alternatives 2 & 3, the contribution that roads may be making within the project area to overall fragmentation of interior forest habitat would be improved when compared to the existing situation. Because 47 miles of non-system roads will be decommissioned under these alternatives, there would be an expected reduction in edge effects that may be occurring as a result of existing roads in the project area. Temporary roads would not be considered likely to increase the edge effect or fragmentation of habitat within the project area because of their temporary nature and narrow widths (26 ft; < 8 m). No new, permanent roads would be constructed under these alternatives; therefore, there would be no increase in fragmentation or edge effect as a result of new permanent roads on National Forest.

In Alternatives 2 and 3, the number of blocks that are >500 acres and are not crossed by any known roads would increase from 5 to 9, due to the decommissioning of 47 miles of non-system roads. However, within all of these blocks, some of this mature forest interior habitat would be temporarily fragmented by some of the temporary roads and timber regeneration activities proposed in these alternatives. Areas that do not have permanent roads and do not have timber

120 regeneration activities occurring within them would offer the best habitat for species that require large tracts of mature forest. For species that are more tolerant of habitat fragmentation, but tend to avoid areas of human activity, all of the “road-free” areas would offer them the best suitable habitat on National Forest in the project area, regardless of whether or not timber regeneration activities occurred in these blocks. With implementation of Alternatives 2 or 3, there would be 7 documented records of rare species occurring within the road effect zones of the project area following completion of the proposed actions. Although some rare species and/or their habitats may occur immediately adjacent to some of the roads within the project area and within areas where temporary roads would be constructed, adverse effects to these unique communities as a result of roads would not be expected to occur under Alternatives 2 or 3 because protective measures have been incorporated within these alternatives to protect these unique communities and species sites from potentially disturbing activities associated with road decommissioning and temporary road construction Table-WL-17)

Table WL-17. Summary of Road Effects Indices for Alternatives 2 and 3. Units of Measure Potential Effects upon Wildlife As road density increases, negative impacts upon wildlife such as habitat disturbance, Road Density 2.0 mi./sq. mi. road kill, and changes in their population distributions would likely also increase. These zones represent areas in which wildlife species would be most vulnerable to Acres within “Road Effect Zones” 28,245 human activities and habitat conditions created by the roads. No. of “road-free” areas > 500 acres on These areas would offer the best blocks of National Forest within project area 9 habitat on National Forest in the project area for species that tend to avoid roads and human use areas. No. of documented records or rare These species would benefit from not being species within road effect zones. 7 located in road effect zones, where they may be vulnerable to direct & indirect impacts from vehicles.

Wildlife Habitat Objectives and Management Indicator Species/Communities - Cumulative Effects For this analysis, cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the proposed actions when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7).

Geographical (Spatial) Boundaries of Analysis For this cumulative effects analysis upon wildlife, including MIS/communities, all of the lands within the Shoal Creek project area were considered. This spatial boundary was used because the Shoal Creek project area contains all the lands where direct and indirect effects upon wildlife and MIS/communities would be expected to occur if the Shoal Creek project is implemented. This spatial boundary represents approximately 68,202 acres.

121 Temporal Boundaries of Analysis The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis for wildlife MIS/communities is 10 years. This is based on the historic Potosi-Fredericktown District 10-year management cycle. Under this cycle, the geographic boundary for the Shoal Creek project would be re-evaluated after ten years following any decision to implement this project. A review of Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data, aerial photographs, Missouri 2000-2004 satellite imagery, and current Forest Service CDS data was used to determine existing vegetation conditions and land use changes that have occurred over the past 10 years on a landscape level surrounding the project area.

Activities proposed under the Shoal Creek project would likely be implemented during this 10- year period, but the effects of these activities could extend beyond 10 years and this has been taken into consideration during this analysis. For example, a 50 year-old timber stand that is regenerated using a particular cutting method may require 50 years before reaching maturity again. Therefore, the effects of this activity could be spread over a 50 year period. While the life of the effects of such activities upon wildlife and their habitats could extend over this same period, they would likely be most measurable and noticeable over the ten-year period immediately following implementation.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered The table below identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that have occurred or are planned to occur within the geographic boundaries considered. Some of these activities may have had or may be having an effect upon wildlife habitats, and/or MIS/communities (Table WL-18).

Table WL-18. Effects upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities in the geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Project. Actions Effects Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past timber treatments on National Increases the amount of early successional habitat available to Forest wildlife in the project area. Improved habitat conditions for species such as northern bobwhite. Likely increases the density of roads in the project area, which could lead to disturbance of wildlife. May temporarily decrease habitat available to eastern red bat, and worm-eating warbler and other species that prefer mature forest. Likely has little impact upon summer tanagers, or Bachman‟s sparrows. Some of these treatments may create areas that approximate woodland conditions.

Wildfires & prescribed burns on May create more open, woodland-like forest conditions, which National Forest, particularly those within would benefit species such as summer tanager and northern the past 10 years bobwhite. Not likely to affect eastern red bat or worm-eating warbler. May benefit glade communities.

Streambank Stabilization Activities Would benefit riparian & aquatic MIS/communities by reducing sedimentation into Huzzah Creek and Courtois Creek.

Recreation Site Maintenance & Trail Likely has no effect upon MIS/communities. Activities have development minimal impact upon habitats.

Conversion of private forestlands to Likely decreases availability of habitat for all MIS/communities

122 urban development, cropland and/or and many forest-dependent wildlife species. Likely increases pasture presence of artificial grasslands in project area, which would be undesirable for wildlife.

Herbicide use and mowing to maintain Likely maintains early successional habitat in project area for roadsides, powerlines, and pastures some wildlife species. May provide limited habitat for northern bobwhite. Development of residential areas on Likely have similar effects as conversion of forestland to private lands cropland. May increase hunting pressure and disturbance to wildlife in forests surrounding residential areas. Likely to increase road densities in project area. Timber harvests on private lands Likely has a similar effect as past timber harvests on National Forest. However, private land timber harvesting is often un- regulated, and the impacts upon soil and water may be more exaggerated on private lands than National Forest. Livestock grazing May increase presence of non-native plants in project area, and lead to degradation of glades and groundwater seepage communities. Spread of invasive plants & animals Likely to lead to degradation of forested habitats, including glades and groundwater seepage communities. Illegal ATV/OHV trails and road May lead to degradation of glades and groundwater seepage use/development communities. Could increase disturbance to wildlife, but generally not expected to impact MIS. Could lead to increase in road density in project area. Gravel dredging & mine discharge into Leading to degradation of Courtois Creek, which may indirectly Courtois Creek (private lands) have negative effects upon MIS that feed on aquatic insects and use riparian areas. Proposed land exchanges No net loss of National Forest would occur. Some MIS/communities may be impacted on lands that would become private ownership. Trail development & maintenance No measurable impact on MIS/communities expected if Forest Plan S&Gs are followed. Savannah/Woodland development Would likely benefit all MIS/communities by improving habitat conditions for them. Fen fencing Benefits groundwater seepage MIS communities by protecting them from soil disturbance.

Cumulative Effects Baseline Using current FIA data, an area of 800,156 acres was analyzed to determine overall forest habitat conditions within 25 miles of the Shoal Creek project area, in Crawford and Washington counties. This analysis indicated that the National Forest represents a very small percentage (16%) of the overall landbase. Of the 800,156 acres considered, however, the majority of it (70%) is in a forested condition.

In addition to using the FIA data, a detailed review of land conditions in the Shoal Creek project area was also conducted using MoRAP satellite imagery (circa 2000-2004). This review determined that of the approximately 68,202 acres within the project area, approximately 87% is in a forested condition.

123 Figure WL-1. Baseline habitat conditions within the Shoal Creek project area.

It is assumed that these conditions will continue over time. While some conversion of private forestland to cropland or residential use will continue to occur in the area, it is not anticipated to be significant over the next 10 years. According to US Census Bureau statistics, population growth rates from 2000-2005 in Washington and Crawford Counties ranged from 2.9% to 4.9%, respectively (Missouri state average is 3.6%) (http://quickfacts.census.gov/.html). It is assumed that population growth in these areas that is near or below the state average would indicate no significant increase in residential area development. Crawford County, which had the highest population growth rate, is likely experiencing most of this growth in the I-44 corridor, which is at least 10 miles west of the Shoal Creek project area National Forest lands.

Overall, and generally speaking, based upon this analysis, it does not appear that lack of forested conditions is a limiting factor for wildlife on the National Forest nor the private lands surrounding and within the Shoal Creek project area..

Cumulative Effects Discussion Based upon a review of the existing and foreseeable conditions of the project area and the surrounding landscape, it is not expected that Alternative 1 would have any adverse additive or cumulative effects upon wildlife habitat objectives, or MIS/communities. Under Alternative 1, there would be an overall decrease in early successional forest habitat and a lack of diverse forest understory represented by grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Species that are attracted to open woodland conditions would not benefit, and these habitat conditions are currently very limited in and around the project area. Habitat objectives that focus on mature

124 forest stands with a dense forest canopy would be expected to increase throughout the project area with implementation of Alternative 1. This may lead to a cumulative increase in forest conditions that benefit species preferring older age and deeply shaded forests.

Based upon a review of the existing and foreseeable conditions of the project area and the surrounding landscape, it is not expected that any of the proposed activities in Alternatives 2 or 3 of the Shoal Creek project would have an adverse additive or cumulative effect upon wildlife habitats, particularly those considered as MIS/communities. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, there would be an 11.4% increase in early successional forest habitats. With this increase would be expected benefits to species that require early successional habitats, such as northern bobwhite, white-tailed deer, and eastern towhee, among others. The timber treatments proposed, as well as prescribed burning in Alternative 2, would increase the diversity of shrubs, grasses, and forbs in the forest understory, and some of these treatments would move forest stands towards open woodland conditions, which are limited in the project area. Glade rehabilitation activities would enhance this habitat in the project area and improve conditions for Bachman‟s sparrow. With the designation of 3,577 acres of old growth, habitat for species requiring old-aged forest would be provided. And, because most of the project area would remained untreated in Alternatives 2 and 3 and most of it is in a mature forest condition, species that require mature forest would continue to be well provided for if one of these alternatives is implemented. Neither Alternatives 2 nor 3 would permanently fragment existing forested areas by converting forested areas to non-forested areas. There would be some fragmentation of forested areas created by a mix of structural stages and the creation of gaps in the canopy as well as edges between young and mature forest/woodland. However, this type of fragmentation is also present in natural systems where natural mortality creates gaps in the canopy and gradations in age or size of dominant plant species (2005 Forest Plan FEIS).

The cumulative effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to be virtually immeasurable. Based upon known and foreseeable uses of herbicides in the project area, only approximately 0.24% of the project area is being treated with herbicides. When the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is added to the existing and foreseeable use of herbicide in the project area, the percentage of herbicide use occurring in the project area would increase by only 0.09%, to 0.33%. This is virtually immeasurable.

When the locations where herbicide use is occurring are considered, there is no evidence that herbicides are being concentrated in a particular watershed or sensitive area. Refer to Figure WL-3 for locations of present, foreseeable and proposed herbicide use areas.

The largest areas of herbicide use occur in the southeast end of the project area, and are represented primarily by herbicide to be used on cut-stump treatments in proposed savannah areas at in Compartments 100, 116, 117, and 119. The cut-stump treatments, however, would involve only very minimal use of herbicide. On 2,207 acres of forest proposed for this treatment, the actual area expected to be exposed to direct application of herbicide is less than 1 acre.

125 Figure WL-2. Geographic boundaries used for FIA data interpretation

In addition, a review of Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Data (Miles 2007) was conducted in order to determine existing habitat conditions in Crawford and Washington counties, on all the lands within 25 miles of the center of the Shoal Creek project area. These counties were selected because they contain all of the National Forest lands within the project area, and a distance of 25 miles was used because it encompassed the entire Shoal Creek project area, in addition to some surrounding lands. They represent approximately 800,156 acres.

126 Figure WL-3. Known and foreseeable herbicide use in the Shoal Creek Project Area.

Of all the ongoing, foreseeable, and proposed herbicide use in the project area, the majority of it (0.23%) would be on National Forest lands. All herbicide use on National Forest lands is closely monitored and regulated. For example, nearly all of the present herbicide use on National Forest is in utility line rights-of- ways. These utility lines are treated with herbicide that must be pre-approved by the US Forest Service. The herbicide application must be in accordance with state and federal regulations and follow directions specified on the manufacturer‟s label. Monitoring of the powerlines is conducted periodically and “no spray” zones representing permanent streams have been identified. Permits to use herbicide on National Forest are reviewed periodically and subject to environmental analysis.

Given the fact that very little herbicide use is occurring or proposed in the project area, that the amount of herbicide use in the project area is virtually immeasurable, that the majority of herbicide use known to be occurring in the project area is being regulated and monitored by the US Forest Service, andthat studies of glyphosate and triclopyr indicate relatively low risk to the environment (when used according to manufacturer‟s labels), it is expected that the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 would have no additive or adverse cumulative effects upon any wildlife habitat objectives or MIS/communities.

127 Table WL-19 and WL-20 shows the Additive and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 andAlternatives 2 and 3 upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities.

Table WL-19. Additive and cumulative effects of Alternative 1 upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities. Early Old growth Open Glades Groundwater Native MIS successional woodlands seepage grasslands & habitat communities artificial openlands Existing Limited. Limited. Limited. Limited. Limited. These Limited. No Northern Conditions Majority of Majority (77%) Majority of Very few communities are native grasslands bobwhite and based upon project area is of forest in FIA forest lands glades are not abundant, but in project area Bachman‟s Past, Present mature forest boundary is < in project present in where they on National sparrow and or pasture/ 75 yrs old. area have > project area; occur, are Forest. populations Foreseeable cropland. 80% canopy those that degraded by Grasslands on likely Activities cover and are present invasive plants private lands are decreasing and have not are degraded and lack of dominated by habitat is been burned. due to lack burning. non-native limited. Other of burning. species. MIS populations likely stable or increasing and habitat is not limited. Additive Negative. Beneficial. Negative. Negative. Negative. No Negative. No Would not impacts of Would not All of the forest Existing No glade activities to activities that improve habitat Alternative 1 increase this stands in the open enhancement protect fens (fen would promote for Bachman‟s habitat project area woodland activities are fencing) are native grasslands sparrow, component would become habitats proposed; proposed. are proposed. northern within the older over the would glades Artificial bobwhite, project area. next 10 years, become would openlands would summer tanager, but because no degraded due remain gradually be lost or red bat, but old growth to lack of degraded due to lack of not expected to would be burning and due to lack maintenance. be adverse to officially no new open of burning. worm-eating designated, woodlands warbler there is no long- would be populations. term protection created. for any of these stands. Cumulative The overall additive effect of Alternative 1 upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities would be negative (adverse). effect of The only species expected to benefit from Alternative 1 would be those that prefer older age, closed canopy forest conditions. additive These habitat conditions are not currently limited in the project area; rather, open woodland habitats and early successional forest impacts upon habitat is limited not only in the project area, but throughout the Ozarks, which may be having a cumulative negative effect upon all wildlife species that prefer these more open habitats. Alternative 1 would likely contribute to this cumulative effect. None of the habitat activities on National Forest would contribute to any adverse effects that may be occurring as a result of activities on surrounding objectives & private lands. MIS/ communities

128

Table WL-20. Additive and cumulative effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities. Early Old growth Open woodlands Glades Groundwater seepage Native MIS successio communities grasslands & nal artificial habitat openlands Existing Limited. Limited. Limited. Majority of Limited. Limited. These Limited. No Northern bobwhite Conditions Majority Majority (77%) forestlands in project Very few communities are not native and Bachman‟s based upon of project of forest in FIA area have > 80% glades are abundant, but where grasslands in sparrow Past, Present area is boundary is < 75 canopy cover and have present in they occur, are project area on populations likely and mature yrs old. not been burned. project area; degraded by invasive National decreasing and Foreseeable forest or those that plants and lack of Forest. habitat is limited. Activities pasture/ are present burning. Grasslands on Other MIS cropland. are degraded private lands populations likely due to lack are dominated stable or increasing of burning. by non-native and habitat is not species. limited. Additive Beneficial Short-term Alternative 2: Beneficial. Alternative 2: Alternative 2: Would improve impacts of . negative but Beneficial. Prescribed Glade Beneficial. Prescribed habitat for Alternatives 2 Would long-term burning, savannah cuts rehabilitatio Prescribed burning burning and Bachman‟s & 3 increase beneficial. & midstory treatment n activities activities may enhance timber sparrow, northern this Would increase would encourage open proposed these communities. treatments bobwhite, summer habitat this habitat woodland habitat. and Fen fencing would may encourage tanager, and not componen component in the Alternative 3: Negative; proposed protect fens. native grasses. expected to be t within project area by would not maintain burning Alternative 3: Alternative 3: adverse to red bat the project approximately existing woodlands nor would Not as beneficial; no No overall and worm-eating area by 11.4%. in the create new ones. enhance this burning proposed but effect. warbler approxima long-term. habitat. would fence fens. populations. tely 11.4%. Cumulative The overall cumulative effect of the activities proposed upon wildlife habitat objectives and MIS/communities would be positive effect of (beneficial). Although some temporary loss of some mature forest may occur where even-aged regeneration activities would occur, this additive would not have an adverse cumulative effect upon wildlife that requires mature forest because several thousand acres would still be available impacts upon to these species in the project area. None of the activities on National Forest would contribute to any adverse effects that may be occurring all wildlife as a result of activities on surrounding private lands. Of the two action alternatives, Alternative 2 would be expected to have more additive habitat beneficial impacts upon MIS/communities than Alternative 3. objectives & MIS/ communities

129

The duration and magnitude of effects of activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not incrementally add to the past, present, and foreseeable actions that have occurred or will likely occur on National Forest or private lands. This is because Alternatives 2 and 3 would move all wildlife habitats toward their desired conditions for the 2.1 MP, and habitat conditions for all MIS/communities would either improve or remain stable within the cumulative effects project areas, and none of the alternatives would have an irreversible or irretrievable commitment on resources in the project area.

Federally Threatened and Endangered Species The effects upon federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species of the Mark Twain National Forest have been disclosed in a Biological Evaluation (BE) that was prepared specifically for this project. The BE can be found in Appendix A of the EA.

The BE determined that Alternative 1 would have “no effects” upon nine species and “is not likely to adversely affect” five species (Table WL-21). These effects include all direct, indirect, and foreseeable cumulative effects.

Table WL-21. Summary of effects of Alternative 1 upon federally-listed species. Determination of Determination of Species Effect Species Effect Is not likely to Topeka shiner No effects Running buffalo clover adversely affect Tumbling creek cavesnail No effects Mead‟s milkweed No effects Is not likely to Pink mucket Gray bat adversely affect pearlymussel No effects Is not likely to Indiana bat adversely affect Ozark hellbender No effects Virginia No effects sneezeweed Scaleshell mussel No effects Spectaclecase No effects Sheepnose mussel No effects mussel Hine‟s emerald Is not likely to Is not likely to dragonfly adversely affect Bald eagle adversely affect

The BE determined that Alternatives 2 and 3 would have “no effects” upon nine species and “is not likely to adversely affect” four species (Table WL-22). The BE determined that Alternatives 2 and 3 “may adversely affect” the Indiana bat. These effects include all direct, indirect, and foreseeable cumulative effects.

Table WL-22. Summary of effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 upon federally-listed species. Determination of Determination of Species Effect Species Effect Is not likely to Topeka shiner No effects Running buffalo clover adversely affect Tumbling creek cavesnail No effects Mead‟s milkweed No effects Is not likely to Pink mucket Gray bat adversely affect pearlymussel No effects

130 May Indiana bat adversely affect Ozark hellbender No effects Virginia No effects Sheepnose mussel No effects sneezeweed Spectaclecase No effects mussel Scaleshell mussel No effects Hine‟s emerald Is not likely to Is not likely to dragonfly adversely affect Bald eagle adversely affect

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and other Species of Concern The effects upon Regional Forester‟s Sensitive Species and other Species of Concern of the Mark Twain National Forest have been disclosed in a Biological Evaluation (BE) that was prepared specifically for this analysis. The BE can be found in Appendix A.

The BE determined that Alternative 1 would have “no impact” upon any RFSS or Species of Concern. The rationale and discussion for these determinations can be found in the BE.

The BE determined that Alternatives 2 and 3 would have “no impact” upon any RFSS or Species of Concern that are primarily restricted to grasslands. The BE determined that Alternatives 2 and 3 “may impact individuals or habitat but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or loss of population viability” for any RFSS or Species of Concern that are primarily restricted to aquatic areas, riparian areas, wetlands, forested habitats, glades, caves, and bluffs.

Birds (emphasizing Neotropical Migrants) Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct effects upon birds. Indirectly, this alternative would benefit species that prefer mature forest stands because it would not implement any activities that would result in younger forest stands or scrub-shrub habitat within the project area. Under Alternative 1, fragmentation of mature forest habitat would not be increased by any proposed actions on National Forest and increases in cowbird parasitism as a result of increased edge within the National Forest would not be expected. Species that occupy closed-canopy forests would be expected to remain at the current levels or increase slightly within the project area. Habitat for birds that occupy early successional forest and openings within the forest would continue to be limited within the project area and not increased under this alternative (Table WL-23).

Table WL-23. Anticipated effects of Alternative 1 upon Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita physiographic area likely to occur within the project area. Species Preferred Habitat Effect of Alternative 1 Kentucky warbler, Prairie Forest edge, young Would not improve habitat warbler, Whip-poor-will, Field sapling/poletimber forest, scrub- conditions for these species. sparrow, Orchard oriole, shrub, fields, or openlands, Habitat for these species expected Northern bobwhite, Brown often intermixed with mature to be reduced over the long term. thrasher, Chuck-will‟s widow, forest. Blue-winged warbler, Loggerhead shrike, , Bewick‟s wren Swainson‟ warbler, Cerulean Mature riparian forests, often Would maintain existing mature warbler, Acadian flycatcher, with some midstory and shrub riparian forest. Would not Prothonotary warbler, development encourage shrub development in Louisiana waterthrush, Yellow- the midstory and understory or

131 throated warbler, Rusty development of bottomland blackbird hardwoods in existing cleared riparian areas. Worm-eating warbler, Great- Mature forest with semi-open Would maintain and increase crested flycatcher, Ovenbird, canopies and relatively open availability of mature forest in the Pileated woodpecker, Carolina midstory and some shrub project area. Would not improve chickadee, Yellow-billed development conditions for species that prefer cuckoo, Yellow-throated semi-open canopies or shrub warbler, Summer tanager, development in the midstory and Wood thrush, Red-headed understory. woodpecker, Purple finch

Alternatives 2 and 3 would implement several activities that may have a direct effect upon individual birds. Many stand treatments proposed involve tree felling, and this could destroy active bird nests and disrupt nesting or breeding behavior. Prescribed burning during the nesting season may also have a similar effect. However, this would be a short term effect and only involve some individual birds. Populations of these birds within the project area would not be expected to change as a result of these disruptions. Many birds would successfully re-nest following loss of a nest, depending upon various conditions. Prescribed burning is proposed only in Alternative 2.

Indirectly, these alternatives would benefit birds that prefer early successional forest stands because they would increase the availability of young forest and scrub-shrub habitat within the project area. These early successional forest stands would be surrounded by interconnected mature forest and not result in complete isolation of any mature forest stand from other mature forest stands. None of the activities proposed would result in conversion of any forested lands to non-forested lands. Where edge habitat is created by activities proposed in the alternative, the potential for increased cowbird parasitism and nest predation does increase (2005 Forest Plan FEIS). Given that most of the project area is forested, cowbird parasitism levels are not expected to be high within the project area. Some individual birds that occupy closed-canopy forests may be temporarily displaced by some activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. However, even with implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3, population levels of these species would be expected to remain near the current levels within the project area since most of the project area would continue to offer mature closed-canopy forest. Habitat for birds that occupy early successional forest and openings within the forest would increase under these alternatives but continue to be somewhat limited within the project area (WL-24).

The bottomland hardwood planting proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a benefit on many riparian forest-dwelling birds, most notably, the cerulean warbler. Cerulean warblers are a species showing decline throughout most of their range, and have been closely studied for potential listing as a federally threatened or endangered species (Hamel 2006). In Missouri, cerulean warblers are associated with riparian forests, and cerulean warblers have been documented in the Shoal Creek project area along Courtois Creek. This species is vulnerable to activities that fragment riparian forests.

On the National Forest in the project area, the majority of the riparian areas are forested, but there are three sites adjacent to Courtois Creek that are not forested. These three sites are acquired homesteads and contain abandoned farmland. This abandoned farmland historically was bottomland hardwood forest. As part of Alternatives 2 and 3, establishment of bottomland hardwoods on these three sites is proposed. This would reduce fragmentation of the riparian forest along Courtois Creek and improve habitat for the cerulean warbler and other birds that use riparian habitats. The bottomland hardwood planting proposed in Alternative 2 also proposes using a mix of faster growing bottomland hardwoods (such as American sycamore and eastern cottonwoods) interplanted with slower-growing oaks. Studies

132 have shown that by using such a mix, bottomland forest-dwelling birds are likely to benefit from the plantings in a much shorter time span than if only slower growing tree species are planted (Twedt 2006; Twedt, Wilson and Henne-Kerr et.al. 2002). The designation of old growth proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, most of which would be in bottomland areas, also would benefit these birds.

Another group of birds on the PIF priority species list are those associated with open woodland habitats. Birds such as summer tanager, northern bobwhite, great-crested flycatcher, and red-headed woodpecker are often attracted to the open forest conditions created by prescribed burning. The savannah development, midstory control, and associated prescribed burning proposed in Alternative 2 would benefit these species by creating and maintaining semi-open forest canopies with a fairly open midstory. Currently, these conditions are limited in the project area.

Some birds may be exposed to triclopyr and glyphosate herbicides in Alternative 2. This exposure would most likely be indirect, and result from birds feeding or moving in herbicide treated areas. Birds that tend to forage and nest in the understory and on the ground have a greater potential of being exposed to herbicides than those that spend most of their time in the overstory and midstory. This is because the use of herbicides proposed in Alternative 2 would be limited to applications made within a few inches of the ground and no aerial or high-pressure spraying would be conducted.

Birds that are indirectly exposed to these two herbicides by coming into contact with treated vegetation are not likely to suffer from toxic effects. Most data does not suggest any specific unique toxicity to glyphosate in birds compared to mammals (Durkin 2003a). Studies regarding the effects of triclopyr have had similar results. Generally speaking, triclopyr has been documented as being “practically non- toxic to only slightly toxic to birds” (Durkin 2003b). Studies conducted in birds and other animals have not provided evidence of direct neurotoxicity from triclopyr exposure, even at the maximum tolerated doses; glyphosate studies conducted in various bird species (chickens, quail, finches and ducks) did not find evidence of neurological effects (Durkin and Diamond 2002).

Birds also may be indirectly exposed to herbicides by ingesting seeds or vegetation that has been recently treated, or by ingesting insects that have fed or been moving on treated vegetation. Both scenarios would be expected to expose birds to herbicides at relatively low doses. In one study, northern bobwhites consumed a diet treated with glyphosate for 5 days, and glyphosate had no effects upon them at the highest doses tested (Monsanto 2002). Regarding herbicide-exposed insects that may be consumed by birds, studies regarding the effects of glyphosate upon insects have indicated that both oral and topical dosing has no adverse effects to honeybees at rates much higher than would be present in the treated areas. Risks to other terrestrial arthropods studied (wasps, mites, carabid beetles, and green lacewings) were found to be low to moderate. Generally, no toxic effects from glyphosate were observed to beneficial anthropods in these studies (Monsanto 2002). Studies of triclopyr have also found it to be “practically non-toxic to honeybees” (Durkin 2003b).

It is more likely that birds may be indirectly affected by the changes in habitat conditions created by the proposed herbicide use than by exposure to herbicides themselves. Such indirect effects are expected to be positive and desirable. In particular, the effect of herbicides upon open woodlands (described under than section) may benefit species such as great-crested flycatcher, red-headed woodpecker, eastern pewee, among others, by creating more open midstory conditions and herbaceous understory vegetation. The use of herbicides to create higher quality woodland conditions than may be created by non-herbicide methods would likely benefit open woodland birds. The use of herbicide in the bottomland hardwood establishment areas would also indirectly benefit some birds. By using herbicide to control herbaceous competition around planted hardwood trees in these bottomland areas, the success of the plantings would likely be higher than if herbicides are not used (Stanturf, Conner, Gardiner et.al. 2004). This would

133 indirectly benefit birds that are associated with mature bottomland hardwood areas such as cerulean warblers.

Table WL-24. Anticipated effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 upon Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area likely to occur within the project area. Species Preferred Habitat Effect of Alternatives 2 and 3 Kentucky warbler, Prairie Forest edge, young Would improve conditions for warbler, Field sparrow, sapling/poletimber forest, scrub- some of these species by Northern bobwhite, Brown shrub, fields, or openlands, increasing availability of forest thrasher, Blue-winged often intermixed with mature edge, young forest and scrub- warbler, Loggerhead shrike, forest. shrub habitat within the project Bewick‟s wren, Chuck-will‟s area. widow Swainson‟ warbler, Cerulean Mature riparian forests, often Would maintain existing mature warbler, Acadian flycatcher, with some midstory and shrub riparian forest habitat and may Prothonotary warbler, development increase shrub component within Louisiana waterthrush, some riparian areas. Yellow-throated warbler, Rusty blackbird Worm-eating warbler, Great- Mature forest with semi-open Would reduce some existing crested flycatcher, Ovenbird, canopies and relatively open mature forest habitat but overall, Pileated woodpecker, midstory and some shrub and habitat for these species would be Carolina chickadee, Yellow- native grass development in the maintained within the project billed cuckoo, Yellow- understory. areas in stands not proposed for throated warbler, Summer treatments. Some stand tanager, Wood thrush, Red- treatments would improve headed woodpecker, Purple conditions for species that prefer finch, Orchard oriole, Whip- semi-open canopies and some poor-will, Northern bobwhite shrub understory.

Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary and temporal boundary are the same as the Wildlife Habitat Objectives and Management Indicator Species/Communities.

The status of lands and their conditions within the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area (as identified by Partners in Flight) was also considered (Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000). This physiographic area was considered because it includes all of the lands within the project area, as well as the lands likely used by most birds in the Ozark region that includes most of the Mark Twain National Forest. It is assumed that many of the issues regarding bird populations in this physiographic area also likely apply to the project area, although to a lesser degree.

134

Figure WL-4. Location of the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau Physiographic Area.

In addition, a review of Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Data (Miles 2007) was conducted in order to determine existing habitat conditions in Crawford and Washington counties, on all the lands within 25 miles of the center of the Shoal Creek project area. These counties were selected because they contain all of the National Forest lands within the project area, and a distance of 25 miles was used because it encompassed the entire Shoal Creek project area, in addition to some surrounding lands. They represent approximately 800,156 acres.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered The table below identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that have occurred or are planned to occur within the geographic boundaries considered. Some of these activities may have had or may be having an effect upon bird populations.

135 Table WL-25. Expected effects upon bird populations in the geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Project. Actions Expected effects upon bird populations in the Past, Present & Reasonably geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Foreseeable Actions Project Past and foreseeable timber treatments on Likely improves habitat for species such as prairie warbler, field National Forest sparrow, northern bobwhite, brown thrasher, blue-winged warbler, and other birds that prefer scrub-shrub and young forest habitats. May temporarily reduce habitat for species such as great-crested flycatcher, ovenbird, pileated woodpecker, yellow-billed cuckoo and other species that prefer mature forest conditions. Wildfires & prescribed burns on National May create more open, woodland-like forest conditions, which would Forest, particularly those within the past benefit species such as whip-poor-will, orchard oriole, great-crested 10 years flycatcher, chuck-will‟s widow, red-headed woodpecker, among others. Streambank Stabilization Activities Would benefit birds that use riparian forests by reducing soil loss in riparian areas. Recreation Site Maintenance & trail No measurable effect upon birds. May increase opportunities for the development public to watch birds. Conversion of private forestlands to Likely decreases availability of habitat for many bird species that prefer cropland and/or pasture forest conditions. Likely increases presence of artificial grasslands in project area, which would be undesirable for most grassland birds. Herbicide use and mowing to maintain Likely maintains early successional habitat in project area for some roadsides, powerlines, and pastures wildlife species. May provide limited habitat for northern bobwhite, prairie warbler, field sparrow, blue-winged warbler, etc. Development of residential areas on Likely has a similar effect as conversion of forestland to cropland. May private lands benefit species such as red-headed woodpecker and orchard oriole by creating more open conditions with scattered trees. Timber harvests on private lands Likely had similar effects as past timber harvests on National Forest. However, private land timber harvesting is often un-regulated, and the impacts upon riparian areas may be more exaggerated on private lands than National Forest, which would not benefit species such as Acadian flycatcher and Louisiana waterthrush. Livestock grazing on private lands May disturb ground nesting grassland birds such as northern bobwhite and chuck-will‟s widow. Seeding and spread of invasive plants Likely to lead to degradation of forest and grassland habitats that are occupied by many bird species. Increased spread of invasives likely from birds that eat and spread seeds of species such as multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle. Illegal ATV/OHV trails and road May lead to degradation of bird habitats. Could increase disturbance to use/development birds, but generally not expected to impact bird populations. Could lead to increase in road density in project area. Gravel dredging & mine discharge into Leads to degradation of habitat used by species that feed on aquatic Courtois Creek (private lands) insects, such as Louisiana waterthrush. Proposed land exchanges Not expected to have a measurable effect upon birds since no net loss of National Forest would occur. Trail development & maintenance No measurable effect upon birds. May increase opportunities for the public to watch birds. Savannah/Woodland development Would benefit many bird species that prefer semi-open forest, several of which are PIF priority species, such as summer tanager and red-headed woodpecker. Fen fencing Would have no expected measurable effect upon birds.

136 Cumulative Effects Baseline Using current FIA data, an area of 800,156 acres was analyzed to determine overall forest habitat conditions within 25 miles of the Shoal Creek project area, in Crawford and Washington counties. This analysis indicated that the National Forest represents a very small percentage (16%) of the overall landbase. Of the 800,156 acres considered, however, the majority of it (70%) is in a forested condition.

In addition to using the FIA data, a detailed review of land conditions in the Shoal Creek project area was also conducted using MoRap satellite imagery (circa 2000-2004). This review determined that of the approximately 68,202 acres within the project area, approximately 87% is in a forested condition.

Regarding fragmentation of forest habitat, the project area is represented predominantly by mature oak- hickory forest and a variety of other habitats. Nearly all of the project area (including private lands) is forested; approximately 13% of the project area is non-forested, and 11% of that is mainly pasture. Less than 2% of the non-forest lands are on National Forest. Forested habitat is relatively unfragmented and occurs in the uplands, whereas most cleared lands are in the bottomlands along streams. Habitat availability within the project area for most bird species is shown.(Table WL-26).

Table WL-26. Habitat availability for birds within the Shoal Creek project area.

Birds associated with % of Birds in Ozark/ Abundance of habitat within the following habitats Ouachita Plateau the project area physiographic area that are likely to occupy this habitat* Not limited but degraded. Many miles Wetland or riparian areas 13% of riparian areas are present; however, most of this habitat is on private lands that have been cleared for pasture. Limited and degraded. Grassland represents < Grassland or glades 17% 13% of project area. What is present is marginal in quality, and represented primarily by fescue pasture. Native grass in the project area are uncommon and present in small pockets where it has been planted, or where frequent burning has occurred. Abundant. 87% of project area is forested. Forests of various age classes 43% Early successional forest & scrub-shrub habitat is limited. No specific habitat 27% N/A *Source: Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000

As indicated in Table WL-26, the majority of birds within the project area would be species associated with forests. Habitat for closed-canopy forest-dwelling birds is not limited within the project area and is contiguous with both forested private lands and National Forest. Habitat birds that occupy open woodlands, scrub-shrub and early successional forests is limited, especially on private lands. Habitat for these species is most likely to be provided on National Forest in the project area; however, based upon the lack of habitat in the 0 to 9 year-age class and in open or semi-open conditions, even on the National Forest, habitat for these species is somewhat limited. Species that occupy these scrub-shrub habitats are mostly relegated to roadsides, abandoned fields, and powerline corridors within the project area. Many bird species prefer riparian habitat in the form of forested stream and river corridors. This habitat is provided within the

137 project area on private and National Forest lands that are adjacent to the many miles of streams within the project area and along Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Bird species that prefer grasslands are not well provided for within the project area and would be most likely restricted to hay fields and some larger glades within the project area. The level of nest parasitism and cowbird parasitism that is occurring within the project area is unknown. Within the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area (which includes the Shoal Creek project area), reproductive success of forest-breeding birds appears to be above that needed to sustain local populations, and offspring from birds breeding in the physiographic area may be the sources of individuals that colonize other geographic areas where reproductive rates of forest birds are extremely low. Research in the Midwest has shown that such “source-sink” dynamics result primarily from the effects of high levels of cowbird parasitism and nest predation in areas where forest fragments fall below a size of 10,000 acres or where forest coverage across broad landscapes falls below 70% (Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000). Therefore, since the Shoal Creek project area is 87% forested and contains well over 10,000 acre blocks of forested land, it is assumed that high levels of cowbird parasitism and nest predation are not occurring across the project area. However, some cowbird parasitism and nest predation may be occurring in some locally fragmented areas where forestland is interspersed with agricultural lands, wide road corridors, or other non-forested areas.

Cumulative Effects Discussion Across the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area, many species of birds that are considered priority species for conservation (identified in Table WL-23) are considered species that prefer or are favored by open woods or scrub-shrub or grassland habitat. Several of these species would benefit especially from frequent burning that maintains a semi-open canopy of mature trees, with an understory of shrubs and grasses. Declines in several of these species are being observed across the physiographic area, and Alternative 1 would not implement any activities that would benefit these species by providing their desired habitat. Therefore, while this alternative would not have a direct negative effect upon these species, it may have a cumulative negative effect upon species that are in decline across the physiographic area and prefer more open environments or dense shrub understories.

Many would benefit from activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 that would maintain a semi-open canopy of mature trees, with an understory of shrubs and grasses. Therefore, these alternatives would contribute to positive cumulative effects upon these species. For species that prefer open, mature forest conditions, Alternatives 2 and 3 would not necessarily improve habitat, but also would not likely contribute to a negative cumulative effect upon these species, since all of the activities proposed would maintain a forest condition over the long term. Alternative 2, in particular, would benefit many species that prefer fire- maintained habitats. Bottomland hardwood establishment, proposed in both alternatives, would have a positive effect upon riparian birds, many of which may be declining as a result of adverse cumulative effects upon riparian corridors throughout their range.

The cumulative effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to be virtually immeasurable. Based upon known and foreseeable uses of herbicides in the project area, only approximately 0.24% of the project area is being treated with herbicides. When the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is added to the existing and foreseeable use of herbicide in the project area, the percentage of herbicide use occurring in the project area would increase by only 0.09%, to 0.33%. This is virtually immeasurable.

When the locations where herbicide use is occurring are considered, there is no evidence that herbicides are being concentrated in a particular watershed or sensitive area. Refer to Figure WL-3 for locations of present, foreseeable and proposed herbicide use areas.

The largest areas of herbicide use occur in the southeast end of the project area, and are represented primarily by herbicide to be used on cut-stump treatments in proposed savannah areas at in Compartments

138 100, 116, 117, and 119. The cut-stump treatments, however, would involve only very minimal use of herbicide. On 2,207 acres of forest proposed for this treatment, the actual area that would be exposed to direct application of herbicide is less than 1 acre.

Of all the ongoing, foreseeable, and proposed herbicide use in the project area, the majority of it (0.23%) would be on National Forest lands. All herbicide use on National Forest lands is closely monitored and regulated. For example, nearly all of the present herbicide use on National Forest is in utility line rights-of- ways. These utility lines are treated with herbicide that must be pre-approved by the US Forest Service. The herbicide application must be in accordance with state and federal regulations and follow directions specified on the manufacturer‟s label. Monitoring of the powerlines is conducted periodically and “no spray” zones representing permanent streams have been identified. Permits to use herbicide on National Forest are reviewed periodically and subject to environmental analysis.

Given the fact that very little herbicide use is occurring or proposed in the project area, that the amount of herbicide use in the project area is virtually immeasurable, that the majority of herbicide use known to be occurring in the project area is being regulated and monitored by the US Forest Service, and that studies of glyphosate and triclopyr indicate relatively low risk to the environment (when used according to manufacturer‟s labels), it is expected that the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 would have no additive or adverse cumulative effects upon any birds.

Table WL-27 and WL-28 shows the Additive and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1 and Alternatives 2 and 3 upon Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area that are likely to occur in the project area. It also provides the cumulative effect of the additive impacts upon birds.

Table WL-27. Additive and cumulative effects of Alternative 1 upon Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area that are likely to occur in the project area. Kentucky warbler, prairie warbler, Swainson’s warbler, Cerulean warbler, Worm-eating warbler, great-crested whip-poor-will, field sparrow, Acadian flycatcher, prothonotary flycatcher, ovenbird, pileated orchard oriole, northern bobwhite, warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, Yellow- woodpecker, Carolina chickadee, brown thrasher, Chuck-Will’s- throated warbler, yellow-billed cuckoo, yellow- widow, blue-winged warbler, Rusty blackbird throated warbler, summer tanager, loggerhead shrike, Bewick’s wren wood thrush, red-headed woodpecker, purple finch Existing conditions based upon past, Limited. Majority of project area is Limited. Most riparian and bottomland Generally abundant. Majority of present and mature forest or pasture/cropland. forest habitat is on the National Forest, project area is forested, and most foreseeable Grassland habitats are not desirable which represents very little of the project forest lands in project area are > 75 activities for most grassland birds due to non- area. Riparian/bottomland forest on private years old. Most forest lands have > native species and livestock grazing. lands generally cleared for pasture or 70% cover and have not been burned development. which could limit some species that prefer more open conditions, such as red-headed woodpecker. Additive impacts of Negative. Generally beneficial. Riparian habitats Generally no effect. Open woodland Alternative 1 Would not increase early successional would be undisturbed. habitat would not be encouraged or forest habitat within the project. No Forest stands would be allowed to approach maintained by prescribed burning and prescribed burning, savannah old growth conditions. However, no some timber treatments. However, development and midstory control activities that encourage shrub and majority of project area would remain activities that may benefit grassland understory development or planting of in a mature forest condition that may and glade species would occur. bottomland hardwoods in existing cleared be used by some of these species. riparian areas would occur. Cumulative effect of The overall cumulative effect of the activities proposed upon birds would be beneficial except for bird species that prefer open additive impacts woodland and early successional forest conditions. Lack of management to create open woodland and early successional forest upon birds habitats and improve glade habitats could contribute to cumulative adverse effects to species that require these habitats, since these habitat conditions are already limited within the project area. However, Alternative 1 would not likely result in the loss of viability of any bird species in the project area, given that some early successional habitat within the project area would continue to be provided on private lands and some glade habitats would likely continue to be burned by wildfires.

139 Table WL-28. Additive and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 upon Partners in Flight priority species for the Ozark/Ouachita Plateau physiographic area that are likely to occur in the project area. Kentucky warbler, Swainson’ warbler, Worm-eating warbler, Great- Prairie warbler, Field Cerulean warbler, crested flycatcher, Ovenbird, sparrow, Northern Acadian flycatcher, Pileated woodpecker, Carolina bobwhite, Brown Prothonotary warbler, chickadee, Yellow-billed cuckoo, thrasher, Blue-winged Louisiana waterthrush, Yellow-throated warbler, warbler, Loggerhead Yellow-throated Summer tanager, Wood thrush, shrike, Bewick’s wren, warbler, Rusty Red-headed woodpecker, Purple Chuck-will’s widow blackbird finch, Orchard oriole, Whip- poor-will, Northern bobwhite Existing Conditions Limited. Majority of Limited. Most riparian Generally abundant. Majority of based upon project area is mature and bottomland forest project area is forested, and most Past, Present forest or pasture/cropland. habitat is on the National forestlands in project area are > 75 and Grassland habitats are not Forest, which represents years old. Most forestlands have > Foreseeable desirable for most very little of the project 70% canopy cover and have not Activities grassland birds due to area. been burned which could limit non-native species and Riparian/bottomland some species that prefer more open livestock grazing. forest on private lands conditions, such as red-headed generally cleared for woodpecker. pasture or development.

Additive Beneficial. Generally beneficial. Beneficial. Open woodland habitat Impacts of Would increase early Riparian habitats would would be encouraged by some Alternatives successional forest habitat be protected by standards timber treatments. Majority of 1 & 2 within the project area by and guidelines. project area would remain in a approximately 11.4%. Would increase the old mature forest condition. growth habitat component Prescribed burning , in the project area by Prescribed burning, savannah savannah development & 11.4% in the long-term, development & midstory control midstory control would most of which would be would also benefit these species also benefit these species in riparian and (Alternative 2 only). (Alternative 2 only). bottomland area.

Bottomland hardwood establishment proposed would also benefit these species. Cumulative The overall cumulative effect of the activities proposed upon bird populations would be effect of positive (beneficial). Although some temporary loss of some mature forest would occur additive where even-aged regeneration activities may take place, this would not have an adverse impacts cumulative effect upon bird populations that require mature forest because several thousand upon birds acres would still be available to these species. None of the activities on National Forest would contribute to any adverse effects that may be occurring as a result of activities on surrounding private lands. Alternative 2 would likely have a greater positive cumulative effect upon bird populations that Alternative 3 because of the prescribed burning, midstory control, and savannah development proposed.

The duration and magnitude of effects of activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not incrementally add to the past, present, and foreseeable actions that have or will occur on National Forest or private lands. This is because Alternatives 2 and 3 would move the project area towards the desired conditions for the 2.1 MP by creating a variety of forest age classes and conditions.

140 Alternative 2 would go a step further by also focusing on rehabilitation of some areas towards natural terrestrial habitats. Both alternatives would provide for a great diversity of birds in the project area, and neither of the alternatives would have an irreversible or irretrievable commitment on resources in the project area nor knowingly result in the loss of viability for any particular bird species in the project area.

Salamanders Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 proposes no activities, and therefore, mature forest and old growth habitats preferred by salamanders would be expected to increase under this alternative. Within the maturing stands, habitat features for salamanders such as high soil moistures, large woody debris, logs and dense leaf litter would be expected to increase. As a result, salamander densities within these stands also would be expected to either remain stable or increase. However, Alternative 1 also does not propose creation of any vernal ponds so breeding habitat for some salamanders may remain limited in the project area.

Studies indicate that salamanders, particularly plethodontid salamanders, can be negatively affected by some timber treatments. Because salamanders are very dependent upon the microhabitat of a site, they can easily be affected by activities that alter the soil moisture, temperature, woody debris, and other available cover on the site. Even-aged management activities and prescribed burning, in particular, have the potential to alter these microclimates in a manner that may be adverse to plethodontid salamanders. Research by Herbeck and Larsen (1999) indicated that salamander density was lowest in forest stands immediately following regeneration and highest in forest stands that approached old growth conditions. This is likely a reflection of higher soil moistures created by more shaded conditions in mature stands as opposed to recently regenerated forest stands that are typically more exposed to full sunlight, as well as the presence of larger downed logs in older forest stands as opposed to regeneration areas. Based upon this information, it is assumed that the even-aged management activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3, and to a lesser degree, the uneven-aged management activities proposed, may be adverse to some salamanders and their habitats. Where these activities are conducted in the project area, densities of salamanders are expected to decline; however, not all timber regeneration areas are expected to become devoid of salamanders. The decline in salamander densities within forest stands to be treated by even and uneven-age management techniques is likely to be related to the amount of canopy cover remaining within these stands; therefore, uneven-aged management cuts, thinnings, and savannah cuts are expected to provide more habitat than seedtree and shelterwood cuts. Several timber harvest methods proposed, such as selection with groups, improvement cuts, and various thinnings, would retain enough canopy cover to continue to be suitable for salamanders (2005 Forest Plan FEIS).

Prescribed burning (proposed only in Alternative 2) also may contribute to lower densities within forest stands, by reducing the availability of cover in the form of leaf litter, woody debris, and to some degree, possibly reducing soil moisture content by creating more open forest stands. However, some studies have indicated that prescribed fires in the southern Appalachians have little effect on salamanders and have concluded that concerns about negative effects of burning on plethodontid salamanders may be unwarranted. It is likely that any direct mortality of salamanders following a fire is typically low and presumably outweighed by using fire to maintain desired terrestrial habitat communities (Russell, et. al. 2004).

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose designation of 3,577 acres of old growth in order that habitats preferred by salamanders and other old growth-associated species will be provided in the project

141 area. Within these old growth areas, the forest will be allowed to reach climax conditions, which should provide high soil moistures, large woody debris, logs and dense leaf litter for salamanders and other species. Also, most of these old growth areas proposed are located in bottomland areas, and around caves, which may be more heavily occupied areas by salamanders than other parts of the forest. The bottomland hardwood development proposed on 101 acres along Courtois Creek also should benefit salamanders in the long term by providing forested conditions in areas of high soil-moisture.

These alternatives also both propose creation of vernal ponds and maintenance of existing ponds within the project area. Some salamanders that breed in aquatic environments, such as spotted salamanders and marble salamanders, as well as other amphibians, would utilize these fishless ponds. The presence of additional vernal ponds created under these alternatives would likely improve habitat conditions for many amphibians in the project area. Salamanders and other amphibians also may use ruts created by skid trails and temporary roads for breeding activity, but such ruts would be drained following timber harvesting activities.

Use of triclopyr and glyphosate herbicides is proposed in Alternative 2. The direct and indirect effects of herbicides upon various amphibians have been much debated. Some studies indicate that herbicides may have adverse effects upon amphibians, especially when those amphibians are directly exposed to herbicide. For example, studies conducted by Relyea (2005a, 2005b) suggest that glyphosate herbicides have negative effects on amphibians and that tadpoles and other amphibians directly exposed to glyphosate herbicides have high mortality rates.

In Relyea‟s studies (2005a, 2005b), amphibians were subjected to direct exposure to the glyphosate herbicides and these studies represented a “worst case scenario” by simulating the aerial spray of herbicide over aquatic environments, and direct overspray of amphibians (multiple times within a 24 hour period) in an agricultural field (with no interception of the spray by vegetation during application). Neither of these simulations represent likely scenarios in which herbicide would be used in the Shoal Creek project. No aerial spraying is proposed. No overspray of wetland or aquatic habitats is proposed. No overspraying would occur without some of the spray being intercepted by vegetation. It is extremely unlikely that overspraying of the same amphibian individuals would occur multiple times, and certainly not within a 24 hour period.

The application of herbicide in the Shoal Creek project would be limited to either hand sprayers or low-pressure sprayers. Neither hand sprayers nor low-pressure sprayers (such as boom sprayers) subject a large area to overspray (as compared to high-pressure sprayers typically used in agricultural practices). Hand sprayers are used to spray small quantities of pesticide; these sprayers would be used for spot treatments such as cut-stump treatments or to release planted trees from herbaceous competition. Low-pressure sprayers are used to spray low to moderate amounts of pesticide but are limited by their reach. In the Shoal Creek project, low-pressure sprayers may be used to spray 4-foot wide strips in areas to be planted with bottomland hardwoods or to spray along roadsides infested with sericea lespedeza in Compartment 121 Stand 18.

By limiting application of herbicides to only non-aquatic habitats and by using only hand sprayers or low-pressure sprayers, the potential for direct overspray of amphibians is greatly minimized. If any amphibians were exposed to glyphosate or triclopyr herbicides, exposure would most likely be indirect and at relatively low doses. Many studies have indicated that normal use of glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides to various amphibians would not be expected to cause

142 unreasonable adverse effects to amphibians, including tadpoles (Monsanto 2005; Langeland 2006; Durkin and Diamond 2002; Durkin 2003b).

Cumulative Effects The geographic boundary and temporal boundary are the same as the Wildlife Habitat Objectives and Management Indicator Species/Communities.

In addition, a review of Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Data (Miles 2007) was conducted in order to determine existing habitat conditions in Crawford and Washington counties, on all the lands within 25 miles of the center of the Shoal Creek project area. These counties were selected because they contain the National Forest lands that are part of the project area and a distance of 25 miles was used because it encompassed the entire Shoal Creek project area in addition to some surrounding lands.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered Past, present and reasonably foreseeable (Proposed) actions that have occurred or may be occurring within one or more of the geographic boundaries considered that may have had or may be having an effect upon amphibians and their habitat are included in Table WL-29.

Table WL-29. Effects upon salamanders & other amphibians in the geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Project Effects upon salamanders & other amphibians Actions in the geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Project Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Past timber treatments on National Likely created drier conditions and open stands that are not as Forest favorable to most salamanders as moist soils and shaded forest stands.

Wildfires & prescribed burns on Not likely to have a significant negative effect on National Forest, particularly those salamanders, although also does not likely benefit most of within the past 10 years them. Streambank Stabilization Activities May improve habitat conditions for salamanders by preventing erosion of bottomland areas adjacent to streams.

Recreation Site Maintenance & Trail Not likely to have any measurable effect upon salamanders. development Conversion of private forestlands to Has a negative effect upon forest-dwelling salamanders by urban development, cropland and/or causing a permanent loss of their habitat. pasture Herbicide use and mowing to Not likely to have any measurable effect upon salamanders. maintain roadsides, powerlines, and Direct spraying of aquatic habitats and salamanders may harm pastures individuals. Development of residential areas on Has a negative effect upon forest-dwelling salamanders by private lands causing a permanent loss of their habitat. Timber harvests on private lands Likely created drier conditions and open stands that are not as favorable to most salamanders as moist soils and shaded forest stands. Livestock grazing Not likely to have a measurable effect upon salamanders. Spread of invasive plants & animals Likely has a negative effect upon salamanders by causing a degradation of the habitats they occupy.

143 Illegal ATV/OHV trails and road May cause a small loss of suitable habitat for this species, use/development especially where fishless pools are drained so that trails and roads may be maintained.

Gravel dredging & mine discharge Likely has a negative effect upon salamanders by degrading into Courtois Creek (private lands) the water quality of streams that may be used as breeding habitat for some species. Proposed land exchanges Not likely to have any measurable effect upon salamanders since land exchanges do not result in a net loss of National Forest Trail development & maintenance Not likely to have a measurable effect upon salamanders. Savannah/Woodland development Not likely to have a significant negative effect on salamanders, although prescribed burningdoes not likely benefit most of them. Fen fencing Would benefit salamanders that us fen habitats by protecting their habitat from soil disturbances.

On National Forest, no reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect amphibian habitat are known at this time. Based upon past trends, the above actions on private lands are likely to continue to occur; however, some of these activities cannot be quantified due to lack of site- specific information that would be difficult to obtain without contacting every landowner personally.

Cumulative Effects Baseline Within the Shoal Creek project area, the National Forest lands likely to be occupied by amphibians make up approximately 49% of the project area. The remaining lands are in private ownership.

A review of the Shoal Creek project area indicates that there is no shortage of habitat for any amphibian species, including plethodontid salamanders. Approximately 87% of the project area is in a forested condition. Some research indicates that plethodontid salamanders are more abundant in older age classes of forest than in younger age classes (Herbeck and Larsen 1999). On the National Forest within the project area, approximately 73% of the forestland is 50 years old or older. Based upon FIA data, it can be assumed that on the private lands, over 70% also is over 50 years of age and that approximately 2% of the forest land is less than 6 years of age.

The availability of water also is important to amphibians, especially those that require water for breeding. Within the project area, there are approximately 288 miles of streams, not including smaller, intermittent streams. There are also 69 ponds on the National Forest and many more on the private lands. Amphibians using streams likely have no lack of suitable breeding habitats; however, amphibians requiring fishless ponds may be somewhat limited in opportunity, since most ponds on private lands and many on National Forest likely support fish (most ponds on National Forest are not stocked with fish, but because most ponds are permanent, many contain fish put their illegally).

144 Figure WL-5. Available habitats for amphibians within the Shoal Creek project area (based upon Missouri satellite imagery 2000-2004).

Cumulative Effects Discussion Amphibians in general are susceptible to changes in the microclimates of the habitats that they occupy. Any activity that alters the availability and quality of cover, moisture, soil conditions, and water quality has the potential of affecting amphibians. For plethodontid salamanders, effects are expected from activities that alter forest cover and availability of large woody debris and leaf litter. Habitat loss is also a major factor in the decline of amphibians, and where smaller habitat patches exist, they may be inadequate to support very many individuals. Barriers between these habitat patches can be in many forms, such as roads, farm fields, or pastures. It is important that habitat connectivity be maintained between remaining patches (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002).

The non-forested areas within the project area may be fragmenting habitat to some extent for forest-dwelling amphibians. This is particularly the case for those that inhabit bottomland forests, because the majority of the clearing on private lands has occurred in valleys and bottomland areas. This trend is likely to continue into the future, but probably not extensively, since population growth in these areas appears to be stable and not increasing rapidly (http://quickfacts.census.gov/).

There appears to be sufficient connectivity between forested areas on the private and National Forest lands, since less than 20% of the project area is non-forested. Some roads within these forested areas may create barriers to amphibian movement, depending upon their size, condition and level of use. The Shoal Creek project does not propose any activities that would eliminate forest cover, although in Alternatives 2 & 3, some forest cover, large woody debris, and leaf litter

145 would be reduced on 8,777 to 10,140 acres by timber treatments and/or prescribed burning. This would be offset somewhat, however, by the designation of 3,577 acres of old growth, 101 acres of bottomland hardwood rehabilitation, construction of vernal pools, and activities such as fen protection, streambank stabilization, and improved crossings at two sites on Courtois Creek that currently impede aquatic organism passage. Designation of 11.4% of the project area as old growth, which would restrict timber harvesting in these stands indefinitely and allow them to achieve old growth characteristics that may be preferred by plethodontid salamanders may be particularly beneficial (Herbeck and Larsen 1999). The presence of roads that may be barriers to amphibian movements in the project area would be reduced by 47 miles of road decommissioning in Alternatives 2 and 3.

Widespread fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide use within the project area on private lands also may affect water quality and habitat use by amphibians. Little is known about the inherent effects of these chemicals on amphibians (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002). Their use on a broadscale basis is generally discouraged in areas occupied by amphibians, and when used, spot treatments rather than broadcast spraying are recommended (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002).

The cumulative effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to be virtually immeasurable. Based upon known and foreseeable uses of herbicides in the project area, only approximately 0.24% of the project area is being treated with herbicides. When the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is added to the existing and foreseeable use of herbicide in the project area, the percentage of herbicide use occurring in the project area would increase by only 0.09%, to 0.33%. This is virtually immeasurable.

When the locations where herbicide use is occurring are considered, there is no evidence that herbicides are being concentrated in a particular watershed or sensitive area. Refer to Figure WL- 3 for locations of present, foreseeable and proposed herbicide use areas.

The largest areas of herbicide use occur in the southeast end of the project area, and are represented primarily by herbicide to be used on cut-stump treatments in proposed savannah areas at in Compartments 100, 116, 117, and 119. The cut-stump treatments, however, would involve only very minimal use of herbicide. On 2,207 acres of forest proposed for this treatment, the actual area that would be exposed to direct application of herbicide is less than 1 acre.

Of all the ongoing, foreseeable, and proposed herbicide use in the project area, the majority of it (0.23%) would be on National Forest lands. All herbicide use on National Forest lands is closely monitored and regulated. For example, nearly all of the present herbicide use on National Forest is in utility line rights-of-ways. These utility lines are treated with herbicide that must be pre- approved by the US Forest Service. The herbicide application must be in accordance with state and federal regulations and follow directions specified on the manufacturer‟s label. Monitoring of the powerlines is conducted periodically and “no spray” zones representing permanent streams have been identified. Permits to use herbicide on National Forest are reviewed periodically and subject to environmental analysis.

Given the fact that very little herbicide use is occurring or proposed in the project area, that the amount of herbicide use known to be in the project area is virtually immeasurable, that the majority of herbicide use occurring in the project area is being regulated and monitored by the US Forest Service, and that studies of glyphosate and triclopyr indicate relatively low risk to the environment (when used according to manufacturer‟s labels), it is expected that the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 would have no additive or adverse cumulative effects upon any amphibians.

146

The availability of fishless ponds/pools in the project area may be limiting for some species of amphibians, such as several ambystomatid salamanders, especially on private lands. None of the activities proposed in Shoal Creek project area would reduce the overall availability of fishless pond/pool. Alternatives 2 & 3 would actually increase availability of these habitats by creating an additional 103 fishless ponds in the project area on National Forest.

Some of the individual treatments proposed, such as prescribed burning (Alternative 2 only) and timber felling, are expected to have negative effects upon habitat for these amphibians, but to varying degrees. However, when considered in a larger context that includes the surrounding private lands and National Forest within the project area, none of the activities proposed in the Shoal Creek project area are expected to have an overall adverse cumulative effect upon amphibians, including plethodontid salamanders. None of the plethodontid salamanders are considered species of concern for the state of Missouri, and many are fairly widespread and common (J. Briggler, pers. comm. w/ J. Eberly 2/05). While some of the proposed activities may reduce habitat quality for some of these species, the amount of suitable habitat that is expected to be affected by timber harvesting and/or prescribed burning represents only about 15-17 % of the forested habitat available in the project area. Any negative effects upon these habitats are expected to be temporary, and research has shown that plethodontid salamander abundance gradually increased over time after forests regenerated (Herbeck & Larsen 1999). It is also expected that most of the potentially negative effects of these activities would be sufficiently mitigated by measures outlined as standards and guidelines in the 2005 Forest Plan that were developed to protect springs, seeps, fens, riparian area, streamcourses, and ponds.

NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES (NNIS)

Existing Condition Non-native invasive plants may be found at many locations in the Shoal Creek project area. These plants are most commonly found in the open lands of the project area, particularly on the private lands, as well as on National Forest. Areas such as abandoned farmlands, pasture, roadsides, in powerline corridors, and riparian corridors frequently support populations of invasive and non-native plants. Once established, non-native invasive plants are often spread inadvertently by human activities associated with vehicles and roads, agricultural practices, urban development, contaminated livestock feed, contaminated seed, and poor range management practices.

These non-native and invasive plants are not desirable species to have in the project area. These plants tend to be aggressive and difficult to manage. They are often toxic, parasitic, may carry disease or host insects that carry disease, and most are relatively newcomers to the United States. They frequently are aggressive enough to out-compete the native vegetation. Therefore, control of these non-native invasive plants is important to protecting native ecosystems.

One of the most prevalent non-native invasive plants in the project area, and throughout Missouri, is tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Tall fescue is planted in most pasturelands and is common on abandoned farmland. It out-competes and displaces most native grasses and does not provide quality wildlife habitat because of its poor nutritional value and its tendency to form dense mats that can not be easily penetrated by ground-nesting birds and small mammals.

147 Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata) are probably the other most common non-native invasive plants in the project area. Like tall fescue, they also out- compete and displace native plants. Sericea lespedeza is especially prevalent because it was used historically to re-vegetate areas on the National Forest that were disturbed by mining.

Because of the threat non-native invasive plants pose to native plant communities, there is direction in the Forest Service Manual 2081.1 to “Manage noxious weeds on National Forest System lands to achieve the goals and objectives identified in Forest Land and Resource Management Plans”. The MTNF Forest Plan provides direction for non-native invasive plant management and states as a goal “Maintain desired ecosystems throughout the forest with few occurrences of non-native invasive species” and “Prevent new invasions and control or reduce existing occurrences of non-native invasive species.”

The state of Missouri also has created statutes that make it the responsibility of the US government, among others, to prevent and control noxious weeds using methods that prevent their regrowth or reinfestation (Missouri Revised Statute 263.458).

Within the Shoal Creek project area, the only efforts that have been made in the past to suppress or control non-native invasive plants have involved activities geared towards converting tall fescue fields to native warm season grass fields. These efforts were taken on approximately 100 acres of abandoned farmland that is now National Forest, and were somewhat successful. Today, where tall fescue once dominated these fields, a mix of tall fescue and native grasses can now be seen.

Other than on those areas converted to native grass, no other efforts have been taken in the project area to control non-native invasive plants.

The Potosi-Fredericktown District has made an attempt to locate areas where non-native invasive plants are prevalent. As a result of this inventory, 1,718 acres were identified within the Shoal Creek project area as having infestations of non-native invasive plants. As of January 2006, none of these sites has been treated for control of non-native invasive plants.

148 Figure N-1. Known non-native invasive plant infestations on National Forest in the Shoal Creek Project Area

Direct and Indirect Effects No activities are proposed under Alternative 1, therefore, there would be no efforts taken as part of this alternative to control the spread of non-native invasive plants in the Shoal Creek project area. The existing populations of non-native invasive plants in the project area would likely remain as they currently are, or continue to spread and infest new areas. It is very unlikely that any existing non-native invasive plant populations would decrease as a result of this alternative.

As a result of lack of effort to control existing non-native invasive plants in the project area, native plant communities would continue to be threatened. Sericea lespedeza would be expected to continue to spread along roadsides in the project area, and to infest forest stands that are in semi-open conditions. However, because Alternative 1 does not propose any timber treatments, there would not be any spread of non-native invasive plants as the result of logging activity. There also would not be spread of non-native invasive species as the result of temporary road construction, road maintenance activities, or other ground disturbing activities along roadsides.

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose several activities that are likely to have both negative and positive effects upon controlling non-native invasive plant infestations in the Shoal Creek project area.

Activities proposed in both alternatives that may encourage the spread of non-native invasive plants include road maintenance, road construction and re-construction, streambank stabilization, aquatic organism passage activities, and skid trail development associated with timber harvesting.

149 All of these activities are likely to lead to spread of non-native invasive plants, most likely sericea lespedeza. How each activity may lead to the spread of non-native invasive plants is shown in Table N-1.

In contrast, some of the activities proposed in one or both of the alternatives would likely help reduce the spread of non-native invasive plants in the project area. These activities include use of herbicide to control non-native invasive plants in select areas, conversion of existing openlands to bottomland hardwood forest, and use of periodic prescribed fire. How each activity may affect the spread of non-native invasive plants in the project area is shown in Table N-1.

Table N-1. Activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and/or 3 that may have an effect upon non-native invasive plant infestations. Alternative Activity Anticipated Effect Alternatives 2 & 3 Road maintenance activities Negative-roadsides tend to be infested by non-native invasive plants. As roads are graded and rights-of-ways are cleared, these infestations tend to be spread. Seeds are picked up by equipment used to maintain the roads, and other seeds may be mixed with gravel placed on roads. Alternatives 2 & 3 Road construction and re- Negative – Temporary roads serve as arteries into areas construction that may currently be uninfested. Vehicles traveling from infested areas to areas accessed new and re-constructed roads may lead to spread of non-native invasive plants. Heavy equipment used to build & re-construct roads also may introduce seeds to newly disturbed ground. Alternatives 2 & 3 Streambank stabilization Negative – Heavy equipment used to stabilize streambanks may introduce seeds to newly disturbed ground. Rock used to stabilize streambanks may contain non-native invasive plant seeds. Alternatives 2 & 3 Aquatic organism passage Negative – Heavy equipment used to construct new stream crossings may introduce seeds to newly disturbed ground. Alternatives 2 & 3 Skid trail development in Negative – Heavy equipment used to build skid trails may timber harvest activities introduce seeds to newly disturbed ground. Alternatives 2 & 3 Bottomland hardwood Positive – Trees would be established in areas where non- establishment native invasive plants are present. As the trees grow, they would create shaded conditions not preferred by most non-native invasive plants. Alternative 2 Herbicide use on select areas Positive – direct application of herbicide on targeted non- native invasive plants would reduce infestations where the presently occur and may reduce spread to other areas. Alternative 2 Prescribed burning Positive – prescribed burning may reduce or kill some non-native invasive plants and encourage native vegetation that could compete with non-native invasive plants.

Of the two action alternatives considered, only Alternative 2 proposes any activity directed specifically towards control of non-native invasive plants. This activity would involve the use of herbicides (either triclopyr or glyphosate herbicides) to control an infestation of sericea lespedeza located in Stand 18 in compartment 121. The use of herbicide to control this population of sericea lespedeza is considered the most preferred method of control (refer to Table N-2 for a comparison of other control methods considered). Without control of this sericea lespedeza

150 population, it is very likely that the plant will continue to spread into Stand 18, especially after thinning and burning of the stand occurs, as is also proposed. Alternative 3, because it does not propose control of this population, would likely result in the spread of sericea lespedeza into Stand 18.

Table N-2 Methods considered for control of sericea lespedeza in Compartment 121 Stand 18 Cost Suitability to Short-term Long-term Effectiveness Site Effectiveness Good –site Poor –not well Poor – nearly impossible Hand $378/acre easily accessed suited to species to remove root system; Pulling/Digging on foot with extensive root prolific re-sprouting from systems1 roots and seed bank Labor intensiveness expected. likely to yield poor results; many re- sprouts from roots expected Fair – suited to Fair to Poor – Poor – mowed plants will Mowing $45/acre roadside but not mowing along continually re-sprout; seed within the roadside may reduce bank will germinate; not forested stand some plants but effective for control 1,2 plants within forested stand could not be treated; would not kill root systems. Excellent – site Fair to Poor – Fair to Poor – plants likely Prescribed Fire $37/acre could be burned Burning may reduce to re-sprout from seed and is proposed some plants but not bank and root systems; to be burned in expected to kill root burning tends to stimulate Alternatives 2 & system growth 2, 3, 4 3 Excellent - all Good – Triclopyr & Fair to Good –Initially, 2 Herbicide Use $54- infestations glyphosate both to 3 follow-up treatments $87/acre along road and shown to be may be needed to control within forested effective for control seed bank germination 2, 3,4 stand could be 2, 3,4,8, 9 especially treated when combined with burning; top kills plants and kills root systems to prevent re-sprouting. Poor – mulch Poor – not suited to Poor – nearly impossible Mulching $1,230/acr not likely to perennial weeds or to remove root system; e remain in place to large areas of prolific re-sprouting from along roadside infestation1; labor roots and seed bank due to traffic intensiveness likely expected. use; forested to yield poor results; stand not many re-sprouts suitable for from roots expected mulching 1 $25,000 Fair – suited to Fair to Poor – Poor – Not suited to Boiling Water/ startup roadside but not treatment along perennial weed control; Boiling cost 7 within the roadside may reduce unknown how system

151 Sugar Foam $7,000/acr forested stand some plants but would work against re- Water e plants within sprouting 5, 6 Application forested stand could Re-sprouting and seed not be treated; not germination expected.5 expected to kill root system.5 Grazing Not applicable to site: Not a grazing allotment Biological Not applicable to site: Biological controls not authorized on the MTNF at this time Control Crop Conversion Not applicable to site: Site is a roadside and forested stand that cannot be tilled. Method/Tilling 1Tu, Hurd and Randall 2001; 2 Jordan and Jacobs 2002; 3 Fechter 2001; 4 D. Moore email 1/17/07; 5 www.tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/tools 2/12/07; 6 Cleary 2004; 7 Quarles 2001; 8 Miller and Miller 2004, 9 Koger, Stritzke and Cummings 2002.

Cumulative Effects upon NNIS The spatial and temporal boundary is the same as addressed in the Wildlife, cumulative effects section.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Considered The table below identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities that have occurred or are planned to occur within the geographic boundaries considered. Some of these activities may have had or may be having an effect upon non-native invasive plant populations.

Table N-3. Expected effects upon non-native invasive plant populations in the geographic boundaries considered for the Shoal Creek Project.

Actions Expected effects upon non-native invasive plant Past, Present & Reasonably Foreseeable populations in the geographic boundaries Actions considered for the Shoal Creek Project

Past and foreseeable timber treatments Any activities that create openings and involve mechanical on National Forest equipment have the potential of increasing the spread of many species on non-native invasive plants. Many timber treatments have inadvertently led to the spread of sericea lespedeza, in particular. Wildfires & prescribed burns on Generally, prescribed burns and wildfires have not increased National Forest, particularly those within the spread of non-native invasive plants except in small the past 10 years pockets. Some spread of sericea lespedeza and other non- native plants has occurred as result of fireline construction. Streambank Stabilization Activities Some non-native plants may take advantage of the disturbed soils associated with these activities to start new populations. Many non-native invasive plant seeds are spread through water movement along stream corridors. Recreation Site Maintenance & trail Non-native invasive plants (KY-31 fescue) have been used to development re-vegetate some recreation sites. Conversion of private forestlands to Likely increases spread of non-native invasive plants. cropland and/or pasture Herbicide use and mowing to maintain May decrease spread of non-native plants if mowing and roadsides, powerlines, and pastures herbicide use is targeted on specific non-native species or done at certain times of the year. Otherwise, not likely to

152 have an effect upon non-native invasive plant populations. Development of residential areas on Likely increases spread of non-native invasive plants. private lands Timber harvests on private lands Any activities that create openings and involve mechanical equipment have the potential of increasing the spread of many species on non-native invasive plants Livestock grazing on private lands Likely increases spread of non-native invasive plants. Seeding and spread of invasive plants Increases spread of non-native invasive plants. Illegal ATV/OHV trails and road May increase spread of non-native invasive plants, as use/development motorized vehicles pass through areas infested with non- natives invasive plants and pick up seeds inadvertently. Gravel dredging & mine discharge into Gravel dredging may increase spread of non-native invasive Courtois Creek (private lands) plants, especially if gravel comes from an area of infestation and is transported to an area not infested. Proposed land exchanges No measurable effect upon non-native invasive plant populations. Some lands acquired by the USFS may have populations of non-native invasive plants. Trail development & maintenance Heavy equipment used for trail development may increase spread of non-native invasive plants if equipment is not cleaned. Maintenance activities not expected to have a measurable effect upon non-native invasive plants. Savannah/Woodland development No measurable effect upon non-native invasive plant populations. Some spread of sericea lespedeza and other non- native plants has occurred as result of fireline construction associated with savannah/woodland development. Fen fencing No measurable effect upon non-native invasive plant populations.

Cumulative Effects Baseline As made evident in the description of past, present, and foreseeable actions, nearly every activity that occurs has the potential of increasing populations of non-native invasive plants. This is a reflection of the fact that most non-native invasive plants are opportunists, and can easily spread into areas of open land and new ground disturbance. Given the fact that vehicles are frequent vectors for spreading seed, the long-term potential for infestations in the project area is virtually unlimited.

The existing conditions of the project area, with regards to non-native invasive plants, have been previously described in this document. Generally speaking, non-native invasive plant populations are limited to the open lands. Because there is much more open land on the private lands than National Forest, it is assumed that private lands in the project area are more likely to support populations of non-native invasive plants. A detailed review of land conditions in the Shoal Creek project area using MoRap satellite imagery (circa 2000-2004) determined that of the approximately 68,202 acres within the project area, approximately 13% are considered open land, and of this, only about 1% is on National Forest.

Currently, under the 2005 Forest Plan, many standards and guidelines are being implemented to reduce the spread of non-native invasive plants (Forest Plan 2-2). Private landowners, however, may be less aware of the importance of reducing non-native invasive plant populations. Species such as tall fescue are still commonly used by private landowners for vegetating pastures and disturbed areas.

153 Cumulative Effects Discussion Non-native invasive plant populations are expected to continue to increase in and near the project area, regardless of which of the proposed alternatives in the Shoal Creek project area is implemented. By virtue of the fact that many sources for non-native invasive plant seeds currently exist in the project area (along roads, in powerlines, on private lands) and the fact that these populations are easily spread, it is unlikely that populations of non-native invasive plants will ever be significantly reduced. No large-scale non-native invasive plant control strategy is currently proposed that would include both private and public lands in the project area. The Mark Twain National Forest may eventually target select areas for non-native invasive plant control, but when private lands are included; these areas represent only a fraction of the infested areas in the project area,

Alternative 1 would not directly increase any non-native invasive plant populations, nor decrease them. As a result, populations of non-native invasive plants would be expected to continue to remain about the same or increase. Indirectly, Alternative 1 may contribute to the ongoing spread of non-native invasive plants because it does not involve any efforts to control existing populations.

Alternative 2 would directly reduce a small population of non-native invasive plant. This plant, sericea lespedeza, is found along a county road in Compartment 121. The control of this population using herbicide would reduce infestation of sericea lespedeza by at least 56 acres. The cumulative effect of herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is expected to be virtually immeasurable. Of all the ongoing, foreseeable, and proposed herbicide in the project area, the majority of it (0.23%) would be on National Forest lands. All herbicide use on National Forest lands is closely monitored and regulated. For example, nearly all of the present herbicide use on National Forest is in utility line rights-of-way. These utility lines are treated with herbicide that must be pre-approved by the US Forest Service. The herbicide application must be in accordance with state and federal regulations and follow directions specified on the manufacturer‟s label. Monitoring of the powerlines is conducted periodically and “no spray” zones representing permanent streams have been identified. Permits to use herbicide on National Forest are reviewed periodically and subject to environmental analysis. Based upon known and foreseeable uses of herbicides in the project area, only approximately 0.24% of the project area is being treated with herbicides. When the herbicide use proposed in Alternative 2 is added to the existing and foreseeable use of herbicide in the project area, the percentage of herbicide use occurring in the project area would increase by only 0.09%, to 0.33%. This is virtually immeasurable.

Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 1, but may also increase some spread of sericea lespedeza because activities are proposed in Compartment 121 that would facilitate its spread and no efforts to directly control it are proposed. Other populations of non-native invasive plants may increase in areas proposed for timber treatments and heavy equipment use (firelines). However, this would be greatly minimized with implementation of the standards and guidelines in the 2005 Forest Plan.

154 Table N-4. Additive and Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 upon non- native invasive plant populations. Status of non-native invasive plant populations Existing Conditions 1,718 acres of infestation identified on National Forest. Limited on National Forest based upon to openlands such as road corridors and old farmland. Small populations in some Past, Present areas disturbed by timber treatments and ground disturbance. More prevalent on and private lands, particularly where openlands are located. Foreseeable Majority of project area, however, is not infested, since 87% of it is forested. Activities Additive Alternative 1. No measurable additive effects. Not likely to contribute to the Impacts of control or spread of any non-native invasive plants. Alternatives 1, 2 & 3 Alternative 2. Likely to decrease some non-native plant populations.

Alternative 3. May indirectly increase some non-native plant populations. Cumulative The overall cumulative effect of the activities proposed upon non-native invasive effect of plant populations would be immeasurable under Alternative 1. Alternative 2 may additive contribute to a negative cumulative effect upon non-native plant populations (which impacts upon is desirable) because it would target some infestations for control. Alternative 3 non-native may contribute to a positive cumulative effect upon non-native invasive plant invasive populations (which is not desirable) because it does not target any infestations for plants control, and some proposed actions may increase spread of non-native invasive plants.

The duration and magnitude of effects of activities proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3 would not incrementally add to the past, present, and foreseeable actions that have or are likely to occur on National Forest or private lands. This is because neither alternative would directly or deliberately increase the spread of non-native invasive plants. Alternative 2 would target some areas of infestation for control efforts.

FISHERIES AND AQUATICS - EXISTING CONDITION

In the revised edition of "The Fishes of Missouri" dated 1997, William L. Pflieger described four aquatic faunal regions: the Prairie, Ozark, Lowland, and Big River. The geographic location of the Project Area places it in the central part of the “Ozark Aquatic Faunal Region” in the Meramec River Watershed. The Meramec River is unique because it is the second longest free- flowing river in the state of Missouri (228 miles total length and 100% non-channelized or submerged by large impoundment). The Meramec River basin drains a total of approximately 2,149 square miles or 1,375,360 acres of land. Approximately 29.6% of the Meramec watershed is in public ownership (Forest Service, Missouri Department of Conservation and, Missouri Department of Natural Resources). The Meramec River is a cool water fishery, with management emphasis on smallmouth bass and goggle eye (also called shadow bass). The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) ranked the Meramec watershed first out of thirty-six watersheds surveyed in a statewide fishing pressure survey (Blanc, et.al., 1998). The Forest Service has 0 miles of river frontage on the Meramec River; however the 8-digit Meramec watershed is divided into seven 11-digit sub-basin watersheds. The Project Area is located in parts of two of these: the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-

155 digit Courtois (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. Within the Project Area, the Forest Service has approximately 3 miles of river frontage on Huzzah Creek and 7 miles of river frontage on Courtois Creek. Approximately 75% of the river frontage on the Courtois and 90% of the river frontage on the Huzzah is in private ownership. On the south end of the Project Area, canoe fishing for smallmouth bass is popular on Huzzah Creek. On the north end of the Project area on Courtois Creek, there is a private business which rents canoes and rubber rafts.

Fish species Inventory The Missouri Department of Conservation, Research Division, Columbia, MO maintains a current and comprehensive fish inventory in a GIS formatted data base. There are three fish sampling sites within the Courtois (07140102040) sub-basin watershed associated with the Project Area. The Courtois fish sampling sites numbers are 0357, 0359, and 0362. There are 55 fish species represented in the 3 sample sites listed above. There are seven fish sampling sites associated with the Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed. The fish sample site numbers are 0358, 0363, 0364, 0365, 1724, 2124, and 3372. There are 64 fish species represented in the 7 sample sites listed above. Huzzah & Courtois Creeks are a cool water fishery, with management emphasis on smallmouth bass and goggle eye.

Fish habitat assessment The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC), fisheries division, conducted a watershed inventory and assessment of the Meramec River Watershed in November 1998 (http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/ ). MDC concluded stream habitat quality to be fair to good throughout most of the basin but some areas like Huzzah Creek was poorly forested and suffer from a lack of riparian vegetation. Riparian vegetation helps protect streams against erosion. Stream reaches with no vegetation have accelerated runoff and increased stream energy. Climax vegetation comprised 43% of corridors in the Huzzah as compared to 67% in the Courtois. The MDC assessment stated Courtois Creek was a good example of a stream system with a healthy corridor that slows a stream‟s natural sinuosity. Pool depth was measured to determine the available habitat for smallmouth bass. Sixty percent of fourth-order sites in the Huzzah Creek watershed were less than adequate for adult smallmouth bass and 66% of fourth-order sites in the Courtois were less than adequate for adult smallmouth bass. Pool depth in both the Huzzah and Courtois is a limiting factor for adult smallmouth bass habitat. The MDC assessment stated cattle had free access to Huzzah and Courtois Creeks and tributaries. The activities of cattle in streams can alter the riparian area enough to cause changes in channel morphology and water quality (Jacobson and Primm 1994).

Aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Water Quality Monitoring Section has conducted Biological Assessments on Courtois Creek, Huzzah Creek, West Fork Huzzah Creek, East Fork Huzzah Creek, Indian Creek, Crooked Creek, Shoal Creek, and Cub Creek. Stream waters of good quality are identified by the greater abundance of pollution-intolerant macroinvertebrate taxa, such as those in EPT (Ephemeroptera or mayflies, Plecoptera or stoneflies, Trichoptera or caddisflies). EPT are those kinds of invertebrates that serve as fish food. Degraded streams contained pollution-tolerant Oligochaeta or worms and burrowing Chironomids or midges which are not good fish foods. Results of the biological assessment are summarized by the Macroinvertebrate Stream Condition Index (MSCI), which range from 4 (very poor) to 20 (very good). The scoring system is established by collecting data from the highest quality stream within an Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU). Huzzah Creek is the reference stream for the Ozark/Meramec Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU). Sample results for Huzzah Creek

156 ranged from 14 (fair) to 20 (very good); with an average score of 18 (good). Indian Creek has an average score of 12 (fair). This score indicates the condition of the stream to be below average relative to reference conditions. Sensitive Heptageniidea and Ephemerellidae taxa may have been extirpated from Indian Creek soon after the Viburnum mines began operation and before pollution prevention control were implemented. (MoDNR, 2002).

Within the Project Area there is a 3.0 mile segment on the Courtois Creek „Water Body Identification Number‟ (WBID) WBID-1943 listed in the 2004 Missouri Water Quality Report (MDNR, 2004) and listed in the Proposed 2004/2006 303(d) list dated October 11, 2006, as impaired for the pollutants lead and zinc. The source of impairment (Doe Run, Viburnum Operations lead mine near Viburnum, MO) is located outside the Project Area. Water from mine operations is discharged into Indian Creek, which flows into and impairs the above listed 3.0 mile segment on the Courtois Creek. The source (Doe Run, Viburnum Operations lead mine near Viburnum, MO) is located outside the Project Area and is described in detail in the Cumulative Effects Water analysis section (MDNR, 2001-2002).

Fish consumption advisory In the 2006 Fish Consumption Advisory, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services recommended a change in the state-wide bass advisory from “do not consume” to “1 meal per month” for sensitive populations (children under 13 years of age and pregnant or nursing women or women that may become pregnant). This new mercury advisory is called a Level-Four advisory which means: limited-consumption advisory (no more than one meal a month) for Largemouth Bass, Smallmouth Bass, and Spotted Bass over 12 inches in total length. The reason that mercury seems to be distributed throughout the state is because of the way it got here. For mercury, the pollutant source is atmospheric deposition or rain drops. Mercury is release into the atmospheric when burning coal to produce electricity or burning municipal trash. Also, mercury can be released by vaporization into the atmosphere from broken devices, such as Fluorescent lamps, Mercury thermostat, Thermometers, etc. An adult fish can have a mercury concentration 150,000 times as high as the water surrounding it. To determine the amount of mercury in fish, tissue samples are required. Sampling and analysis of tissue samples from Black Bass by the MDC indicate that Mercury is widespread, and present in fish in streams, rivers, ponds and lakes throughout Missouri. http://www.dhss.mo.gov/NewsAndPublicNotices/06FishAdvisory.pdf

Fish Passage In CY 2006, USDA–Northern Research Station inventoried potential aquatic organism passage projects in the 11-digit Courtois (07140102040) sub-basin watershed (Mendez, 2006). There were no existing Forest Service System Roads within the Project Area which block fish passage; however, there are two County Roads within the Project Area which do block fish passage. They are Washington County road 657 on Stringtown Branch (T36N, R1W, Sec 13.) and Washington County road 657 on Courtois Creek (T36N, R1W, Sec.8).

Within the Project Area, there are ford crossings over intermittent streams (where the stream bed serves as the road bed) on Forest Road (FR) 2710 & FR 2913. Infrequent uses of ford crossings provide a natural passageway for the migration and movement of aquatic organisms. Mitigation measures allowed by the Forest Plan include enforcement of motorized traffic to cross streams at a designated crossing and to not allow motorized use traveling in the stream outside of the designated crossing.

There are approximately 48 miles of non-system roads with approximately 12 intermittent stream crossings and 1 perennial stream crossing. The perennial stream crossing is on non-system road

157 #6866. None of these crossing appear to be fish barriers; however, vehicle/ORV traffic on non- system roads which do not receive road maintenance would generate sediment and could degrade fish habitat in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks.

FISHERIES AND AQUATICS – DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 1 There is a direct negative impact to fisheries under the no action alternative. Two undersized culverts which prohibit aquatic organism passage would not be replaced with fish friendly structures. There may be indirect negative impacts to fisheries in the Huzzah and Courtois sub- basin watersheds due to soil erosion from unregulated non-system roads.

Alternative 2 Vegetation treatments and road system: In this alternative, use of commercial harvest and precommercial thinning would be used to improve forest health, wildlife habitats, and natural communities. Nearly 90 percent of the erosion from timber harvesting can be traced to the logging road system (USEPA, 1993; MDNR, 2000). Soil erosion can results in sedimentation to streams. Sedimentation alters the natural relationship between the biota and the stream substrate by changing the condition of the substrate. Increased sedimentation can adversely affect the biota by reducing or covering their food supply and interfering with feeding and respiration (Water, 1995). The Best Management Practices (BMP) as described in Thomas F. Waters‟ Monograph 7 “Sediment in Streams”, page127, “Methods for the reduction of erosion from logging roads” will be utilized in designing temporary roads. Water (1995) describes road placement as often the single most important factor to reduce erosion and transport to streams. Intercepting and retaining sediment between the site of its origin and a receiving stream is 2nd best to preventing erosion; therefore, the skid trails and haul roads will be monitored to identify where maintenance is needed to prevent soil movement into stream courses. For road construction, operation, and maintenance; the Forest Service would use limestone gravel removed from a quarry, rather than native gravel removed from a stream. The Forest Service would maintain a riparian tree corridor along its river frontage along Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Use of BMP‟s will reduce the amount of sediment entering stream courses; therefore, commercial harvest activities will not adversely affect the cool water fisheries of the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Of the top 10 pollutants in rivers, siltation is the worst, half-again higher than the 2nd most important pollutant, nutrients (Waters, 1995; USEPA, 1993). Approximately 52 miles of non- system roads within the project area would be closed and rehabilitated. These roads will be restored to forest-like conditions using one or more of the following treatments: blocking the access with earthen berms, rock berms, boulders, or slash piles; rehabilitation of natural drainage features by removing man-made drainage features and recontouring the area; scarification to remove the road bed; revegetation by seeding, planting, or fertilizing. These roads are not needed for public access for recreational pursuits. This action would reduce the amount of sediment moving off site on approximately 52 miles of non-system roads in the Project Area and help maintain the cool water fisheries in the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois (07140102040) sub-basin watersheds.

158 Prescribed Burning: The Shoal Creek project identifies ten areas for prescribed burning. The proposed prescribed burns, viewed at the right scale of time and space, would not have a negative impact on aquatic biota. The primary concern is how the fire accelerates the delivery of sediment to the surface water system. The intensity of a wildfire could have negative effects on streams by exposing mineral soil to sheet erosion; whereas, a low intensity prescribed fire which did not burn down to mineral soil, would not contribute a significant sediment load into the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) sub-basin watershed and the 11-digit Courtois (07140102040) sub-basin watershed. Prescribe burns will not include trash dumps that may contain common house hold items such as thermometers, button batteries, thermostats, fluorescent light bulbs; items known to contain mercury. Prescribe burns will not adversely affect beneficial water uses, including “cool water fisheries” of Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Streambank Stabilization

The five revetment projects and three bottomland hardwood rehabilitation projects will lessen the amount of soil movement and the potential for sediment to enter stream courses; which will help maintain MDNR- designated cool water fisheries, including the protection of aquatic life, for Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. The proposed action will have a positive impact on aquatic species and habitats in Huzzah and Courtois watersheds. Herbicide use: In this alternative, it is proposed to use Triclopyr and Glyphosate herbicides. Only aquatic herbicide formulations of glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides will be used near aquatic systems. All safety measures identified on the manufacturers label will be followed. Aquatic herbicide formulations would be used in bottomland hardwood planting areas (approximately 20 acres). For noxious weed control and savannah development and midstory control, no herbicides will be used in the riparian management zone (RMZ) and water protection zone (WPZ). The adverse effects on fish and macroinverbrates due to herbicide applications typically result from not following the specific application directions for the chemical being used, which can lead to improper application, such as applying too much or not observing buffers around watercourses. Only trained personnel would recommend, use, or supervise the application of herbicides. With implementation by holder of a current MO Certified Pesticide Applicator‟s license and using herbicide in accordance with label directions; there should be no effect on MDNR- designated beneficial water uses, including protection of aquatic life. Aquatic Organism Passage: In this alternative, it is proposed to replace undersized culverts on two county roads/stream low water crossings to facilitate Aquatic Organism Passage. The existing structures would be replaced with larger culverts, or concrete box culvert or a bottomless arc pipe. All of these structures would simulate natural steam flow and allow aquatic organism passage. This action will free up approximately 1.5 stream miles on Town Branch and approximately 6 stream miles on Courtois Creek. In-stream construction would create sediment; therefore, the stream channel would be re-routed during the construction phase. Once the structure is in place, it would have long term benefits for aquatic biota such as darters and sculpins.

159 Table F-1. Aquatic organism passage improvement locations. Site Location Size of area Miles of Name number T R Section Stream Road likely to be stream affected affected affected opened up Town MTP T36N, R1W, Town Branch Washington 200 feet x 1.5 Branch 657-0.08 Section 13 (tributary to Co. Road 657 100 feet Hazel Creek) Brazil MTP T36N, R1W, Courtois Creek Washington 1,584 feet x 6 657-2.1 Section 8 Co. Road 657 100 feet

Alternative 3 This alternative would be the similar to Alternative 2, except there would be 1) no prescribe burning to: reduce fuel loading or improve wildlife habitat; 2) no herbicide use: to eradicate non native invasive species, to site prep open fields for planting hardwoods trees, and to control hardwood sprouting in savannah areas; 3) no commercial savannah cuts and no non-commercial midstory cutting treatments in existing savannah. The direct and indirect effects for all other project proposals would be the same as Alternative 2.

Monitoring: Huzzah Creek is the reference stream for the Ozark/Meremec Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU). It is expected MDNR will take additional biological and chemical samples after project implementation. These samples will be compared to past conditions to determine what biologically values may have change and if project implementation may have been the cause for any change.

The Courtois fish sampling sites (0357, 0359, and 0362) and the Huzzah fish sampling sites (0358, 0363, 0364, 0365, 1724, 2124, and 3372) are considered reference sampling site established by the Missouri Department of Conservation. It is expected MDC will take additional fish samples during the next 10-20 years. These samples can be compared to previous samples to determine species richness.

FISHERIES AND AQUATICS - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The cumulative effects analysis area is the same as the cumulative effects analysis area for the water section of this document; which is the 11-digit Huzzah Creek (07140102030) subbasin and the 11-digit Courtois Creek (07140102040) subbasin watersheds. Cumulative effects on fisheries and aquatics are best addressed from analyses based on a watershed or sub-watershed area. The time period is 10 years because “water-yield effect associated with timber harvest would be transient and decrease to background levels in 10 years or less as evapotranspiration increased with vegetation regrowth” (Jacobson, 2004).

Past and present activities that may have an effect on fisheries and aquatics: The past and present activities that may have an effect on fisheries and aquatic stream habitats are listed in the Water – Cumulative Effects section. The Courtois Creek is higher in elevation than Huzzah Creek, resulting in a much higher gradient (48.4 feet/mile versus 9.1 feet/mile) (Blanc, et.al. 1998). It is extremely important to provide a large tree riparian zone along high gradient

160 streams. The biggest threat to fish habitat along Huzzah and Courtois Creeks is riparian corridor clearing by private landowners. When stream side vegetation is removed, any increase in solar radiation reaching the stream can increase the water temperature. The water quality criterion of temperature is set in cool waters steams, such as the Huzzah and Courtois, to protect fish species, such as small mouth bass. The effect elevated water temperatures can have on fish include retarded growth, reduced rearing densities, increased susceptibility to disease, decreased ability to avoid predation, and decreased ability to complete with other species for food. Leaving a riparian buffer is the primary means of minimizing temperature increases due to timber harvesting. In addition, stream channels morphology changes can occur without the protection of a riparian corridor and this could affect the numbers and types of aquatic species present. Over the past 100 years, erosion and deposited sediment has changed the stream morphology of Huzzah and Courtois Creeks to make them wider and shallower. The primary missing habitat types are deep pools and large woody debris. Within the Cumulative Effects Analysis Area, improperly designed low-water bridges have altered stream morphology by altering the stream gradient and normal base level water flow. Improperly constructed low-water bridges act as a dam and become a barrier to fish movement.

Reasonably foreseeable actions The Reasonably foreseeable actions that may have an effect on fish and aquatic habitat are listed in the Water – Cumulative Effects section. The presence of enormous amounts of tailings (finely ground rock) stored behind dams in side drainages of Courtois Creek represents a substantial threat in the form of sediment pollution; with lead & zinc contamination to aquatic life. Failure of these dams would allow large quantities of tailings to quickly enter the Courtois basin and move downstream to Huzzah Creek. There are no tailings ponds or waste disposal ponds on National Forest lands. None of the alternatives, including the no action alternative, would impact these facilities.

Alternative 1 In this alternative, current and on-going activities, including system road maintenance, would continue, but no new management activities would be initiated. Sediment tops the list of pollutants in rivers; with nutrients the 2nd most important pollutants (USEPA, 2006). Over a 10- year period, Non-Point Source (NPS) contaminants of non-system roads (approximately 52 miles) could contribute to the amount of sediment entering Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. These non- system roads within the project area would remain open under this alternative. Over this 10-year period, the amount of sediment entering stream water courses would most likely increase. It is doubtful, however, this action by itself would cause changes to aquatic habitats which would impair the existing cool water fisheries.

Alternatives 2 and 3 Sediment yield and associated aquatic habitat degradation are minimized on timber lands compared to alternative land uses, such as cropland and urban areas; because impacts associated with forestry operations, such as timber harvest and prescribed burning, involve short pulses of disturbance instead of persistent disturbance (Jacobson, 1999). In addition, the Forest Service would maintain a riparian tree corridor along its river frontage along Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. A riparian zone is widely recognized to be highly beneficial to water quality and aquatic habitat. Vegetation in the riparian zone reduces runoff and traps sediments generated from upslope activities, and reduces nutrients in runoff before it reaches surface waters. Canopy species provide shading to surface waters, which moderates water temperature. Trees in the riparian zone provide a source of large woody debris to surface waters, which serves as important

161 habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms (USEPA, 2006). http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter3/ch3-2b.html Long term population and even aquatic species trends may change during the next decade, as non-public landowners would determine land uses on approximately 54% of the cumulative effect analysis area. Increased land clearing in riparian areas, the county road network in riparian areas, and mining operations in riparian areas will negatively impact stream habitat quality. It will take the cooperation of county, state, and federal agencies to work with all landowners within the two 11-digit cumulative effects analysis area watershed to find ways to better manage riparian corridors to protect the existing cool water fisheries in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks. Forest Service actions as described in the Oak Decline EIS, Delbridge HFI, Crooked Creek EA, and Allotment Management Plans on the Salem Ranger District, are covered under previous analyses and decisions. These projects and the proposed Shoal Creek project would not impair MDNR designated use for cool water fisheries in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks; provided Forest Plan standard and guides, BMP‟s, and soil mitigation measures are implemented.

AIR QUALITY - EXISTING CONDITION

The climate in the area is defined by hot humid summers with temperatures ranging from 63 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit. The autumns are warm and moist with average temperatures ranging from 35 to 79 degrees Fahrenheit. The winters can be cold and snowy, with temperatures ranging from 18 to 43 degrees Fahrenheit. The springtime is cool and moist with temperatures ranging from 33 to 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The annual monthly precipitation ranges from a low in the winter of 1.70 inches to a high of 4.8 inches in the spring.

The major physiographic features influencing the climate, movement and dispersion of smoke in this area are the Huzzah and Courtois Creeks, and other small-entrenched valley areas. The valleys can act as cold sinks and trap smoke. The river valleys can act as drainages for the smoke causing it to flow down stream.

In general, the air quality in the Analysis Area is good. All six criteria pollutants (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead) are within National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Episodes of regional haze occur mainly in the spring and summer.

The entire proposed project lies within lands designated as Class II with respect to the air resource. The Clean Air Act (CAA) defines a Class II area as, “A geographic area designated for a moderate degree of protection from future degradation of the air quality”. The closest Class I area is the USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service‟s Mingo Wilderness at the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge (Puxico, Missouri) located about 67 miles to the southeast. The CAA defines Class I areas as “A geographic area designated for the most stringent degree of protection from future degradation of air quality”. The only other Class I area in the state is the Hercules Glade Wilderness on the Mark Twain National Forest. It is approximately 95 miles southwest of the Analysis Area.

The city of St. Louis and five counties in and around the city are the closest non-attainment areas. This determination is based on the Environmental Protection Agency‟s (EPA) Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) and data maps. EPA defines non-attainment areas, as “A geographic area in which the level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by the

162 federal standards” (EPA). St. Louis and surrounding counties are approximately 20 miles northeast; these areas are non-attainment for ozone. The Analysis Area is designated as attainment for all six NAAQS criteria pollutants. EPA defines attainment areas as “A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meets the health-based primary standard (national ambient air quality standard, or NAAQS) for the pollutant”.

Of the six criteria pollutants identified by the EPA, the main pollutants of concern for this proposed project are: 1) carbon monoxide (CO), 2) particulate matter (PM-2.5 and PM 10), and 3) ozone (O3). Although the other 3 pollutants (oxides of nitrogen (NO2), oxides of sulfur (SO2) and lead (Pb) are important, the levels associated with this type of project are typically well below NAAQS.

The main sources of carbon monoxide are from combustion engines associated with vehicles, and outdoor burning. Major sources of PM-2.5 and PM-10 are wood burning home units, burning on private and federal lands, wildland fire, fugitive dust from un-surfaced roads and mineral development along the Viburnum Trend. Wildland and prescribed fires can also be sources of fugitive particulate matter less than 10 microns in size. There are no main sources of ozone in the proposed area. There are a few activities such as wildland burning, which can produce some of the precursors to ozone such as oxides of nitrogen and organic carbon.

Based on Forest Plan direction, the desired condition for the air resource in the Analysis Area is to maintain NAAQS, comply with state and local regulations and to protect Class I area Air Quality Related Values (AQRV‟s) from anthropogenic caused degradation. The AQRV(s) used for the Mingo Wilderness area is visibility. The applicable state and local regulation is 10CSR 10-3.030,4 (c.7), which deals with open burning in Missouri and general conformity as outlined by the CAA 176(c) and administered by the state.

AIR QUALITY - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

All analysis for the proposed management activities will be based on potential impacts to the identified smoke sensitive receptors with respect to the NAAQS levels for carbon monoxide, PM- 10, PM-2.5, ozone and visibility. See Table 3-5 for the smoke sensitive receptors and Table 3-6 for the six criteria pollutants. The State of Missouri uses the same standards for the criteria pollutants as EPA.

Table AQ-1 Smoke Sensitive Receptors within the Project Area. Smoke Sensitive Receptors Location in relation to Project Area City of Viburnum South City of Steelville Northwest City of Potosi East-Northeast Smoke Sensitive Receptors Location in relation to Project Area Red Bluff Recreation Area West Missouri State Highway 8 North Missouri State Highway Y North and South

163 The above smoke sensitive receptors were used to analyze the impacts of the various alternatives at these locations. They were chosen based in part on proximity to the proposed prescribed burns, known smoke concerns, safety concerns, and ability to represent similar locations in the area.

Table AQ-2. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Six Criteria Pollutants National Ambient Air QualityStandards(NAAQS)

Pollutant Averaging Period Primary Secondary Carbon Monoxide 8 hour average 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) N/A (CO) 1 hour average 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) N/A Nitrogen Dioxide Annual Arithmetic 0.053 ppm (100 ug/m3) Same as Primary (NO2) Mean Ozone (O3) 8 hour average 0.08 ppm (157 ug/m3) Same as Primary 1 hour average 0.12 ppm (235 ug/m3) Same as Primary Particulate Matter 2.5 Annual Arithmetic 15 ug/m3 Same as Primary micrometers or less Mean** (PM-2.5) 24 hour average 35 ug/m3 Particulate Matter 10 24 hour average 150 ug/m3 micrometers or less (PM-10) Primary Secondary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Annual Arithmetic 0.03 ppm (80 ug/m3) N/A Mean 24 hour average 0.14 ppm (365 ug/m3) N/A 3 hour average N/A 0.5 ppm (1300 ug/m3) Lead (Pb) Quarterly average 1.5 ug/m3 Same as Primary Units of measure: ug/mg3 – Micrograms per cubic meter of air. ppm – Parts per million by volume. mg/m3 – Milligrams per cubic meter of air.

Carbon monoxide as a product of combustion is rapidly diluted at short distances from a fire and therefore poses little or no health risk to the general public.

All alternatives have some potential to impact visibility. The smoke sensitive receptors with the greatest potential for impact are the primary state highways in the projects area. Based on the designated speed for primary state highways in the Analysis Area, and using the Forest Service Handbook 7709.56, a safe stopping distance will require a minimum sight distance of 300-500 feet. If the mitigation identified for air quality is implemented, the proposed project will meet visibility concerns for all action alternatives.

There are activities, such as prescribed fires, which can produce some of the precursors to ozone such as oxides of nitrogen and organic carbon. For the proposed prescribed burns, the levels are estimated to be low enough that they will not contribute to the development of ozone levels above the NAAQS (Sandberg and Dost, 1990).

Based on the distance and the direction from the proposed project, visibility will not be impacted at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area.

During burn plan development of a proposed prescribed burn two smoke modeling tools are used to determine expected outputs of particulate matter and pollutants. Although limited in scope, these are the best available models. Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Modeling System

164 (SASEM) is a screening 1 planning level, Gaussian dispersion model designed to predict ground level particulate matter and visibility impacts from single sources in relatively flat terrain. SASEM utilizes internally calculated plume rise and emission rates based on specified fuel types and configurations to approximate particulate matter and visibility impact assessments.

FOFEM is a first order fire effects model which predicts fuel consumption, smoke production, and tree mortality in forest vegetation types. Smoke production outputs include (lbs/acre) of CO, PM10, and PM2.5.

Weather parameters are established relative to the weather requirements dictated by these models to maintain non-exceedence of the various emissions limits set forth in the NAAQS.

Based on available analysis models, literature review and implementation of the identified mitigation measures, all NAAQS will be met for the proposed project before prescribed burning is conducted.

Under state rule 10CSR 10-3.030,4 (c.7), which deals with open burning in Missouri, the USDA Forest Service is exempt. Because the proposed activities are in an attainment area, the conformity requirement will be met. No further conformity analysis is needed at this time. Thus, the proposed project would in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations relating to air quality as well as with the Forest Plan.

Alternative 2: The following direct effects may be observed. -Increases in particulate matter and carbon monoxide concentrations. -Eye, nose and throat irritations. -Decreased visibility along travel ways (land, water and air). -Odor/nuisance of smoke.

The greatest effect of prescribed fire toward overall air emissions is the length in time in which fuels are left to burn, or smolder. For Alternative 2, potential fire intensity of a previously mechanically treated stand should certainly increase. However, the follow-up burning is expected to be implemented within two years following any mechanical treatment. This will not be sufficient time for heavier fuels to reach a decay stage that promotes smoldering. Heavier fuels are more apt to smolder than lighter fuels if they have decayed enough to be considered “punky”. This stage of decay holds moisture, but allows air to dry the surface of the moist fuel to form a constant cycle of smoldering that often remains until moisture of extinction is reached normally during the night. Again, there will be a short time interval relative to decay between mechanical treatment and prescribed fire treatment.

Alternative 1 & 3: This alternative could result in large wildland fires since there would be no management activities to reduce fuel loading of standing and fallen trees. In alternative 2, varying amounts of these fuels will be treated either by removal (harvests) or reduction (prescribed fire). Direct effects will be similar to those for the action alternatives described below, but at higher concentrations and uncontrollable levels.

Smoke from uncontrolled fires has the potential to last for several days. If climatic conditions change quickly, some travel ways, such as Missouri State Highway 8 may experience decreases in visibility. These impacts can be mitigated for controlled burns, so there will be little or no impact (see mitigation section). Under this alternative, once the wildland fire begins, local, county and state law enforcement would be notified that there is a safety hazard. Implementation of the mitigation actions would not occur until after the fire started.

165

In general the public, with the exception of the very ill, very young, and the elderly, have a low risk of long-term chronic health impacts, such as asthma, pulmonary disease or other respiratory diseases from prescribed burns (Sandburg and Dost, 1990). This is due in part to the short exposure times, typically 15 hours or less, at concentrations that are below the NAAQS.

Based on the proposed burning times, the nuisance of smoke should be short-term, less than 10 hours.

Indirect effects and the amount will vary based upon acres burned and whether fires are controlled or wild, and the development of ozone precursors from the combustion process.

Decrease in potential of exceeding NAAQS due to a decrease in fuels for wild fires.

The amount of ozone precursors produced is small enough that they will not produce ozone levels that will exceed NAAQS (Sandburg and Dost, 1990). The decrease in NAAQS will be applicable to all alternatives except the No Action. Here there would be an increase in the potential of exceeding NAAQS, specifically PM-10 and 2.5. Decreasing the amount of fuel loading is one way to decrease the potential for NAAQS being exceeded by a wildland fire.

AIR QUALITY - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

For air quality, cumulative effects include reasonable and foreseeable activities that produce pollutants within the six counties of the non-attainment area within a 24-hour period. This includes, but is not limited to activities such as operation of combustion engines (i.e. vehicles, lawn mowers, turbines etc.), use of fireplaces, dust from un-paved roads, wildland fires, industrial emissions and so on. These emissions coupled with prescribed burning, may have the potential to exceed the NAAQS for ozone and PM-2.5. Based on the growth of these other activities that produce pollutants, the proposed project will be implemented before they reach a level that would cause NAAQS to be exceeded. Staffing for the local Forest Service Districts is such that limited resources are available for prescribed burning. Due to staffing and resource requirements the District is usually only able to burn one prescribed fire in a single day. Neighboring Districts are often unable to burn on the same day due to a lack of resources.

RECREATION RESOURCES - EXISTING CONDITION

According to OOHA (Ouachita-Ozark Highlands Assessment), approximately 58 million people (21 percent of the U.S. population) live within a 1-day drive of outdoor recreation opportunities in the Ozark-Ouachita Highlands. In 1996, travel expenditures in the Assessment area counties of Arkansas and Missouri totaled over $9 billion and accounted for nearly 167,000 jobs. Public lands, by providing many of the settings for outdoor recreation, are important to maintaining and enhancing a strong tourism industry. Private lands that dominate the forested landscape and influence scenic quality in a large part of the Highlands are also important to the region‟s tourism industry. State and national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer lands and waters account for 13 percent of the Highlands‟ area and provide the principal settings for many kinds of outdoor recreational activities that are based on natural

166 resources. The three national forests provide recreation opportunities principally in roaded-natural (75 percent) and semi-primitive (20 percent) settings, accounting for 6 percent of the area‟s campsites. The private sector provides 12 percent, States provide 30 percent, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide 51 percent. Sixty-three percent of the trail miles in the assessment area are located on national forests. There are 283,012 acres of federally designated wilderness in the Highlands that represent 5 percent of the land area managed by the Forest Service, USDI. Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilderness accounts for 4.4 percent of all national forest lands. Approximately 523 miles of rivers in the Highlands have received federal designations based on their exceptional scenic and recreational value. Residents of the Highlands‟ “draw area” exceed the national average in percent of population participating in every major category of outdoor recreation available in the Highlands. More than 90 percent of the draw area population participates in activities associated with viewing and learning about nature and human history, such as sightseeing, bird watching, and visiting historic sites. Approximately 40 percent participate in fishing, 41 percent participate in outdoor adventure activities (such as hiking or off- road driving), about 35 percent participate in boating, 31 percent participate in camping, and 14 percent participate in hunting.

The Shoal Creek Analysis Area has a recreation emphasis for Roaded Natural in Management Prescription 2.1.

Within the Roaded Natural setting, the area is characterized by predominantly natural or natural- appearing environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of humans. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction with users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users present. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design facilities. Equal probability exists to experience contact with other user groups and for isolation from sights and sounds of humans. Opportunity exists to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. Challenge and risk opportunities associated with more primitive types of recreation are not prevalent. Practice and testing of outdoor skills is possible. Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are available. (Forest Plan Appendix G, pages 1, 2 and 3) The area is managed so that minimum on- site controls and restrictions may be present but are subtle. Motorized use is permitted but restricted.

There are two Forest Service operated developed recreation areas within the Analysis Area. Red Bluff Recreation Area is located on Huzzah Creek near Davisville. This area contains 46 single/double campsites (six of which have electric hook ups), 3 group campsites, 5 day use sites and a pavilion. Primary use season is mid-April to mid-October. Primary visitor activities include swimming, fishing and hiking. Hazel Creek Campground serves as a primary trail head for the Trace Creek Section of the Ozark Trail and is popular with hikers, mountain bikers and equestrian users. There are 10 campsites in this area.

Huzzah Creek forms the western border of the project area and Courtois Creek passes thru a portion of and forms the boundary on the eastern side. Due to the areas proximity to St. Louis, both of these streams are very popular with canoeists and rafters. Both creeks are served by numerous canoe outfitters, the two largest of which are located within the project area boundary. Huzzah Valley is located on the Huzzah at State Highway 8 and Bass River Resort is located on the Courtois on County Road 550 (Butts Road). Both areas are highly developed and have full service campgrounds with both primitive and full hook-up campsites, rental houses and cabins, pavilions, playgrounds, and general stores. In addition to canoe and raft rentals, horseback riding is also offered. During the summer use season, these areas are often filled to capacity on most weekends.

167

Dispersed Recreation opportunities and uses in this area are similar to those found in many areas across the Potosi Ranger District. Most general recreation use in the Analysis Area occurs during the fall firearms deer season, when several dispersed campsites are occupied, and the spring and fall turkey seasons. Unauthorized OHV use, both ATV‟s and motorcycle, has increased in the area recently, but has always been heavy in the area east of the Courtois. Wade fishing is popular on the Huzzah and Courois Creeks above Highway 8 for smallmouth bass, goggle eye and other panfish as, during most of the year, water levels prevent floating.

Traversing the southeastern corner of the area from Hazel Creek campground to Delbridge is a portion of the Trace Creek section of the Ozark Trail. Long popular with horseback riders using Hazel Creek as a base, mountain bike use of the trail has increased in recent years with the increased interest in that activity, in addition to low to moderate use by hikers. Motorized use of the trail, primarily ATV‟s and motorcycles, has been a long time problem with the proximity of the area to Palmer.

State Highways 8, 49, Y, W, Z, C, and V are the only paved roads that run immediately adjacent or thru NFSL but there are numerous well maintained county roads traversing the area. These, along with forest system roads offer opportunities for viewing fall colors or wildlife throughout the area.

RECREATION RESOURCES - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Alternative 1: The project area would continue to provide opportunities for dispersed recreation, driving for pleasure, and both consumptive and non-consumptive wildlife uses. In the absence of vegetation management, the quality of deer and turkey hunting (and consequently the amount of hunting-season camping), and berry picking opportunities may be somewhat reduced after a period of time. Firewood gathering opportunities may increase as declining black and scarlet oak die and fall to the ground.

As more trees in the red oak group are affected by oak decline, potential safety hazards would increase. Though few accidents have been reported in the last two years there have been instances of trees falling in campgrounds, blocking trails, trees falling across roads and limbs falling near people while recreating in the forest.

Overall, this alternative would still provide recreation opportunities. People could continue to use all the Forest Roads within the project area. There would be increased costs to maintain roads beyond regularly scheduled maintenance, remove hazard trees from along roads.

Habitat diversity resulting from harvesting or prescribed burning would not occur under this alternative, and consequently, opportunities to observe species associated with these habitats would likely not be as great. Conversely, the opportunity to view forest interior species would likely be greater under this alternative than under

Alternatives 2 and 3: In these alternatives, logging activities and skidding operations would create intermittent noise and could reduce the enjoyment recreationists get from experiencing the natural environment. The actual impact of the noise depends on the time of day, time of year, and proximity of the recreation user to the harvest operation. The highest risk of recreationists encountering noise would occur during the fall firearm seasons for deer and turkey as hunters are

168 camping, walking and hunting in the project area during these times. Fuel wood cutting activities, a form of recreation to some people, would be made available following commercial timber sales. Recreationists could also encounter traffic and adverse road conditions during logging operations that could increase the risk of accidents. The traffic problem would be mitigated by the use of signs to warn recreationists of logging traffic in the area. The road surfaces would be improved (thru a timber sale appraisal allowance for reconstruction and maintenance) or repaired using money (road maintenance deposits) collected from the timber purchaser.

These alternatives would provide roaded natural recreation opportunities as per Management Area 2.1 Forest Plan direction; most system roads would accommodate passenger car traffic although several roads would likely be more suitable for pick-up truck travel.

In the short term, timber harvesting and other management activities would cause temporary disturbance or displacement of dispersed hunting and camping opportunities due to unattractive conditions, disturbance of wildlife, and slash on the ground making walking difficult.

The Ozark Trail is adjacent to or dissects the following stands proposed for treatment:

Table R-1: Stands to be Treated Along the Ozark Trail Compartment Stand Treatment* Proximity 120 3 CTR/Burn Adjacent 120 35 Thin Adjacent 120 56 UEAM Adjacent 120 57 ST Adjacent 122 1 ST Adjacent 122 6 SAN Dissects 122 7 CTR Adjacent 122 12 CTR Disects 122 13 CTR Adjacent 122 14 Thin Adjacent 122 22 UEAM Dissects 122 23 SW Dissects 122 24 SAN Dissects *See Alternative treatment table and Veg. section for a description of treatments

Vegetation management would have some short-term negative effect on the trail due to the appearance of disturbed vegetation; however, heavy retention along the trail, log-landing location, and slash treatment would help mitigate this effect. Some might not like the appearance. However, these areas should become more attractive for viewing and improve site distance among the trees.

Several stands are proposed for harvest that are dissected by unauthorized OHV trails. Every opportunity will be taken to fill those trails with logging slash in order to discourage their use.

Miles of system road in the project area will increase from 26.4 to 33.7 under Alternatives 2 and 3. (7.3 miles of non-system added) Reconstruction will be accomplished on 7.5 miles. These improvements will improve access to the area for recreationists. The road system would remain unchanged under Alternatives 1.

169 The long term, improved stand vigor, wildlife habitat, and road conditions would result in improved recreation opportunities. Hunting opportunities would likely be enhanced in the vicinity of the treated areas due to temporary concentration of game species, and improved visual conditions and accessibility. However, the hunting experience may be less enjoyable or productive for some hunters due to increased encounters with other hunters and/or wildlife disturbance resulting from increased access. Berry picking would also likely benefit from the increase in temporary openings.

The opportunity to view species associated with early successional habitat would be greatest under Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the amount of regeneration cutting. Conversely, the opportunity to view forest-interior species would be reduced. Hunting for game animals associated with temporary openings and edge would be enhanced.

RECREATION RESOURCES - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Spatial Boundary: A cumulative effects spatial boundary of the Shoal Creek project area was selected because effects of the proposed action on the recreation use will be limited to the area receiving vegetative treatment.

Temporal Boundary: A cumulative effects temporal boundary of 10 years was selected because that is considered the life of the expected effects of the Shoal Creek project activities.

These boundaries were selected because this is the extent where the cumulative effects information would be measurable and meaningful and the effects would be relevant.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions: The Shoal Creek project area features developed and dispersed recreational opportunities and trail use on National Forest Land along with floating, swimming and wade fishing in Huzzah and Courtois Creeks.. Recreation use in the area is steady and has been compatible with past silvicultural and wildlife habitat management activities. In the long term, the amount and kind of recreation use in this area is unlikely to change. No other projects other than those described in the Shoal Creek project are proposed for the next 10 years.

Private lands in the effected counties is primarily open lands (pasture or hay) and timbered. Timber harvesting has occurred on these private lands in the past and is expected to continue in the future.

Cumulative Effects Discussion The Analysis Area caters to both dispersed uses such as hunting, hiking, horseback riding, sightseeing and gathering of forest products (firewood, berries and mushrooms) and camping in highly developed campgrounds, public and private. The amount of recreation use, which is quite high in the summer months in the developed campgrounds, has been stable and is in harmony with past management practices, which have included various silvicultural harvests, prescribed fire and follow up reforestation work. Old logging slash from these past activities decays in a few years and is no longer noticeable to the casual forest user. The proposed actions (with mitigation measures as appropriate) are considered to be consistent with the ROS recreation objectives. The cumulative effect of any of the action alternatives would have minimal effects on the overall recreation setting and the potential recreation use pattern into the future.

170

A moderate pattern for dispersed recreation use has been fairly constant over the past 10 years and is not expected to change considerably. There would be no additional resource management activities in the reasonably foreseeable future in the Analysis Area. There has been some harvesting completed on private lands in the vicinity consisting mainly of removing sawtimber size trees, thinnings and land clearing. There are other in-holdings that have not recently been harvested or are reverting to overgrown fields. Many of the private lands will blend in with the government lands and are located in the major valleys as open land or pasture. The bottomlands were cleared and lend a semi-pastoral setting to the general area in conjunction with the forested slopes. It‟s been in this condition since white man moved into the area and will remain this way in the foreseeable future.

The combined effects of past actions, the proposed action and its alternatives, and action in the reasonably foreseeable future on the project areas and lands immediately adjacent are not substantial. The only effects would be to increase the quality of recreation opportunities in the future though there may be short-term negative impacts while management activities are being conducted.

VISUAL RESOURCES - EXISTING CONDITION

The Shoal Creek Project Area is characterized by moderately rolling, rocky topography with broad ridges, valleys, springs, river and creeks. It has Visual Variety Class A and B and is in Management Areas 6.3 and 2.1. The adjacent private land is both forested and in open land. Portions of the Ozark Trail are in the southeastern area of the project.

There has been management activity, both thinning and regeneration in the area over the past 20-30 years. Evidence of these past activities can be seen in the varying size of the trees in different stands. The vegetation and wildlife diversity is typical for this area. Large overstory deciduous trees, cedar, and pines as well as young trees and openings are interspersed throughout the project area. The road surfaces within the project area are blacktop and gravel with slow to medium speeds.

The Shoal Creek project area shows visual variety through naturally appearing areas along the travelways with occassional encounters of small rural communities. These travelways have conifer and a variety of hardwood trees that make a continuous tunnel effect on one or both sides of the roads or waterways, opening up to ridgetops with views over valleys covering long distances. There are pastoral and agricultural landscapes and small areas where you encounter towns or a local clustering of residences. The visitor will see hay being grown and harvested and cattle grazed on private property. Due to the changes in elevation of the terrain and the vegetation, it is not common to see most of the roadways from other areas, especially during the time of year when deciduous trees have their leaves.

The existing landscape character is one that has evolved naturally over time without glaciation. The terrain has areas of changes in elevation that are several hundred feet. There are natural rivers, creeks and springs that provide interesting sights and sounds that change with the volume and speed of the water. The viewer will encounter rock outcroppings of interesting shapes that look different during different times of day or year or depending on the weather. There are mixed vegetative species that provide seasonal color and texture in all vertical levels of the forest from the little mayapples that sprout and bloom in the spring to the large oak trees turning colors in the fall. The

171 roadways are primarily narrow blacktop surfaces that are winding and climb up and down hill. Many bird and animal species can be seen and heard throughout the year.

The existing Scenic Integrity for the project area ranges from Retention-R (appears unaltered), to Modification-M (moderately altered), for the near seen area. The frame of reference for measuring achievement of scenic integrity levels is the valued attributes of the “EXISTING” landscape character “BEING VIEWED”. In Natural or Natural appearing character this is limited to natural or natural appearing vegetative patterns and features, water, rock and landforms. Direct human alterations may be included if they have become accepted over time as positive landscape character attributes.

The Visual Quality Objective (VQO) requires that we meet integrity levels. In general a specific integrity level can be achieved by decreasing the visual contrast of the deviations being viewed by using several approaches. The following are those pertaining to this project area: 1. To repeat form, line, color, texture, pattern and scale common to the valued landscape character being viewed. If repetition is accurate and well designed the deviation may blend so well the change is not evident (HIGH). It may only borrow well enough to be noticeable but visually subordinate (MODERATE). 2. To borrow form, line, color, texture, pattern and scale from similar but different valued landscapes outside that being viewed. Because these are introduced elements from landscape character outside the one being viewed these are usually evident (MODERATE) if not dominant (LOW).

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Visual Management The Forest Plan (page 2-24) provides the following required standards: Resource management activities must meet or exceed the established VQO. Allow a short-term reduction, the equivalent of one VQO, for central hardwood regeneration or similarly impacting activities. Foreground sensitivity level 1 (fg1) or foreground sensitivity level 2 (fg2) areas must not be reduced below modification. Retain the original VQO for adjusted areas, and meet it within 20 years after initial entry into the corridor or viewshed. Residue treatment requirements must meet those specified for the original VQO. Within fg1 and fg2 areas with a VQO of retention or partial retention: . Mitigate negative visual impacts concurrently with or immediately after each phase or activity; . Complete mitigating measures for each cutting unit or project area before beginning activities in the next sequential block or project area in the same corridor or viewshed; and . Complete obligations specified by a contract or a project prescription within one year from initiation of activities for any single cutting unit or project area. Emphasize completing all work within these areas in a systematic manner within the shortest practical time.

Within fg1 and fg2 areas with a VQO of modification, the standards are the same as above except the total lapsed time from initiation of activities to completion of obligations specified

172 by a contract or a project prescription shall not exceed two years for any sale block or project area. Table V-1. Maximum residue treatment heights (above ground surface) for designated travelways and use areas by sensitivity levels (Reproduced from the Forest Plan, Table 2-6, page 2-26). Sensitivity Sensitivity Travel Sensitivit Visual Quality Level 1 Level 2 Distance Zone Speed y Level 3 Objective - VQO (Mandatory (Mandatory MPH (Optional) ) ) 0-10 18 inches Nfg 11-35 24 inches (0-300') 36-55 30 inches Retention - R N.A. N.A. 0-10 6 feet Secondary Zones 11-35 8 feet (up to 600') 36-55 8 feet 0-10 18 inches 30 inches 36 inches Nfg 11-35 24 inches 30 inches 36 inches (0-300') Partial 36-55 30 inches 36 inches 48 inches Retention - PR 0-10 8 feet 10 feet 12 feet Secondary Zones 11-35 8 feet 10 feet 12 feet (up to 600') 36-55 12 feet 12 feet 12 feet 0-10 36 inches 48 inches Nfg 11-35 N.A. 48 inches 48 inches (0-300') Modification - M 36-55 48 inches 48 inches Secondary Zones All N.A. 12 feet N.A. (up to 600') Speeds Nfg All N.A. N.A. 48 inches Maximum (0-300') Speeds Modification - MM Secondary Zones All N.A. N.A. N.A. (up to 600') Speeds

A general discussion of visual management and effects of the different types of management activities can be found in the Landscape Aesthetics “A Handbook for Scenery Management”- Forest Service-US Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Handbook Number 701, incorporated here by reference.

The Visual Quality Objective (VQO) is determined for a specific area by referring to the visual quality matrix found in the standards and guidelines for each management prescription. Each district has the variety classes and sensitivity levels mapped and the criteria for determining variety class and sensitivity level are documented in the Forest Plan, Appendix G. They may be changed based on field conditions.

The Shoal Creek Project Area has two Variety Classes- A-Distinctive and B-Common with the majority of the area within the Variety Class B. Highway 8, Highway V and the Courtois Creek north of Highway 8 and Huzzah Creek north of Highway Z are Sensitivity Level One travelways with a VQO of Retention (R) for the near foreground seen area. Courtois Creek south of Highway C and Huzzah Creek south of County Rd 726 and Highways C and Y on the south side of the project area are Level Two travelways with a VQO of Partial Retention (PR) for the near seen area.

173 Part of the Ozark Trail goes through the project area. Approximately 6 miles of the Trace Creek Section in the southeast portion is a Sensitivity Level One travelway with a VQO of Partial Retention.

All the other roads and waterways in the project area are Sensitivity Level Three travelways with a VQO of Maximum Modification. (Reference Visual Management System Map for the area). A table using travel speed, VQO, and Sensitivity Level determines the slash disposal height. (See table, LRMP IV-34). The slash disposal height requirements mitigate the negative visual impact of an activity and shorten the length of time the slash would be visible. The existing road surfaces other than the blacktop state highways are gravel or chip and seal, with an average low travel speed and little or no shoulder.

The Variety/Scenic attractiveness classifications are: Class A- Distinctive Class B-Typical Class C-Indistinctive

Class A- Distinctive Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics, and cultural features combine to provide unusual, unique, or outstanding scenic quality. These landscape have strong positive attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance.

Class B-Typical Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics, and cultural features use combine to provide ordinary or common scenic quality. These landscapes have generally positive, yet common, attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern and balance. Normally they would form the basic matrix within the ecological unit.

Class C- Indistinctive Areas where landform, vegetation patterns, water characteristics, and cultural land use have low scenic quality. Often water and rockform of any consequence are missing in class C landscapes. These landscapes have weak or missing attributes of variety, unity, vividness, mystery, intactness, order, harmony, uniqueness, pattern, and balance.

The sensitivity levels for the travelways were developed by user related concerns and expectations. Landscape visibility is subject to many essential, interconnected considerations. These include: context and experiences of viewers expected images position of observer in the landscape number of people and viewer scrutiny of the landscape caused by duration of view, viewing distance, air clarity, and visual magnitude.

174 VISUAL RESOURCES - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

All Alternatives This section describes the area of analysis for direct and indirect effects and the area evaluated for cumulative effects. The scope of the analysis will include the scenic resources within the Shoal Creek Project Area and potential visual quality effects from roads and waterways within and adjacent to the area. Because the Forest provides a wide range of recreation opportunities and scenic landscapes, there are no scenery resources or recreation activities limited or specific to the Shoal Creek Project Area. Therefore, any analysis beyond that described above will not be necessary.

Alternative 1

No sudden changes from the existing condition would be expected to occur. Barring natural disturbance, it is anticipated that the existing visual condition of the project area would slowly change. The project area as a whole would appear as a natural mature or old growth forest in the future. Over time there would be less visual variety than exists now. By leaving the diseased and damaged timber the forest visitor would not be able to see as far into stands for either wildlife viewing, seasonal viewing or hunting.

Scenery would retain a large tree look over the area with landscapes containing high numbers of dead trees or patches of dead trees and less variety as the crowding overtakes the area causing more over-story and mid-story oaks to die out.

Alternative 2

This alternative would have management activity visible primarily along Sensitivity Level 2 & 3 travelways with a VQO of Modification to Maximum Modification, intermittently spaced along the roads, with stretches of no visible activity. By harvesting the dead and declining oak species and providing an opportunity for new growth, the area would improve in visual variety. The oak species that are left would be able to grow larger diameter and larger tops providing a more park like appearance. The prescribed burning would allow for more forbs and grasses and the viewer would have the opportunity to see more wildlife by having a less obstructed view.

Partial harvests would cause an overall reduction in the number of trees per acre, create additional temporary slash on the ground, and require temporary roads or landings that would be visible from Forest Service roads. The temporary effects of harvest on visual values adjacent to these roads would be minor and stay within the VQO for that area. Thinning and removing the overstory would allow the remaining trees to grow larger and improve areas with heavy oak decline/mortality. Opening up the understory would give the forest user an opportunity to see into the woods from the roadway at a greater distance and provide an opportunity to view wildlife and varying plant material. Final harvests replace the existing stand of declining trees with a new forest. This represents a modification of visual character. The new forest character goes through open, semi-open, and brushy conditions before it returns to a wooded appearance. The initial change in appearance of partially harvested areas would be less striking but the long term appearance of the stands would remain varied compared to a new even-age forest. The long term effects of this alternative would improve the visual quality of the area compared to Alternative 1.

175 The prescribed burning would improve the grasses, forbs and shrubs in selected areas providing seasonal blooms and color. It would also reduce the build up of fuels within the urban interface. Prescribed burning will cause a temporary decrease in attractiveness while the area is black. One to two months after prescribed burning, the ground in the prescribed burn area would see new vegetation growing and reduce the black appearance of the burn units. The burning may not be complete, but leave some areas unburned with a patchy appearance, depending on the weather conditions at the time of the burn. This increased variety of vegetation within a smaller area will continue to meet the VQO.

Scenery will show young thick stands of trees and older, larger stands with an open under story giving a more park like appearance. It will allow the visitor to see further into some of the stands allowing an opportunity to view wildlife and differing vegetation such as the service berry blooming white or the redbud with it‟s purple blooms in the spring or the oak trees turning colors in the fall. Keeping the deciduous trees healthy will give a seasonal variety experience to the forest visitor.

Alternative 3

This alternative would have no burning or savanna development and would appear similar to alternative 2 in the commercial harvest emphasis. It would limit the opportunity to improve the grasses, forbs and shrubs in selected areas and reduce the seasonal bloom and color they provide. It would also not have the brief negative impact of the area appearing black for one to two months before the new vegetation regrows as a result of prescribed burning.

VISUAL RESOURCES - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Components of cumulative effects:

Spatial boundary The spatial boundary used to evaluate direct and indirect consequences and cumulative impacts is the Shoal Creek Project Area and the adjoining property private and government land for 1 mile. This area was used because it will adequately address any effects related to vegetative management on the scenery resources since this distance is usually more than can easily been seen on the ground.

Temporal boundary The temporal boundary was set to analyze 10 years prior to this decision, plus 10 years following this decision. The boundary was selected because 10 years is the normal management cycle and this is the extent the effects are measurable and meaningful.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions National Forest lands Activity on National Forest land in the spatial and temporal boundary stated above only includes the actions proposed in this project.

Reasonable foreseeable actions based on past trends in the area include timber harvest occurring on the surrounding private ownerships. Other activities on private include some pasture conversion and housing development on a percentage of the lands being harvested. The lands

176 most suitable for pasture are already in pasture; new housing developments have a close correlation to good access.

Cumulative effects discussion: Timber harvests in the past 10 years within the spatial boundary on government ownership have occurred on a total of 1,032 acres, with follow up site preparation for natural regeneration on 708 acres. This activity would not add significant cumulative effects to the visual resource.

Vegetation and ground disturbing activities such as road maintenance, and temporary road building, would be necessary to implement these alternatives. These activities would result in short-term increases of sediment. Various items such as the mitigation measures in this EA and other items found in the forest plan, and timber sale contract provisions would be implemented to minimize any short-term impacts.

In all of the alternatives, several things would remain the same. The highways & roads would continue to exist, but may be altered, improved or relocated. Natural disturbances, such as windstorm, ice storms, frosts, insects/disease would continue to affect the project area. Fire protection would continue because it is a policy of the Forest Service to protect resources from wildfire, and because the proximity of private lands & dwellings makes it imperative. The local economy would continue to rely on wood products - which would be removed from private lands as well as other public lands. Hiking, trail riding, hunting, fishing, trapping and other recreational pursuits would continue.

As prescribed in the Forest Plan, the no action alternative, over time, would not meet the assigned visual quality of Retention through Partial Retention. The action alternative would meet the assigned visual quality objectives of Retention through Maximum Modification for the project area due to seen area and protective measures. The use of site-specific protective measures that follow Forest Plan standard and guidelines as described for the action alternatives would aid in meeting those objectives. The cumulative effects of past cutting, the proposed treatments, and activities in the reasonably foreseeable future would result in a forest area that is natural appearing and meets the VQO desired future condition for the project area as identified in the Forest Plan.

The continued presence of open areas with a carpet of native grasses and wildflowers along the roadsides will provide a break from the wooded corridor. The cut areas will be laid out on the ground in a manner that will reflect natural lines and be visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

The visual effects of these proposed harvesting activities will be more noticeable to residents, hunters and other visitors using the local forest roads, especially as pedestrians. Visual effects may be more noticeable from a few places on private lands within the area, but views would primarily be of thinned areas.

Past and present actions on private and National Forest lands were considered in forming the affected environment of the area as described above. No anticipated future actions are known that would be inconsistent with the visual quality objectives for the analysis area which are primarily partial retention and modification.

177 HERITAGE RESOURCES - EXISTING CONDITION

Cultural resource inventory surveys in the Shoal Creek project area have focused on those stands and areas in which activities are proposed that have the potential to affect archaeological sites, as outlined below (Definition of Effects and the Areas of Potential Effects). Approximately 11,275 acres in the project area have been completely surveyed for ground-disturbing activities, and an additional 1,140 acres were surveyed for prescribed burning.

With the exceptions described below, cultural resource surveys have been completed in all stands in which activities have been proposed in the various alternatives that have the potential to affect historic properties. A listing of the reports documenting the various surveys in the Shoal Creek area, as well as a map showing the locations of these cultural resource surveys may be found in Hill (2007).

Those stands in which either ground disturbing activities or prescribed burning are proposed that have not been surveyed for cultural resources include the following:

1. Stands with Prior Harvest: A number of stands have been harvested in past in which activities are proposed in the two action alternatives. The harvest cuts in these stands were principally either clearcuts or savanna cuts.

These stands were not surveyed at this time because (1) activities are not expected to effect any sites that might be located in these stands to any greater extent than the earlier timber harvest has done already, and (2) survey in the densely vegetated stands is inefficient and generally ineffective.

2. Temporary Roads: A number of temporary road locations have been included in the surveys conducted in the Shoal Creek project area to date. It is not expected at this time that additional temporary roads will be needed. If, however, such roads are needed, cultural resource surveys and consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer will be completed prior to Project implementation (Mitigation Measure CR3).

The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) proposes that no management activities take place within the project area. The two Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) propose a set of project activities in the various stands in the Shoal Creek compartments. With respect to this project, the two alternatives are very similar in the activities they propose. Under both alternatives, a variety of activities are proposed, and include burn units that total 7,199 acres and proposed timber harvest activities that affect a minimum of 12,247 acres. The Determination of Effect presented in this report takes into consideration the effect of the activities proposed in all action alternatives on the archaeological sites.

Affected Environment

One hundred and seventeen (117) archaeological sites have been identified to date in, or adjacent to, the Shoal Creek project area. Of these sites, thirty-three (33) contain evidence for prehistoric occupation, seventy-three (73) contain evidence for historic period occupation, and eleven (11) contain evidence for both occupation types. Information on the cultural sequence and on both the historic and prehistoric backgrounds for the Shoal Creek project area can be found in Hill (2007). This report also contains summary information on the archaeological sites, as well as maps

178 showing the locations of the cultural resources. The Site Inventory Forms (on file with the Mark Twain National Forest) provide more detailed descriptions of each of the archaeological sites.

Most of the prehistoric sites in the project area appear to be small, essentially surface, or very shallow, scatter of lithic artifacts. This type of site represents an ephemeral, short-term camp or work site. The cave/shelter sites and larger habitation sites, in contrast, are likely to contain material spanning a large time period, and were probably repeatedly used throughout prehistory. It is likely that these sites date from the very early prehistoric Early Archaic stages to the much later Woodland stage. A specific concern relating to prehistoric sites in the Shoal Creek project area is the extensive looting which has occurred at these sites. Most, if not all, of the caves, shelters, and burial cairns present in the area have been vandalized.

As with the prehistoric archaeological record, the historic record of the Potosi area is also quite diverse. Historic sites found in the area range from small homesteads to industrial sites associated with extensive mining activities that occurred in the region since the late 18th century. The historic period sites and features include farmsteads and rural domestic dwellings; historic fields; features such as stock tanks and stone piles associated with historic use of this area for farming, homesteading, and livestock grazing. Also included amongst the historic sites recorded within the project area are the archaeological remains of the town of Palmer. Palmer contains the remains of homes, farmsteads, stores, the lead furnace, and the associated mines. Data on the ages of the occupations at the various historic sites appear to date from as early as the latter part of the eighteenth century or very early twentieth century.

Preliminary investigation of the archaeological sites directly associated with the town of Palmer suggests that these sites are eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as an historic district. Further research is warranted to affirm this assessment; however, until such time that additional information can be obtained, all of the sites directly associated with the town of Palmer and the operations of its parent company (the Parole Mining and Mercantile Company) will be managed as having meet both of the following two NRHP significance criteria as foundation in 36 CFR 60.6:

1. Criterion A: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history;

2. Criterion D: That have yielded, or the potential to yield, information that is important to prehistory or history.

With a few exceptions, investigations to date at most of the other archaeological sites are presently insufficient to fully evaluate them again the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) significance criteria as found in 36 CFR 60. These archaeological sites, therefore, are being managed as unevaluated properties that appear to meet one or both of the NRHP significance criteria listed above. These sites are afforded protection from project activities that may harm the sites in the same manner that eligible sites are protected.

HERITAGE RESOURCES – DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

An “Effect” to a cultural resource is defined as “…alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register.” [36 CFR 800.16(i)].

179 An Adverse Effect is found “when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property‟s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.”[36 CFR 800.5(a)(1); see subsection (a)(2)]. Effects to cultural resources may be either Direct or Indirect.

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for a given project is defined as “… the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties… The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” [36 CFR 800.16(d)].

Direct Effects With respect to the Shoal Creek project, direct effects are those that will occur during project implementation. These effects can occur during implementation of forest management activities. In essence, any activity that has the potential to disturb the ground has the potential to directly affect archaeological sites. Prescribed burning may also directly affect archaeological and architectural sites not only by construction of firelines with heavy equipment, but also by damage and/or destruction of cultural features and artifacts by the fire itself.

Specific activities outlined in the Shoal Creek project alternatives that have the potential to directly affect cultural resources, and therefore, are considered to be undertakings for the purpose of this project include the following:

Forest Management and Wildlife Habitat Management

-Commercial timber harvest -Construction of landings, temporary roads, skid trails -Construction of vernal ponds -Prescribed burning

Watershed Health

-Maintenance of Forest Service Roads that are currently maintained and where ground disturbance takes place outside existing road prisms and ditches -Road reconstruction depending on the specific nature of the reconstruction -Replacement of culverts at Town Branch and Courtois Creek

Biological and Geological Protection

-Cave Gate Construction -Streambank Stabilization along Courtois and Huzzah Creeks -Construction of barriers around fens

The APEs for the above-listed Shoal Creek project activities are those geographic areas in which the ground disturbing activities will take place.

Activities proposed that do not have the potential to affect cultural resources, and therefore, are not considered to be undertakings for the purpose of this project in the following:

180 Forest Management and Wildlife Habitat Management

-Designation of Old Growth -Pre-commercial thinning -Noxious weed control with herbicide

Watershed Health

-Road closure using non-ground disturbing -activities, such as the placement of large boulders or gates across road -Maintenance of existing ponds

In general, the effects on the cultural resources of the various activities that are proposed for this project are expected to be as follows:

1 In those stands and project areas where no historic properties (archaeological sites meeting National Register criteria) are present, proposed project activities have No Potential to Affect cultural resources.

2 In those stands and other project areas in which ground disturbing activities would be carried out as listed above, (see Definition of Effects and Areas of Potential Effect), where historic and/or unevaluated properties are present, and where Site Avoidance is feasible and is implemented, the proposed project activities are expected to have No Effect on cultural resources.

3 In those stands in which prescribed burning would be carried out, where historic and/or unevaluated properties are present, and where the mitigation measures described in Mitigation Measure CR1 are applied, the proposed project activities are expected to have No Adverse Effect on cultural resources.

4 Where archaeological sites occur along routes of access (such as old woods roads that have not been maintained) and where site avoidance is not feasible, the Mitigation Measure CR4 will be applied with the expectation that a mitigation plan can be developed to result in a finding of No Adverse Effect on cultural resources.

Indirect Effects In the case of the Shoal Creek Project Area, increased site vulnerability is expected to be the principal indirect effect to cultural resources resulting from proposed activities. With application of appropriate mitigation measures (principally Site Avoidance), it is not expected that the proposed project activities will increase visitor use in those areas in which archaeological sites are located. It is not expected, therefore, that implementation of the proposed activities will have indirect effects on the cultural resources.

HERITAGE RESOURCES - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The laws and regulations pertaining to heritage resources are site specific in that the effects being considered are evaluated in regards to their effect on each particular heritage site. An adverse

181 effect is considered to have occurred to a heritage site when the characteristics that may make that site eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places have been altered (36 CFR 800.5[a][b]). Therefore, cumulative effects to heritage resources are considered to be the incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on each specific heritage site. In the case of the proposed burn, these cumulative effects would consist of the combined outcome of the various potential direct and indirect effects discussed above, along with any effects from past and future activities in the project area. Past activities that have occurred in the area include mining, farming and land clearing for agriculture, timber harvest, and road and trail construction. At the present time, the anticipated future use of the area consists primarily of recreation use of trails by hikers, horses, and mountain bikes. None of the alternatives considered would affect heritage resource sites.

It is not expected that any of the proposed project activities, with implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, will adversely any of the eligible and unevaluated archaeological sites, therefore, it is not expected that there will be any cumulative adverse effects to the cultural resources. It is expected that there will be no change in the condition of the cultural resources over the existing condition.

Consistency with the Forest Plan

Site avoidance is the preferred mitigation action pursuant to the 2005 Forest Plan, Chapter 2, pages 26-27 [also FSM 2361.21(2)]. Avoidance of cultural resources will be understood to require the retention of such properties in place and their protection from effects resulting from the undertaking [MOU 2002, Section II, H (2a, 2b)].

Consistency with Laws, Regulations, and Handbooks

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4 and 5, consultation with the Missouri State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been completed with respect to the expected effects on the cultural resources of the various actions proposed in the alternatives for the Shoal Creek project area. The Missouri SHPO concurs that cultural resource surveys for the project area meet current standards and also concurs with the Forest‟s determination both of National Register significance and eligibility for the various archaeological sites and of the expected project effects on significant sites (copies of correspondence relating to this consultation are on file with the Mark Twain National Forest).

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - EXISTING CONDITION

Forest Service system roads that are needed for long-term access are reconstructed and maintained to engineering standard. All unneeded roads under Forest Service jurisdiction should be decommissioned. Priority roads for decommissioning shall be those roads that are not needed for long-term access, pose a threat to public safety, or where use is contributing to poor watershed conditions (Forest Plan, Unneeded Roads, page 2-42).

The Shoal Creek Project Area is bounded by the Potosi district administrative boundary to the north; by the Courtois Creek, Washington County‟s Brazil Road, and Route Z to the east, Routes C and V to the south; and by Huzzah Creek to the west. The project area is located within a 2.1 management area. The 2.1 Management Prescription provides for a roaded natural recreation experience within the general forest environment.

182 Missouri State Highways 8 and 49 provide primary access to the Shoal Creek project area. Roads under state jurisdiction normally move people from one major point to another within the state and traverse a large part of the state. Access to the interior of the project area is provided by: Missouri secondary highways C, V, Y, and Z; Crawford, Iron, and Washington County roads; and Mark Twain National Forest system roads. These roads provide access to particular regions within the project area. State highways are paved to handle large amounts of commercial truck traffic and high volumes of passenger car traffic. County and Forest Service roads generally have an aggregate or native surface, are used by passenger and high clearance vehicles, and generally carry considerably less traffic than state highways. Communities within or nearby the analysis area include Berryman, Bixby, Cherryville, Davisville, Dillard, Elayer, Steelville, and Viburnum. These communities depend on the above State highways and county roads for their access and transportation needs. Other large blocks of publicly managed lands, such as Dillard Mill State Park, Huzzah Conservation Area, and Indian Trail Conservation Area, are located outside the Shoal Creek project area boundary. However, the access road to Huzzah Conservation Area is located within the Shoal Creek Project Area. Privately owned land is scattered throughout the project area, the majority of which is accessed by private roads. Forest non-system roads access several private in-holdings. Some of the non- system roads are managed under a special use permit. Additional non-system roads have been identified as potential candidates for special use permits.

Roads under Forest Service jurisdiction account for the majority (42%) of roads managed by public agencies, followed by the counties and state, within the project area. The share of roads managed by the Forest Service in the Shoal Creek Project Area correlates closely with the percentage of land (49%) it manages in the area. No roads in the analysis area have shared ownership. State highways are maintained by the State of Missouri. Crawford, Iron, and Washington County maintain roads under their jurisdiction. The Forest Service maintains National Forest system roads. The Missouri Department of Conservation maintains access to the Huzzah Conservation Area just north of the project area. All other roads in the analysis area are under private jurisdiction with the individual landowner being responsible for maintenance. The project area contains 30 National Forest System roads, with a combined length of 26.4 miles. These roads vary in length from 0.1 mile to over 2 miles. The majority of these roads dead-end within the national forest. Motorized vehicles may be operated on the system roads, as long as they are in accordance with State traffic laws. National Forest system roads are developed and maintained for long-term access and as such provide primary access into the project area for recreation, administration, and commodity production. National Forest system roads within the project area are generally located on ridge tops, have been constructed to Forest Service engineering standards, are maintained and signed in accordance with their maintenance and traffic service levels, and are considered adequate for use under normal operating conditions. Any management activity which increases use or considerably alters normal road conditions or traffic patterns, may be mitigated with appropriate warning and precautionary signing. Additional road maintenance may be required to safely accommodate heavier volumes of traffic. Roads may also require reconstruction in order to allow commercial vehicle access for resource management activities.

183 In addition to system roads, there are non-system roads on National Forest land in the project area. There are approximately 79 miles of non-system roads within the project area. Non-system roads are roads on Forest Service managed land that aren‟t needed for long-term access. Many have been in place since the early 1900's when the area was first harvested for timber. These roads have continued to be used for recreational activities, timber harvesting, and other resource management activities. Many of these roads have been decommissioned, either intentionally or by discontinued use/natural forces, but a number of roads have remained open because of continued motorized use. The condition of these roads is usually fair to poor because little or no improvements or maintenance work has ever been done. Those located on ridge tops are relatively stable, except for areas that become soft when wet. Those located on side slopes or riparian areas are less stable and may become entrenched, rutted, or washed out. Some of the non-system roads access private property and are under a special use permit (SUP). A special use permit authorizes the permit holder to use a non-system road for access to private property. The road is still under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, but the permit holder is solely responsible for performing any necessary road maintenance. Currently, there are over 23 miles of non-system road under special use permit within the project area. Other non-system roads have been identified as candidates for special use permits. The condition of SUP roads vary. Those SUP roads that access a primary residence are more likely to be maintained for low- clearance vehicles (passenger cars), while those used to reach property primarily used for agricultural or recreational purposes are generally maintained for use by high-clearance vehicles (trucks and SUVs). All roads that are open, including both system and non-system, receive some degree of vehicular traffic. Use occurs primarily on weekends for recreational driving, hunting, firewood gathering, and other recreational pursuits. A majority of non-system roads within the project area are us ed frequently by unauthorized high clearance vehicles and ATVs. The forest supervisor‟s forest- wide closure order prohibits motorized use on non-system roads, without written authorization.

ATV operators with a valid Crawford, Iron, or Washington County ATV permit may use the network of County and open system roads within that particular county. Mixed-use of the roads by licensed trucks and cars and permitted ATVs is a common occurrence.

These proposed road activities would ensure that a safe and reliable transportation system for both public use and forest management activities is provided. The proposed road activities would reduce impaired watershed conditions caused by deteriorating system and non-system roads within the analysis area. In addition, specialized habitats, such as springs, fens, seeps, and sinkholes would be protected by eliminating motorized access on unneeded roads.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

The majority of road system needed for resource management activities and public access is in place. The need for road reconstruction, maintenance, or decommission is based on proposed resource management projects, management area objectives, and the need for resource protection.

Roads would be reconstructed to the lowest standard necessary for the intended use. Established Forest Service engineering standards would be used to design and build the road. Road reconstruction activities may include such items as clearing and grubbing, installation of new drainage features, and adding aggregate surfacing materials. The intent of any road

184 reconstruction is to provide long-term access into an area with the least disturbance possible. Part of the "least disturbance" objective is to ensure resource damage does not occur in the future after reconstruction. Road reconstruction increases the amount of vegetation and soil disturbance in the short term while providing long-term load bearing strength and stabilization. Short-term soil disturbance increases because of ditching and drainage outlet construction along most of the length of the road.

Road maintenance activities are preventative measures intended to stabilize the existing road while minimizing soil and vegetative disturbance. Periodic road maintenance (such as additional surface material, surface blading, improving drainage features, removing brush from right-of- ways, and maintaining culverts) helps ensure continued access into the project area. Routine maintenance extends the useful life of the road, reduces driving surface material erosion, reduces wear and tear on vehicles, and provides a safe roadway for traveling on.

Existing miles of road within the project area will be reduced as unneeded roads are decommissioned and returned to forest production. Road decommissioning eliminates motorized vehicular travel and returns the roadway back to a natural state. The result of road decommissioning is restored hydrology, a reduction in soil erosion and sedimentation, and the growth of new vegetation where the road once existed. Decommissioning may include one or more of the following activities; blocking access with berms, boulders or slash; removing man- made features such as ditches and culverts; and revegetation. Signing may also be used to prohibit motorized travel. Sections of these roads that are experiencing erosion or have a high potential for erosion due to steep gradients, would be water-barred and revegetated. Priority roads for decomissioning are those causing the greatest resource damage, such as erosion, and/or constituting a risk to public safety.

A listing of Forest Service roads, their attributes, and recommended management activities are shown in the project file.

Alternative 1: No changes would be made to the existing 26.4 miles of National Forest System roads within the project area. Routine maintenance on approximately 18.6 miles of system road would continue. These maintained roads would continue to provide access for both Forest Service management activities and public enjoyment of the area.

No reconstruction of system roads would occur. Without reconstruction, these roads would continue to deteriorate and become less safe to travel upon. Travel would be impeded due to rutting and vegetation growing within or next to the roadway. Without aggregate surfacing, the roads would continue to be a source of soil erosion and sedimentation into nearby streams. Lack of surfacing would exacerbate rutting and mudholes when vehicles are driven on saturated soils within the road. Trees, bushes, and grasses growing along or within the road would limit sight distance, scratch the sides of vehicles that brush against them, and smack windshields. As the condition of these roads deteriorates, they become more and more unsafe to drive upon.

Unneeded roads, such as non-system roads, would not be decommissioned. The unneeded roads would likely experience a continuation of unauthorized motor vehicle traffic. Many of the unneeded roads would continue to experience soil erosion and rutting, thereby increasing sedimentation into the local watersheds. This alternative would not foreclose authorization of the current 23.6 miles of special use permits or future special use permits for non-system roads used to access private property within the

185 project area.

Table T-1 shows the mileage of roads and percent by total miles by government jurisdiction within the Shoal Creek Project Area for Alternative 1. The majority of roads are managed by the Forest Service, followed by Crawford, Iron, and Washington County, and the State of Missouri. The primary surface type for each type of road is also shown. Private roads are also located within the analysis area, but because they aren‟t located on public lands or managed as public roads, they are not included in the table.

Table T-1 Mileage of roads and percent by total miles by jurisdiction Alt. 1 Shoal Creek Area Roads Total Surface Type Percentage of Total Alternative 1 Miles Roads Within the Shoal Creek Project (rounded) (By Jurisdiction) Area National Forest: System Roads 26 Aggregate or native 10% Non-system Roads 79 Aggregate or native 32% County Roads 89 Aggregate or native 36% State Highways 51 Paved 21% MDC Roads 2 Aggregate 1% Total Road Miles: 247 miles

Alternatives 2 and 3: Routine maintenance of approximately 18.6 miles of system road would continue. The effects of road maintenance would be the same as in alternative 1. In addition, approximately 7.8 miles of system road would be reconstructed. Road reconstruction would improve motorized access to the Shoal Creek project area. The reconstructed roads could be safely used by high-clearance and/or commercial vehicles, as the drivers would not encounter mudholes, ruts, or tree limbs whacking their vehicles. Sight distance along the roads would be improved. The reconstructed roads would have less erosion, and thus less sedimentation, due to their hardened driving surface. The area‟s roaded natural experience would be enhanced as well. Approximately 7.3 miles of non-system road would be converted to system road and reconstructed. Designating the road as a system road authorizes it for public motorized access, complimenting the roaded natural recreation setting. Reconstruction of the roads would have same benefits as described above.

Approximately 48 miles of non-system road would be decommissioned. Motorized use on the unneeded roads would be eliminated. Decommissioning would return the land back into suitable areas for natural resource production (wood products, wildlife habitat, forage, etc). These unneeded roads would no longer be a source of soil erosion and sedimentation. Numerous non-system roads are currently managed under special use permits for access to private land (totaling approximately 23.6 miles). Other non-system roads have been identified as potential candidates to be managed under special use permit. If it is determined access is not necessary or no longer needed for any of these roads, they will be decommissioned also.

186 Table T-2 shows the mileage of roads and percent by total miles by government jurisdiction within the Shoal Creek Project Area for alternatives 2 and 3. The majority of roads would be managed by the Crawford, Iron, and Washington Counties, followed by the Forest Service, and the State of Missouri. The percentage of roads under Forest Service jurisdiction would drop from 42% to 29%. The primary surface type for each type of road is also shown. Private roads are also located within the analysis area, but because they aren‟t located on public lands or managed as public roads, they are not included in the table.

Table T-2 displays the mileage and percentage of road by jurisdiction Alt. 2 & 3: Shoal Creek Area Roads Total Surface Type Percentage of Total Alternatives 2 & 3 Miles Roads Within the (rounded) Shoal Creek Project (By Jurisdiction) Area National Forest: System Roads 34 Aggregate or native 17% Non-system Roads 24 Aggregate or native 12% (Special use permit) County Roads 89 Aggregate 44% State Highways 51 Paved 26% MDC Roads 2 Aggregate 1% Total Road Miles: 200 miles

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM - CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The Shoal Creek Project Area is the cumulative effects transportation area boundary. Cumulative effects for roads will be analyzed for the next 5 years because government (federal, state, and local) transportation planning is normally limited to a five year period. Government road-related budgets are also difficult to predict beyond a couple of years. The Shoal Creek Roads Analysis Report evaluated system roads assigned a Maintenance Level 2 and non-system roads within the project area. These are the types of roads more readily impacted by project actions. The Shoal Creek Project Area was selected as the appropriate analysis boundary to give the Responsible Official the site-specific context dealing with roads to determine the ultimate effects of the Shoal Creek Project actions. The area involved in the roads analysis process is described in further detail in the Shoal Creek Roads Analysis Process (RAP), incorporated by reference in the Shoal Creek Project Environmental Assessment. Maintenance Level 3 and 4 roads were addressed in the January 2003 Forest-level Road Analysis Report and their management recommendations have been incorporated for National Forest system roads 2011, 2252, 2392 and 2878 in the Shoal Creek project. The Forest Plan calls for decommissioning unneeded roads, with priority given to those roads that pose the greatest risk to public safety or where use is causing unacceptable resource damage, such as soil erosion. This would be applicable to alternatives 2 and 3 and is discussed in the Shoal

187 Creek (RAP) Report. When needed, an existing non-system road may be used to temporarily access project activities, but would then be decommissioned when such activities are done. This would reduce the amount of new road construction needed and the amount of associated sediment movement. Non-system roads have been identified as current or potential candidates for special use permits. If it is determined that any of these roads provide primary access to private property, then they will not be decommissioned, and will be managed as special use permit roads. The private individual who is issued the special use permit will be responsible for any road maintenance that is needed. The management activities proposed under this environmental analysis will result in some soil disturbance (See the discussion of roads impact on soil under Soils). Road decommissioning is critical in bringing the erosion rate down to pre-harvest and pre-construction levels. Reconstructed and/or maintained roads could be expected to result in ½ to ¼ less erosion and sediment using the Water Erosion Prediction Project or WEPP, in comparison to roads which do not meet Forest Service engineering design standards. Road reconstruction improves roads to engineering standard, while maintenance returns roads to engineering standard. In addition, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, such as; revegetation of disturbed soils or ground operating restrictions, ensure the integrity of the roads is maintained. Within the project area, non-system roads have been used by ORVs and ATVs. This has resulted in significant amounts of erosion. In the long run, decommissioning these roads can result in reduced erosion in the future, especially if erosion control measures are used. (Switalski et al 2004) Existing sedimentation due to precipitation on compacted surfaces acting as extensions of the stream system would decrease over time as the road beds seed in from adjacent vegetation. WEPP simulation runs give values for erosion and sediment leaving the buffer for native surface roads. Roads which were used in the past will likely be used again. Current road maintenance budgets have only been adequate for maintenance level 3 and 4 roads. Some maintenance level 2 roads are being maintained through commercial activities associated with using the roads. Road maintenance deposits collected through commercial activities have been used for surface blading and roadside mowing and limbing. In some cases, commercial users of roads have performed road maintenance activities themselves, such as; surface blading, removal of roadside vegetation, or replacement of road surfacing materials. Periodic road maintenance activities would provide a safe and efficient transportation system within the Shoal Creek project area. Without regular maintenance, future road reconstruction would likely be needed on system roads within 10-20 years. Past transportation system activities, current proposed actions, and reasonably foreseeable future activities do not pose any appreciable cumulative effects on motorized access to or use of the project area or its vicinity for all alternatives. According to the State Transportation Improvement Plan for 2007-2011, Highway 8 is scheduled for an asphalt overlay and paved shoulders from Steelville to Route AA in Washington County, in 2008. Thus, the entire section of Highway 8 within the Shoal Creek project area will be improved. It is expected that the vast majority of road activities, by Crawford, Iron, and Washington County, would be limited to routine maintenance of their roads, such as surface blading, culvert cleaning, and aggregate surface replacement. However, if the two low-water crossings are replaced on Washington County‟s Brazil road at Stringtown Branch (T36N, R1W, section 13) and at Courtois Creek (T36N, R1W, section 8) with concrete box culverts or bottomless arc culverts, these improvements would make crossing the streams by vehicular traffic safer. The replacement crossings would be designed to pass a larger volume of water than the current structures provide and reduce the frequent overtopping of the crossings during periods of heavy or prolonged

188 rainfall. These improved stream crossings would reduce the frequency and duration for which the crossings would be submerged during flood events, and thus reduce the likelihood of a vehicle using either one of these crossings from being swept away by water. The paved surfaces of State Highways 8, 49, C, V, Y and Z eliminate surface erosion, but present impacts from winter salt and petroleum product residues from the road surface. Residues come from the paving material itself (asphalt) and leaks from automobiles, trucks, farm machinery and other gas-powered vehicles. Trash dumping along Forest Service roads is a current problem, especially along system roads 2382 and 2711. The trash includes household garbage, appliances, tires, and other hard to dispose of items. The sight and smell of garbage detracts from the roaded natural recreation experience. In addition, some garbage items may be hazardous and could possibly harbor pests, such as rats, mice and mosquitoes. National Forest System roads and county roads both present the same potential source of fine material via erosion that impacts water resources as sediment. Aggregate roads are perpetual sources of fine materials (dust and small particles), with the potential to become sediment in nearby streams. An aggregate road will produce a minimum amount of sediment when the road is used infrequently during wet periods, heavy truck traffic is limited, maintenance is performed on a routine basis, and any type of off-road use that disturbs the road is prohibited. Since Forest Service system roads are normally built and maintained to a higher standard than most private roads (with the possible exception of private roads that directly access homes and are driven by low-clearance passenger vehicles), private roads would be expected to have a greater impact on stream sedimentation from erosion of their road surface materials.

The preceding analysis was based on the following resources: 1) The January 2003 Mark Twain National Forest Roads Analysis Report (Maintenance Level 3 & 4 Roads); 2) GIS spatial data and maps; 3) Tabular road data in INFRA; 4) Missouri State Transportation Improvement Plan 2007- 2011; and 5) Monitoring by personal observation. Information was also borrowed from the soils analysis using the Water Erosion Prediction Model (FSWEPP; Elloit et al 2000).

SOCIAL EFFECTS Environmental Justice Existing Condition Presidential Executive Order No. 12898 requires Federal agencies to respond to the issue of environmental justice by “identifying and addressing disproportionally high and adverse human activities on minority and low income populations. According to 2000 Census data, there are 56,845 residents in Crawford, Iron, and Washington counties which cover the Shoal Creek project Area. The data in Table E-1 summarizes the general characteristics of this population group.

2000 Census data (Table E-1) The Ozark Ouachita Highlands Assessment (OOHA) found that thirty-seven counties in the Assessment area experience “persistent poverty”. The racial and ethnic composition of the Assessment area changed little between 1970 and 1990, remaining predominately white (91 percent). Overall, educational levels are relatively low in the assessment area. In non- metropolitan counties in 1990, 37 percent of adults 25 years and older had not completed high school (or its equivalent), and 13 percent of teenagers (age 16 to 19) were high school dropouts. OOHA area workers, especially those living in the non-metropolitan counties with national forest lands, face higher unemployment rates than the nation as a whole. Workers living in non-

189 metropolitan counties with Mark Twain National Forest lands face the highest incidence of full- time, but seasonal work. The overall level of socioeconomic well-being in the OOHA area is relatively low. Median household incomes in the area were $19,208 in 1989, compared to $20,832 in Missouri, and $30,057 in the nation.

Poverty levels for counties in the project area are: Crawford County, 16.3%, Iron County, 19%, and Washington County, 20.8%. The minority population for the counties in the project area is less than 5%. Missouri consists of 12.2% below the poverty level and 15% minority. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census information, minority population in the Shoal Creek Project area is less than that of the State of Missouri. The poverty level is higher than the rest of the state.

Table E-1 Crawford Iron Washington Total Population 56,845 22,804 10,697 23,344 Gender Male 11,245 5,206 12,036 Female 11,559 5,491 11,308

Ethnic Group White 22,408 10,348 22,286 Black 33 167 578 American Indian/Alaska 99 36 155 Native Other 264 146 325

Age Under 5 years 1,472 625 1,556 18-64 years 13,265 6,201 14,412 65+ years 3,492 1,759 2,630

Education Level High School Grad or 5,897 2,527 5,233 GED College or Professional 1,269 604 1,111 Degree

Median Household $30,860 $26,080 $27,112 Income

Employment Management & 1,862 987 1,562 Professional Service 1,522 838 1,673 Farming/Forestry/Fishing 107 82 100

190 Environmental Justice - Direct and Indirect Effects on Low Income and Minority Communities

Alternative 1 No project activities would occur, so fewer employment opportunities would exist compared to the other action alternatives.

Alternative 2 and 3 The local economy and local employment opportunities would benefit through logging activities, wood processing material, woods labor activities, and various contract work that my be conducted under the proposed actions. Environmental Justice Cumulative Effects Spatial boundary The cumulative effects spatial boundary of Crawford, Iron, and Washington counties was selected for Environmental Justice because these are the three counties in Missouri in which the Shoal Creek project is located.

Temporal boundary The cumulative effects temporal boundary of 10 years was selected because that is the life of the expected effects of the Shoal Creek project activities. This is the extent that the effects are measurable and meaningful in relationship to Environmental Justice.

Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions Other management projects have occurred or are planned within Crawford, Iron, and Washington counties on National Forest System lands in the past 10 years and planned for the next 10 years. Proposed future projects on National Forest lands that would occur in the cumulative effects boundary have been discussed elsewhere in this document.

The proposed action and other alternatives do not pose a disproportionately high and adverse environmental, human health, economic or social effect on the counties. The location of the Shoal Creek project area was not chosen to adversely affect any group or segment of the population. Effects on Consumers, Civil Rights, Minority Groups and Women Forest Service activities must be conducted in a discrimination free atmosphere. Contract work that may be generated from this document would include specific clauses offering civil rights protection. The Forest Service would make a concerted effort to enforce these policies. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, Environmental Justice as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), calls for consideration of the environmental, health, and economic effects on minority and low-income areas including the consumption patterns for fish and wildlife.

191 CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Preparers and Contributors The following Federal, State, local agencies, tribes, and individuals were consulted during the development of this environmental assessment:

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, MO

State Historic Preservation Office, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO

Missouri Department of Conservation, Wildlife Division, Columbia, MO

Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO

Tribes Listed on the Regional Tribal Contact List (Project Record, Folder A)

192 ID TEAM MEMBERS: Resource Name Expertise Experience Professional Discipline

Tom McGuire NEPA, Team Leader 13 years B.S. - Wildlife Conservation and Management

Amy Sullivan Transportation Planner 13 years B.S. - Civil Engineering

Joe Walker Forest Management/Recreation 28 years B.S. - Forest Management M.S. - Forest Measurements

Kris Hill Heritage Resources 7 years M.A. - Anthropology

Chris Hopfinger Silviculture 5 years B.S. – Forestry Resource Management

Chris Woods Fire Management 12years Fire Behavior & Prescribed Fire Effects

Marge Van Praag Visual Management 13 years B.L.A. - Landscape Architecture

Larry Furniss Fish and Aquatic Resources 12 years M.S. - Wildlife, minor in Fisheries

Langston Simmons Soils 3 years B.S. – Ag. Sciences with concentration in Soils

Ron Moon GIS 10 years A.A.S. Forestry

Lynda Mills Wildlife Biology 16 years B.S. Wildlife Management

193

CHAPTER 5 APPENDICES

Appendix A Biological Assessment and Sensitive Species Biological Evaluation

Appendix B Alternative Treatment Tables

Appendix C Maps

Appendix D Biological Diversity

Appendix E Herbicide Information

2 Appendix A Biological Assessment and Sensitive Species Biological Evaluation

3

Appendix B Alternative Treatment Tables

2

Appendix C Maps

3

Appendix D Biological Diversity

4

Appendix E Herbicide Information

5