Aquatic Resources Working Papers

AQUATIC RESOURCES WORKING PAPERS

PART 1. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT • Pages 2-21

PART 2. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE, MANAGEMENT INDICATOR, AND ILLINOIS STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED AQUATIC SPECIES • Pages 22-65

PART 3. AQUATIC SECTION FOR FEIS • Pages 66-84

1 Shawnee National Forest Hiker/Equestrian Trails Designation Project

Specialist Report – Fisheries

By: Mike Welker

March 1, 2004; Edited--August 24, 2004; December 20, 2004; July 25, 2004; February 8, 2006.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This report provides an overview of the aquatic resources within the Big Grand Pierre, Eagle, Lusk, and Upper Bay watersheds (Figure 1). In combination, these four watersheds contain a significant portion of the total stream resources on the Shawnee National Forest. The purpose of this report is to describe the existing aquatic environment, so that potential effects from the trail designation system can be thoroughly investigated.

All four watersheds are located on the east side of the Shawnee National Forest. Stream habitat within these watersheds has generally been described as good to excellent (Hite et al. 1990; Shasteen et al. 2003). Not surprisingly, streams within these watershed support diverse fish, mussel, and crustacean communities.

Figure 1. Area map of the Trail Designation Project, showing the four affected watersheds.

2 Past practices that have affected stream habitat and aquatic communities include a reduction in vegetative stream corridors and increased sedimentation from agricultural activities (Hite et al. 1990). During the mid 1800’s much of the forested land in southern Illinois was cleared for agricultural production, resulting in an increase in sediment load to streams. Conversely, since the mid 1900’s much of this land has been reforested, leading to a reduction in sediment load. Although reforestation has improved conditions, these streams continue to be affected by past management practices as they revert back to more stable and natural states (Kandl 1987).

Present management practices affecting stream habitat and fish communities include agricultural activity on private land and recreational activity on the Shawnee National Forest. Erosion resulting from pastures and row crop production is evident on lands within these watersheds (Hite et al. 1990) and influences downstream habitat on the Shawnee National Forest. Likewise, dispersed recreation on roads and trails (including hiker, equestrian, and all terrain vehicle traffic) can also impact aquatic resources (Widowski and Fitch 2000). Although recreational use on the National Forest does have an impact, activities adjacent to and surrounding the Forest likely exert the greatest impact.

At present, there are 380 trail crossings on intermittent and perennial streams within the four watersheds. Erosion from footpaths and recreational trails for foot, horse, or motorized traffic can have localized effects on stream habitat via sedimentation (Waters 1995). The effect of sediment on stream habitat and aquatic communities is well documented. Sedimentation decreases pool habitat, lessens available spawning substrate for fish, inhibits macroinvertebrate production, reduces food availability and feeding activity for fish, and may interrupt spawning and reduce spawning success (Waters 1995; Bryan and Rutherford 1995). Sedimentation and associated changes in habitat have been shown to negatively affect warmwater fish communities (Waters 1995). Although many warmwater fishes are adapted to more turbid conditions, a great variation exists among these species in tolerance to suspended sediment and some species may be lost from an otherwise viable fish community (Waters 1995). Sedimentation has also been shown to have negative effects on mussel and crustacean communities and declines in relative abundance of species have been linked to increased siltation (Page 1985; Cummings and Mayer 1992).

The following section describes stream habitat conditions and the status of aquatic communities within the watersheds, followed by a status summary for Forest-listed species. Forest-listed species include State of Illinois Threatened and Endangered, Regional Forester Sensitive, and Shawnee Forest Management Indicator. There are no Federal threatened or endangered species within any of the four watersheds. A complete list of aquatic species by watershed is provided in Appendix 1.

Big Grand Pierre Creek

Big Grand Pierre Creek originates in the southern end of the Garden of the Gods Wilderness area near the town of Herod. Larger tributaries include Gibbons, Hart, Little Grand Pierre, Rose, and Simmons Creeks. Within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage there are

3 55 miles of intermittent streams and 20 miles of perennial streams. At present there are 60 system and non-system trail crossings on these streams.

Physical Habitat

Stream habitat within the drainage is characterized by coarse substrates (i.e., gravel and cobble), but there appears to be a higher percentage of silt compared to other watersheds in the project area. Instream cover also appears to be lower than other watersheds on the east side of the Forest, but canopy cover is good. The predominant habitat type is large, deep pools with some riffle habitat.

Hite et al. (1990) surveyed three sites on Big Grand Pierre Creek. Mean stream width ranged from 31.4-51.0 feet, mean depth ranged from 0.9-1.8 feet, and velocity was 0.01- 0.15 feet per second. The substrate was comprised primarily of large, coarse materials (i.e., gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock); however, one site did contain a relatively high percentage of silt substrate (15.5%). Pools were relatively common at all three sites (> 52% of instream habitat), but riffles were relatively rare (< 2.2 % of instream habitat).

Shasteen et al. 2003 surveyed one site on Big Grand Pierre Creek in 2000. This site was also surveyed in 1986 (Hite et al. 1990). A comparison between the two sampling events found little change in mean channel width, but depth and velocity were lower in 2000 (Table 1). In both years substrate was dominated by gravel, pebble, cobble, boulder and bedrock. In 1986, the percentage of silt was high, but dropped substantially by 2000. The percentage of pool habitat was different between the two years; however, riffle habitat was very similar and indicated a scarcity of that habitat type. Based upon substrate, instream cover, hydrology, riparian area, and bank features, this section of Big Grand Pierre Creek was rated as good.

Table 1. A comparison of instream habitat conditions for Big Grand Pierre Creek in 1986 and 2000. Data are from Hite et al. (1990) and Shasteen et al. (2003).

Habitat Parameter 1986 2000 Mean Channel Width (ft.) 53.0 51.6 Mean Depth (ft.) 1.8 0.6 Mean Velocity (cubic feet per second) 0.15 0.06 % Silt 15.5 1.6 % Sand 6.4 0 % Gravel 9.3 15.3 % Cobble 15.0 37.2 % Boulder 9.6 19.7 % Bedrock 17.6 23.5 % Pool 52.4 22.9 % Riffle 1.8 1.5 % Run N/A 44.1 % Slack N/A 31.5

Fish, Crustaceans, and Mollusks

Bertrand et al. (1996), using the Biological Stream Characterization, rated both Big Grand Pierre and Gibbons creeks as a Highly Valued Aquatic Resource (Class B). Class B streams are those with healthy sportfish populations, but fish species richness is somewhat below expectations for that stream. Fifty six species of fish are found within the Big Grand Pierre Creek Watershed. One state threatened species, Lampetra aepyptera (least brook lamprey), is known to occur in the drainage. Within the project area, this species has been collected from two locations in Big Grand Pierre Creek.

Three species of crayfish have been collected within the drainage. These include devil crayfish (Cambarus Diogenes), calico crayfish (Orconectes immunis), and Illinois crayfish (Orconectes illinoiensis). Seventeen mussel species are known to occur within the drainage. Two species, purple lilliput (Toxolasma lividus) and little spectaclecase (Villosa lienosa), are listed as state endangered. The spike (Elliptio dilatata) is listed as state threatened. One species, the Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea), is an exotic. Because of the high mussel diversity, Big Grand Pierre Creek has been identified by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources as a Biologically Significant Stream (Page et al. 1991).

Upper Bay Creek

Bay Creek originates in northwest Pope County near the town of Delwood and flows through the Bay Creek Wilderness and Bell Smith Springs Recreation Area. Larger tributaries to Upper Bay Creek include Hunting Branch, Little Bay Creek, and Hayes Creek. Within the drainage, there are about 50 miles of intermittent streams and 43 miles of perennial streams. At present, there are 100 system and non-system trail crossings on these streams.

Physical Habitat

Stream habitat within the drainage is characterized by a high percentage of cobble and boulder substrate, but there is more sand compared to other watersheds in the project area. Instream cover is abundant and the riparian canopy is in good condition. Typical stream segments have large, deep pools, connected by long runs and short riffle sections.

Habitat surveys have been conducted on Bay Creek and one tributary, Hayes Creek (Shasteen et al. 2003). Mean stream width of Bay Creek at two sites was 20.8 and 40.8 feet and mean depth was 0.8 and 1.1 feet. Greater than 50% of instream habitat was categorized as pool and 33% run. Both sites were characterized by low flow during the summer as reflected in low velocity measurements (< 0.08 cfs). Substrate was comprised primarily of cobble and boulder with a high percentage of sand. Instream cover was relatively high and occurred in the form of boulders, undercut banks, and woody material (i.e., root wads, logs, and brush-debris jams).

Hayes Creek was 12.1 feet wide, 0.4 feet deep, with a velocity of 0.04 cfs. Similar to Bay Creek, instream cover in Hayes Creek was relatively high. Instream habitat was primarily pool (43%) and run (39%) with some riffle (15%). Based upon substrate, instream cover,

5 hydrology, riparian area, and bank features, Bay Creek was rated as good to excellent and Hayes Creek was rated as good.

The Shawnee National Forest conducted streams surveys throughout the Bay Creek Drainage in 2004 (Table 2). Bay Creek and tributaries to Bay Creek were characterized by relatively moderate flow during the summer and substrate comprised primarily of hard materials. Some stream sites contained relatively high percentages of silt (i.e., > 15% of substrate comprised of silt). These sites were commonly on the lower end of the drainage near man-made impoundments and in areas surrounded by agricultural land. Conversely, streams located in the upper end of the drainage and near known trail crossings had relatively low percentages of silt. Riparian canopy cover was good and instream cover, mainly in the form of log jams, root wads, and undercut banks was abundant. In general, bank stability was rated as good.

Table 2. Results of the Shawnee National Forest 2004 stream survey in the Bay Creek Drainage. Sampling locations at trail crossings are designated by bold stream names and appear at the beginning of the table. Mean Mean Mean Width Depth Velocity % Silt % % % % % (m) (m) (m/s) Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bay Creek 4.1 0.16 0.01 2.0 7.8 21.6 27.5 31.4 9.7 Lusk Creek 3.3 0.07 0.04 0.0 5.9 5.9 14.7 32.4 41.1 Little Bay 4.1 0.13 0.03 3.6 32.1 23.2 33.9 3.6 3.6 Bay Creek 3.8 0.13 0.11 11.0 60.0 6.7 15.6 6.7 0.0 Hayes Creek 6.9 0.15 0.01 0.0 7.0 25.6 20.9 30.2 16.3 Hayes Creek 1.5 0.1 0.0 7.0 12.3 3.5 10.5 36.8 29.8 Bay Creek 6.9 0.22 0.04 7.9 7.9 26.3 7.9 23.7 26.3 Tributary to 2.8 0.28 0.0 11.8 0.0 5.9 23.5 14.7 44.1 Bay Creek Hunting Branch 3.8 0.13 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.5 32.7 48.6 11.2 Creek Little Bay 2.5 0.04 0.0 6.3 0 6.3 22.9 14.5 50 Creek Hayes Creek 3.5 0.13 0.03 69.9 20.5 8.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 Cedar Creek 3.7 0.23 0.02 27.5 20.0 15.0 22.5 7.5 7.5 Sugar Creek 4.1 0.28 <0.01 3.1 3.1 25 6.3 17.2 45.3 Sugar Creek 1.0 0.16 0.0 21.6 5.4 8.1 13.5 32.4 18.9 Sugar Creek 3.3 0.13 0.12 2.8 5.5 19.4 33.3 33.3 5.5 Sugar Creek 5.4 0.23 0.0 45.5 9.1 15.9 20.5 4.5 4.5 Whiteside 2.9 0.11 0.0 36.5 1.9 13.5 15.4 13.5 19.2 Branch Bay Creek 9.4 0.52 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Oxbow) Sugar Creek 7.1 0.42 0.2 50.0 0.0 16.0 16.0 18.0 0.0 Hayes Creek 5.4 0.27 0.02 16.7 8.3 16.7 27.8 30.6 0.0 Bay Creek 4.9 0.39 0.0 25.8 35.5 0.0 0.0 29.0 9.7 Whiteside 1.8 0.19 0.0 48.7 0.0 17.9 15.4 17.9 0.0 Creek Hayes Creek 4.0 0.14 <0.01 0.0 6.3 12.5 25.0 37.5 18.8 Bay Creek 8.3 0.63 0.01 54.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 Fish, Crustaceans, and Mollusks

Bertrand et al. (1996) rated the section of Bay Creek upstream of Hayes Creek as a Highly Valued Aquatic Resource (Class B). Forty five species of fish are found within the Upper Bay Creek drainage. One state threatened species, the least brook lamprey, has been collected at five locations in Bay Creek, two locations in Hunting Branch Creek, and one location in Little Bay Creek.

Crustaceans found within the drainage include isopods, amphipods, and crayfish. Two species of isopods, Caecidotea intermedia and Lirceus spp., have been found in Hayes Creek and an unnamed tributary to Bay Creek. Synurella dentata, an amphipod, is found in an unnamed tributary to Bay Creek. Three species of crayfish are present in the drainage, including devil crayfish, Illinois crayfish, and White River crayfish (Procambarus acutus). Fifteen species of mussels are found in the Upper Bay Creek Drainage, including the exotic Asian clam.

Lusk Creek

Lusk Creek originates near Delwood and flows through the Lusk Creek Wilderness before entering the Ohio River near Golconda. Major tributaries include Flick Branch, Beatty Branch, Miller Creek, Quarrel Creek, and Little Lusk Creek. Within the Lusk Creek Drainage there are about 67 miles of intermittent streams and 44 miles of perennial streams. At present, there are about 125 system and non-system trail crossing on these streams. Nine Natural Areas are found in the watershed, including the Lusk Creek Zoological Area. The Lusk Creek Zoological Area encompasses all of Lusk Creek from bank to bank. Lusk Creek has been characterized as a high quality stream that supports a relatively diverse fish, mussel, and crayfish fauna (Bertrand et al. 1996; USDA 2001).

Physical Habitat

Stream habitat within the drainage is characterized by coarse substrates (i.e., gravel, pebble, and cobble) with very little silt, relatively high instream cover, moderate sinuosity, good bank stability, and heavy coverage by the riparian canopy. Instream habitat types include long sections of runs, deep pools, and high quality riffle habitat.

Shasteen et al. 2003 surveyed two sites on Lusk Creek. Mean stream width was 38.2 and 52.5 feet and mean depth was 3.1 and 2.8 feet. Velocity at both sites was < 0.01 cfs, indicating sluggish flow during the summer. The predominant substrate was cobble and boulder with little or no silt, indicating little impact from sedimentation. Riparian canopy cover was good and bank stability was excellent. Nearly 50% of instream habitat was categorized as run with about 25% pool habitat. Based upon substrate, instream cover, hydrology, riparian area, and bank features, Lusk Creek was rated as excellent.

The Shawnee National Forest conducted streams surveys throughout the Lusk Creek Drainage in 2003 (Table 3). Lusk Creek and tributaries to Lusk Creek were characterized by relatively low flow during the summer and substrate comprised primarily of hard materials. Most sites contained very little sediment, but two sites did have a high percentage of silt. Riparian canopy cover was good and instream cover, mainly in the form

7 of log jams, root wads, and undercut banks was abundant. In general, bank stability was rated as good; however, one site on Bear Branch had considerable bank damage from multiple trail crossings.

Table 3. Results of the Shawnee National Forest 2003 stream survey in Lusk Creek and tributaries. All sites were on the Forest and are arranged from the upper to lower portions of the drainage. Mean Mean Mean % % % % % % % Width Depth Velocity Silt Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder Bedrock (m) (m) (m/s) Lusk Creek 8.7 0.33 0.01 10.0 22.0 16.0 22.0 18.0 12.0 0.0 Lusk Creek 5.9 0.21 0.12 0 0.0 16.3 16.3 26.6 14.3 26.5 Lusk Creek 5.1 0.09 0 0.0 6.8 3.3 13.3 23.3 50.0 3.3 Bear Branch 2.7 0.1 0.03 0 0.0 2.2 11.4 15.9 2.3 68.2 Ramsey 3.2 0.3 0 4.6 36.9 23.0 12.3 15.4 6.3 1.5 Branch Ramsey 2.5 0.1 0 0 8.6 22.9 11.4 45.7 5.7 5.7 Branch Little Lusk 3.0 0.1 0.09 0 2.2 28.9 33.3 28.9 4.5 2.2 Creek Little Lusk 4.3 0.29 0 0 3.7 14.8 48.2 29.6 3.7 0.0 Creek Little Lusk 7.1 0.46 0.01 0.0 0.0 3.4 8.6 36.2 39.7 12.1 Creek Lusk Creek 3.4 0.43 0 46.3 9.3 14.8 7.4 18.5 3.7 0.0 Lusk Creek 9.7 0.49 0 3.4 35.6 8.5 16.9 35.6 0.0 0.0 Lusk Creek 10.4 0.4 0.14 3.1 21.9 14.1 20.3 34.3 6.3 Copperous 0.2 3.49 0 0.0 8.6 8.6 34.3 11.4 17.1 20.0 Branch Copperous 3.2 0.09 0 0 0.0 15.0 10.0 12.5 0.0 62.5 Branch Lusk Creek 13.6 0.39 0.18 0 12.3 23.1 29.2 27.7 7.7 0.0 Quarrel Creek 2.9 0.01 0 0 0.0 16.9 12.3 13.8 17.0 40.0 Flick Branch 2.6 0.14 0 0.0 9.5 16.2 14.9 29.7 29.7 0.0 Flick Branch 2.9 0.16 0 5.0 0.0 15.0 25.0 30.0 20.0 5.0 Tributary to 4.4 0.26 0.03 18.2 0.0 6.1 21.2 33.3 21.2 0.0 Lusk Cr.

Fish, Crustaceans, and Mollusks

Bertrand et al. (1996), using the Biological Stream Characterization (BSC), rated the section of Lusk Creek from Copperous Branch to a point five miles upstream as a Unique Aquatic Resource (Class A). Class A streams are those with a very diverse fish community, where there is little or no evidence of human disturbance. Twenty seven miles of Lusk Creek and all of Little Lusk Creek were categorized as Highly Valued Aquatic Resources (Class B).

Forty five species of fish are found within the Lusk Creek drainage. A state threatened species, the least brook lamprey, is known to occur in the drainage.

8 High water quality and substrate stability of Lusk Creek provide excellent habitat for freshwater mussels. Seventeen species of clams and mussels are known to occur within the drainage. Crangonyx anomalus, a state endangered amphipod, is found in a spring in the upper portion of the watershed (USDA 2001). Lusk Creek has been identified as a Biologically Significant Illinois Stream, based upon the high biological diversity and the presence of two rare species, Crangonyx anomalus and Lampetra aepytera (Page et al. 1991). Streams in this designation have been identified as worthy of protection.

Eagle Creek

Eagle Creek originates in Saline County near the Garden of the Gods Wilderness and flows to the confluence with the Saline River in Gallatin County. Within the drainage there are 39 miles of intermittent stream and 8.2 miles of perennial stream. At present, there are 50 system and non-system trail crossings on these streams. Only the headwaters of Eagle Creek and intermittent/ephemeral tributaries are located on the National Forest and within the project area.

Physical Habitat

Stream habitat within the drainage is characterized by coarse substrates (i.e., pebble, cobble, and boulder) with very little fine sediment, good bank stability, and heavy canopy coverage. Nearly all of the streams within the project area are classified as ephemeral, flowing only during periods of ample precipitation. These streams are also characterized by markedly higher gradient, compared to streams in neighboring drainages. Instream habitat types include long sections of runs with some shallow pools.

Muir et al. (1996) surveyed one site on Eagle Creek just downstream of National Forest land. Mean stream width was 20.7 feet, mean depth was 1.2 feet, and velocity was 0.5 feet per second. The predominant substrate was coarse gravel with a mixture of substrate types ranging form silt to boulder. Riparian canopy cover was good and bank stability was excellent. Instream habitat was dominated by pools (58%), followed by runs (19%), slack water (15%), and riffles (8%). Based upon substrate, instream cover, hydrology, riparian area, and bank features, this reach of Eagle Creek was rated as good.

Although habitat was as good at the sampling site, a large portion of the total stream miles in Eagle Creek have been channelized (Muir et al. 1996). The channelized section of the stream is located downstream of the National Forest.

The Shawnee National Forest conducted streams surveys within the project area of the Eagle Creek Drainage in 2004 (Table 4). Streams were characterized by relatively high gradient, little or no flow, substrate comprised primarily of hard materials, and high canopy coverage. In general, bank stability was rated as good to excellent. At trail crossings some sedimentation was noted directly downstream of the trail, but the sediment did not extend more than two meters downstream.

9 Table 4. Results of the Shawnee National Forest 2004 stream survey in the Eagle Creek Drainage. Mean Mean Mean % % % % % % Width Depth Velocity Silt Sand Gravel Pebble Cobble Boulder (m) (m) (m/s) Rice Hollow 0.0 0.0 0.00 13.1 47.4 7.9 7.9 15.8 7.9 Tributary to Eagle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.3 9.4 21.9 25.0 37.6 Creek Tributary to Little 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 16.7 23.3 23.3 30.1 Eagle Eagle Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 29.7 32.4 24.3 10.8 Eagle Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 17.6 44.1 23.5 Rocky Branch 1.8 0.1 0.00 0.0 23.7 15.8 10.5 42.1 7.9 Hollow Tributary to 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 52.0 Rocky Branch Tributary to 3.8 0.08 0.0 11.9 7.1 14.3 26.2 35.7 4.8 Robinette Creek Clayton Hollow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 26.7 20.0 33.3 16.7 Thacker Hollow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 23.1 17.9 43.6 Rice Hollow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 24.3 27.0 27.0 8.1 Tributary to 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 14.6 17.1 24.4 39.0 Thacker Hollow Tributary to 2.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 20.0 10.0 2.5 47.5 20.0 Pounds Hollow

Fish, Crustaceans, and Mollusks

Bertrand et al. (1996), using the Biological Stream Characterization, rated Eagle Creek as a Moderate Aquatic Resource (Class C). Class C streams have a high biotic potential, but generally display a less robust fish community. Sixteen species of fish are found within Eagle Creek Drainage.

Crustaceans found within the drainage include isopods, amphipods, and crayfish. Isopods are represented by Lirceus spp. and amphipods by Gammarus pseudolimnaeus. Crayfish species include the devil crayfish, calico crayfish, and Indiana crayfish (Orconectes indianensis). The Indiana crayfish is listed as State Threatened and Regional Forester Sensitive. Eagle Creek has been identified as a Biologically Significant Illinois Stream, based upon the presence of the Indiana crayfish. Ten species of mussels are found in the drainage. They do not include any species of concern, but do include the Asian clam.

Species of Concern

This section provides a status summary for species of concern, including State of Illinois Threatened and Endangered, Regional Forester Sensitive, and Shawnee Forest Management Indicator (Table 5). There are no aquatic Federal threatened or endangered species found within the project area.

10 Table 5. List of species of concern within the project area, including species status, habitat types, threats, and locations. Status codes are RFSS=Regional Forester Sensitive Species, MIS=Management Indicator Species, ST=State of Illinois Threatened, and SE=State of Illinois Endangered.

Species Common Locations in Name Project Area (scientific name) Status Habitat Type and Threats (Drainages) anomalous spring SE Habitat: Subterranean in Lusk Creek amphipod underground aquifers; Threats: any (Crangonyx anomalus) contamination of groundwater Indiana crayfish RFSS Habitat: Rocky riffles and pools of Eagle Creek (Orconectes indianensis) SE small to medium-sized streams; Threats: sedimentation, removal of cobble/gravel substrates, and impoundment of streams spike ST Large streams and occasionally Big Grand Pierre (Elliptio dilatata) lakes in mud or gravel; Threats: Creek harvest, sedimentation, stream channelization, impoundment, competition from introduced species, chemical pollution, and biological modifications to fish communities purple lilliput SE Habitat: Small-medium streams in Big Grand Pierre (Toxolasma lividus) gravel; Threats: similar to spike Creek above little spectaclecase ST Habitat: Small to medium size Big Grand Pierre (Villosa lienosa) streams in sand and mud; Threats: Creek similar to spike above least brook lamprey Habitat: Small-medium size Big Grand Pierre (Lampetra aepyptera) ST streams with gravel and sand Creek, Lusk Creek, substrates; Threats: sedimentation and Bay Creek of streams and physical alteration drainages of spawning habitat rainbow darter Habitat: Gravelly riffles of clear, Big Grand Pierre (Etheostoma caeruleum) MIS high gradient streams Creek, Lusk Creek, w/permanent, flow; Threats: and Bay Creek sedimentation of streams and drainages physical alteration of spawning habitat

Anomalous Spring Amphipod

The anomalous spring amphipod, Crangonyx anomalus, is found in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio (NatureServe 2004). In Illinois the anomalous spring amphipod is listed as an endangered species and has been documented from only two locations. The Illinois Natural History Survey Database (INHS 2004) lists a collection in 1974 from a

11 spring in the upper Lusk Creek Drainage (Pope County). Webb et al. (1993) reported a second location from a spring along Simmons Creek, just north of Golconda (Pope County).

Springs and caves throughout the Lusk Creek Drainage provide habitat for this species (Page et al. 1991; INHS 2004). However, species within the genus Crangonyx are subterranean and are found in underground aquifers. They are occasionally flushed out into springs and seeps where they are collected (Don Webb, Illinois Natural History Survey, personal communication) and are also occasionally observed in wells (Smith 2001). Amphipods in general are extremely sensitive to aquatic pollution, including turbidity caused by sedimentation (Waters 1995). Thus, an important component of amphipod habitat is clean, clear water. Taylor and Webb (2000) listed potential threats to subterranean animals as 1) increased turbidity and herbicides from agricultural activity and 2) fecal waste from livestock and humans.

Indiana Crayfish

The Indiana crayfish, Orconectes indianensis, has a limited range in the lower Ohio River Valley, where it occurs in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. In Illinois the Indiana crayfish is found in the Saline River and Honey Creek systems, which includes the Eagle Creek Drainage (Page 1985). This species is listed as endangered in Illinois.

Habitat for the Indiana crayfish is rocky riffles and pools of small to medium-sized streams (Page 1985). Other important habitat components include rocks and woody debris, which provide interstitial space for cover. The primary threat to this species is habitat alteration, including impoundment of streams, removal of cobble and gravel substrate and woody debris from streams, and loss of preferred habitat via sedimentation (Taylor 2003).

At present, there is little information on habitat availability and distribution and abundance of this species on the National Forest. Taylor (2003) stated that populations of this species likely occur on the Shawnee Forest in headwater tributaries of Eagle Creek. On the Shawnee Forest, this crayfish has been collected in Rocky Branch (tributary to Battleford Creek; Saline County) and Sugar Creek in Johnson County. Good quality habitat also likely exists in the upper portion of the Little Saline River. Surveys conducted in the upper portion of the Eagle Creek Drainage (project area) in September of 2004 found no crayfish and poor habitat (i.e., steep gradient, ephemeral streams) in tributaries flowing north into Eagle Creek from the Garden of the Gods (Saline and Gallatin counties).

Spike

The spike, Elliptio dilatata, is widespread throughout the United States, but sporadic in distribution (Cummings and Mayer 1992). This species is listed as threatened in Illinois. On the Forest, this species is known only from Big Grand Pierre Creek. That occurrence comes from a single record of this species in 2002 (INHS Mollusk Collection Database 2004).

Habitat is small to large streams and occasionally lakes in mud or gravel. Recent surveys have documented declines in mussel populations throughout the United States. Some

12 possible explanations for these declines include commercial harvest, sedimentation, poor land management, stream channelization, stream impoundment, competition from introduced species, and chemical pollution (Cummings and Mayer 1992). In Missouri the spike is common in all rivers south of the Missouri, but the range has been severely reduced by siltation and channelization (Oesch 1984).

Purple Lilliput

The purple lilliput, Toxolasma lividus, is found in 12 states. In Illinois this species is listed as endangered. On the Shawnee National Forest this species is known only to occur in Big Grand Pierre Creek (INHS Mollusk Collection Database 2004).

Habitat for this species is lakes and small to medium size streams in gravel (Cummings and Mayer 1992). Primary objectives to conserve and maintain populations include 1) maintain high quality habitat, consisting of riffle areas of streams with good water quality, 2) monitor and regulate land use upstream to prevent siltation of streams, 3) avoid physical modifications to streams such as dredging and impoundment, and 4) prevent biological modifications to natural fish communities (NatureServe 2004).

Little Spectaclecase

Habitat for this species has been described as soft substrates (i.e., sand and mud) in slight to moderate current in small creeks to medium-sized rivers (NatureServe 2004). Cummings and Mayer 1992 list habitat in the Midwest as small to medium streams in sand and gravel.

Least Brook Lamprey

The least brook lamprey is widely distributed throughout the eastern half of the United States and is native to 16 states (NatureServe 2004). In Illinois, this species has a relatively small historic range and is currently listed as a threatened species. On the Shawnee Forest, the least brook lamprey is found in the Big Creek, Big Grand Pierre Creek, Lusk Creek, and Bay Creek watersheds. Based upon surveys conducted by Weitzell et al. (1998), Burr and Stewart (1999), and Shawnee Forest personnel, the least brook lamprey is known to occur at 15 sites on the Forest: Sugar Creek (2), Little Bay Creek (1), Bay Creek (7), Lusk Creek (1), Big Grand Pierre Creek (2), and Big Creek (2). Identification of new populations, combined with previously known populations, indicates that distribution on the Shawnee Forest may be more widespread than previously thought.

Within the Bay, Big Grand Pierre, and Lusk drainages, spawning surveys were conducted in 2005 (Table 6). The purpose of the spawning surveys was 1) to document spawning locations, 2) identify existing spawning habitat, and 3) determine the proximity of

13 spawning sites to trail crossings. No surveys were conducted in the portion of the Eagle Creek Drainage affected by the project because suitable habitat is not available. Spawning activity, including pit (nest) construction, aggregations of individuals, and physical spawning, was observed at 31 sites. At three other sites, Bell Smith Springs (2) and Hunting Branch, only individual adult lamprey were observed. Seven spawning sites were located in close proximity to existing trails, but only two sites (identified by boldface type) were at trail crossings included within the proposed action. Spawning activity was first observed on March 31 and last observed on April 5.

Table 6. Least brook lamprey spawning sites in the Bay, Big Grand Pierre, and Lusk drainages. Location Stream Location Description BAY CREEK N37 33.262 W88 36.763 Bay Creek Wilderness BAY CREEK N37 32.749 W88 37.647 Bay Creek Wilderness BAY CREEK N37 32.785 W88 37.593 Bay Creek Wilderness BAY CREEK N37 32.796 W88 37.538 Bay Creek Wilderness BAY CREEK N37 33.126 W88 37.153 Bay Creek Wilderness BAY CREEK N37 30.854 W88 39.801 Bell Smith Springs-Natural Arch BAY CREEK N37 31.049 W88 39.322 Below Bell Smith Springs BAY CREEK TRIBUTARY N37 33.223 W88 37.068 Bay Creek Wilderness-Tributary to Bay HUNTING BRANCH N37 31.183 W88 39.532 Hunting Branch Picnic Area LITTLE BAY N37 29.182 W88 41.476 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls LITTLE BAY N37 29.236 W88 41.464 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls LITTLE BAY N37 29.308 W88 41.494 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls LITTLE BAY N37 29.446 W88 41.504 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls LITTLE BAY N37 30.200 W88 41.404 Near Jackson Falls LITTLE LUSK N37 30.895 W88 30.848 Lusk Creek Wilderness LITTLE LUSK N37 30.983 W88 30.777 Lusk Creek Wilderness LITTLE LUSK N37 31.026 W88 30.760 Lusk Creek Wilderness LITTLE LUSK N37 30.910 W88 30.691 Lusk Creek Wilderness LITTLE LUSK N37 30.979 W88 30.163 Lusk Creek Wilderness LUSK N37 30.367 W88 32.186 Reagan Ford LUSK N37 30.389 W88 32.212 Reagan Ford LUSK N37 32.885 W88 32.310 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Blanchard LUSK N37 32.876 W88 32.277 Lusk Creek Wilderness-E of Coyote Club LUSK N37 32.128 W88 32.900 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Natural Bridge Lusk Creek Wilderness-Below Natural LUSK N37 32.133 W88 32.795 B. Lusk Creek Wilderness-Above Salt LUSK N37 32.128 W88 32.900 Peter LUSK N37 31.638 W88 32.932 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Goat Trail LUSK N37 28.353 W88 32.846 Eddyville Blacktop Bridge LUSK N37 28.422 W88 32.720 Upstream of Eddyville Blacktop Bridge LUSK 37 28.462 W88 32.673 Upstream of Eddyville Blacktop Bridge LUSK N37 31.785 W88 32.678 Lusk Creek Wilderness-River to River LUSK N37 29.173 W88 32.250 Rose Ford LUSK N37 32.037 W88 32.956 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Salt Peter Cave

14 Preferred habitat is high quality streams characterized by continuous flow, moderate to high gradient, clear water, gravel and sand substrates, and riparian zones that buffer the stream from sedimentation, turbidity, and high water temperature. Spawning occurs from late-March through early-April at temperatures between 16 and 18 C (Burr and Stewart 1999). A survey conducted by the Shawnee National Forest in 2005 documented pre- spawn and spawning activities between March 31 and April 5 at temperatures between 12 and 15 C. Eggs are deposited in shallow pits, formed by the lamprey moving gravel and pebbles. Reported incubation rates vary from approximately 4 days (Pfleiger 1997) to 3-4 weeks (Smith 1979; NatureServe 2004). Newly-hatched ammocoetes (larvae) drift downstream into low velocity pools. Burr and Stewart (1999) described these pools as having substrate composition of 60% sand, 25% coarse material, and 15% silt and organic matter. Ammocoetes mature in three or four years, spawn the following spring, and die shortly thereafter (Pfleiger 1997; Burr and Stewart 1999).

Potential threats to existing populations include stream impoundment and sedimentation of streams (Weitzell et al. 1998; Moyle and Cech 2004). Sediment can come from many sources including agriculture, forestry, mining, road construction, and urban development (Waters 1995). All of these activities occur on private land surrounding and adjacent to the Forest. On the Shawnee National Forest, Burr and Stewart (1999) suggested that ATV and equestrian traffic posed the greatest threat to lamprey populations.

Rainbow darter

The rainbow darter has been designated as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for riparian areas. Management Prescription 6.3 applies to all riparian areas forest wide. Within these management areas, MIS have been identified to monitor effects of management practices. The rainbow darter is common throughout the Shawnee Forest and is present in Big Grand Pierre, Lusk, and Upper Bay watersheds, but not in the Eagle Creek Watershed. Baseline data for the MIS can be found in the Fishes of the Shawnee (Burr and Mayden 1979), which listed all known locations on the Forest at that time. Using Fishes of the Shawnee information as the baseline, we compared these historic locations within the project area to present day locations. In 1979 there were six locations for the rainbow darter. Surveys conducted by the Forest from 2001-2005 found that rainbow darter were still present at or in the near vicinity of locations documented in 1979. In addition, these surveys identified six other locations where the rainbow darter occurs in the project area. Given that populations in different streams continue to persist, there does not appear to be any concern with population viability.

Habitat for the rainbow darter is generally rocky and/or gravelly riffles of clear, high gradient, upper elevation streams having permanent, strong flow (Burr and Mayden 1979). This species is most abundant in streams with predominately silt-free bottoms and is less tolerant of turbidity and intermittent flow than other darter species. Spawning habitat is riffle sections with swift current and gravelly bottoms that are suitable for egg deposition. Eggs are deposited and buried under the gravel (Pfleiger 1997).

15 traffic, which could directly damage spawning habitat by movement of coarse substrates and indirectly damage habitat by causing increased sedimentation.

16 Literature Cited

Bertrand, W. A., R. L. Hite, and D. M. Day. 1996. Biological steam characterization: biological assessment of Illinois stream quality through 1993. IEPA/BOW/96- 058. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, Illinois.

Bryan, C. F. and D. A. Rutherford, editors. 1995. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for evaluation, second edition. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society.

Burr, B. M. and R. L. Mayden. 1979. Fishes of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Burr, B. M. and J. G. Stewart. 1999. Status review, distribution, and aspects of the life history of the threatened least brook lamprey, Lampetra aepyptera (Pisces: Petromyzontidae), a threatened species in Illinois. Final Report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield.

Cummings, K. S. and C. A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194 pp.

Hite, R. L., C. A. Bickers, and M. M. King. 1990. An intensive survey of Shawnee National Forest Region Streams of Southern Illinois. IEPA/WPC/90-171. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield.

Illinois Natural History Survey. 2004. INHS Collection Database. INHS, Champaign, Illinois. Available http://www.ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu:591/INHScollections. (Accessed: February, 2004.

Kandl, E. J. 1987. The effects of land-use change on the hydrology and channel morphology of eight streams in the Shawnee Hills of Southeastern Illinois. M.S. Thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign. 72 pp.

Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech. 2004. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Muir, D. B., M. M. King, M. R. Matson, G. L. Minton, S. P. Shasteen, and R. L. Hite. 1996. An intensive survey of the Saline River Basin. IEPA/BOW/96-056. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield.

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/exploreer. (Accessed: February, 2004)

Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiads: a guide to mussels of the Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

17 Page, L. M., K.S. Cummings, C. A. Mayer, S. L. Post, and M. E. Retzer. 1991. Biologically significant Illinois streams: an evaluation of the streams of Illinois based on aquatic biodiversity. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Champaign. Technical Report 1992(1).

Page, L. M. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps (Decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, Vol. 33, Art. 4 p. 335-448.

Pfleiger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Shasteen, S. P., M. R. Matson, M. M. King, J. M. Levesque, G. L. Minton, and S. J. Tripp. 2003. An intensive survey of the Saline River/Bay Creek Basin. IEPA/BOW/02- 025. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, Illinois.

Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 314 pp.

Smith, D. G. 2001. Pennak’s freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.

Taylor, S. J. and D. W. Webb. 2000. Illinois Natural History Survey Reports, January- February 2000. Available at http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/surveyreports.

Taylor, C. A. 2003. Conservation assessment for the Indiana crayfish. Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.

USDA, Forest Service. 2001. Lusk Creek Watershed Assessment. Shawnee National Forest, Harrisburg, Illinois. 149 pp.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, Maryland.

Weitzell, R. E. Jr., J. G. Stewart, and B. M. Burr. 1998. Status survey of the least brook lamprey, Lampetra aepyptera (Pisces: Petromyzontidae), a threatened species in Illinois. Final Report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield.

Widowski, S. and B. Fitch. 2000. A watershed assessment for the Shawnee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Shawnee National Forest, Vienna.

18 Appendix A. Fish, crustaceans, and mollusks found within the affected area of the Trail Designation Plan project area, including Big Grand Pierre, Eagle, Lusk, and Upper Bay creek drainages. Upper Scientific Name Common Name Big Grand Pierre Eagle Lusk Bay

Fish Alosa chrysochloris skipjack herring X Ameiurus melas black bullhead X X Ameiurus natalis yellow bullhead X X X X Amia calva Bowfin X Anguilla rostrata american eel X Aphredoderus sayanus pirate perch X X X X Aplodinotus grunniens freshwater drum X X Campostoma anomalum central stoneroller X X X Catostomus commersoni white sucker X X X Centrarchus macropterus Flier X X Cottus carolinae banded sculpin X Ctenopharyngodon idella grass carp X Cyprinella whipplei steelcolor shiner X X X Cyrinus carpio Common carp X Dorosoma cepedianum gizzard shad X X X Erimyzon oblongus creek chubsucker X X X X Esox americanus grass pickerel X X X X Etheostoma aspirigene mud darter X Etheostoma caerulum rainbow darter X X X Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose darter X Etheostoma gracile slough darter X X Etheostoma kennicotti Stripetail darter X X X X Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter X X X Etheostoma proeliare cypress darter X X Etheostoma spectabile orangethroat darter X X X X Etheostoma squamiceps spottail darter X X X Forbesichthys agassizii spring cavefish X Fundulus notatus blackstripe topminnow X X Fundulus olivaceus blackspotted topminnow X X X X Gambusia affinis mosquitofish X X Hybognathus nuchalis silvery minnow X X Hypentelium nigricans northern hogsucker X X Ichthyomyzon castaneus chestnut lamprey X X Ictiobus bubalus smallmouth buffalo X Labidesthes sicculus brook silverside X X Lampetra aepyptera least brook lamprey X X X Lepisosteus osseus longnose gar X Lepomis cyanellus green sunfish X X X X Lepomis gulosus Warmouth X X X Lepomis humilis orangespotted sunfish X Lepomis megalotis longear sunfish X X X X Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill X X X X

19 Upper Common Name Big Grand Pierre Eagle Lusk Bay

Lythrurus fumeus ribbon shiner X X X Lythrurus umbratilis redfin shiner X X X X Micropterus punctulatus spotted bass X X X Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass X X X X Minytrema melanops spotted sucker X X X Moxostoma duquesnei black redhorse X X Moxostoma erythrurum golden redhorse X X X Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner X X Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner X X X Notropis emiliae Pugnose minnow X X Notropis spilopterus spotfin shiner X X Notropis venustus Blacktail shiner X Notropis volucellus mimic shiner X Noturus exilis slender madtom X Noturus gyrinus tadpole madtom X X X Noturus miurus brindled madtom X Percina caprodes Logperch X X X Percina maculata blackside darter X X X Percina sciera dusky darter X X Pimephales notatus Bluntnose minnow X X X Pomoxis annularis white crappie X X Pomoxis nigromaculatus black crappie X X Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub X X X X

Isopods Caecidotea brevicauda X Caecidotea forbesi X Caecidotea intermedia X X Lirceus spp. X X X

Amphipods Crangonyx anomalus anomalous spring amphipod X Crangonyx minor minor cave amphipod X Gammarus pseudolimnaeus northern spring amphipod X Synurella dentata X X

Crayfish Cambarus diogenes devil crawfish X X X X Cambarus tenebrosus a crayfish X Fallicambarus fodiens X Orconectes immunis calico crayfish X X Orconectes illinoiensis Illinois crayfish X X X Orconectes indianensis Indiana crayfish X Procambarus acutus White River crawfish X X

20 Upper Scientific Name Common Name Big Grand Pierre Eagle Lusk Bay Mollusks

Anodonta suborticula flat floater X Elliptio dilatata Spike X Fusconaia flava Wabash pigtoe X Lampsilis cardium plain pocketbook X Lampsilis siliquoidea Fatmucket X X Lampsilis teres yellow sandshell X Leptodea fragilis fragile papershell X X X X Ligumia subrostrata pondmussel X X X Musculium spp. fingernail clam X X Obliquaria relfexa threehorn wartyback X Pisidium spp. Peaclam X X X Potamilus alatus pink heelsplitter X X X Pyganodon grandis giant floater X X X X Quadrula quadrula Mapleleaf X X X X Sphaerium spp. fingernail clam X X X Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot X X X Toxolasma lividus purple lilliput X Toxolasma parvus Lilliput X Toxolasma texasiensis Texas lilliput X X X Uniomerus tetralasmus Pondhorn X X Utterbackia imbecillis paper pondhsell X X X X Villosa lienosa little spectaclecase X

21 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE, MANAGEMENT INDICATOR, AND ILLINOIS STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED AQUATIC SPECIES

SHAWNEE TRAILS DESIGNATION PROJECT

SHAWNEE NATIONAL FOREST

February 8, 2006

I. Introduction

This Biological Evaluation analyzes the potential effects of the proposed Trails Designation Project on listed species occurring within the boundaries of the Shawnee National Forest. The primary purpose of this Biological Evaluation is to determine the likely effects of the proposed action to State of Illinois Threatened and Endangered Species (TES), Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), and Management Indicator Species (MIS). Lists of TES, RFSS, and MIS were developed based upon information obtained from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois Natural History Survey, and Shawnee National Forest inventory and monitoring.

Formal objectives of this Biological Evaluation include: 1) Identify sensitive species that would be affected by the proposed project (FSM 2672.42); 2) Ensure that Forest Service actions do not result in the loss of viability of any native or desired non-native plant or animal species, or create significant trends toward Federal listing of any species (FSM 2672.41); 3) Provide a process and standard that ensures that sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process (FSM 2672.24b-2676.17e); 4) Make certain that best management practices, as per the Shawnee National Forest Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1992) are followed; and 5) To maintain a project file on actions regulated under the Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15 chapter 30).

II. Description of the Proposal

Purpose and Need: The Shawnee National Forest’s 1992 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) includes the following resource management goals: • The Forest would provide a broad range of high quality recreation opportunities and experiences which include: wilderness use, hunting and fishing, viewing forest scenery, hiking, camping, and horseback riding. • Wilderness areas on the Shawnee would be managed to provide opportunities for solitude, challenge, and primitive recreation as described in the Wilderness Act and the Illinois Wilderness Act of 1990. • Soil productivity, water quality, and the integrity of riparian ecosystems would be maintained or enhanced throughout the forest environment.

22 • Forest management activities would maintain or enhance habitat for all native species and ensure the diversity of natural communities throughout the Forest Environment.

In the years since publication of the Forest Plan, public demand for trails has outpaced the growth in the Forest’s designated trail system, particularly in areas of concentrated use. These areas of concentrated use are also some of the most scenic and unique areas on the Forest and consequently in these areas we have conflicting recreational uses. The concentrated use has resulted in undesirable impacts to soils, water quality, riparian diversity, and wilderness areas. Soil compaction from concentrated use accelerates erosion and sedimentation to the aquatic ecosystem and impacts sensitive aquatic resources such as the least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera) and native mussels. Vegetative resources are also impacted by the introduction of non-native invasive species that result from equestrian use.

The majority of equestrian use on the Forest occurs in four neighboring watersheds: Lusk Creek, Upper Bay Creek, Big Grande Pierre Creek, and Eagle Creek (Figure 1) that contain many popular attractions. Because these watersheds have incurred the greatest impacts by recreational users, they are the focus of this trail designation project. The proposed designated trail system is intended to: • Minimize equestrian impacts on Forest resources, especially erosion and sedimentation. • Improve the experience of trail users and safe public access. • Minimize the introduction and spread of non-native invasive species. • Maintain a cost effective trail program.

Figure 1. Area map of the Trail Designation Project, showing the four affected watersheds.

Description of Alternatives: In planning the Trails Designation Project, four alternatives are being considered. A summary of the alternatives is provided below. Figures 2, 3, and 4 illustrate the differences among alternatives with respect to total trail miles within the drainages, total trail miles in wilderness areas, and the number of stream crossings (perennial and intermittent) by drainage. A detailed description of the proposal and of individual alternatives can be found in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Alternative 1 would not designate new trails and would not amend the Forest Plan. Trail management will continue to be based upon the existing Forest Plan. Horse-back riding will continue on user-created trails that existed in 1992 and cross-country riding will continue to be allowed. Standards and guidelines for trail density and maintenance contained in the 1992 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) would be implemented. Any trails causing resource damage that exceeds Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would be closed. Riding in natural areas (except on designated trails) will continue to be prohibited. Commercial equestrian guiding would be prohibited on the Forest up to 24 hours following a rainfall of one inch or more. The total miles of trail available would essentially remain unchanged, as would the number of stream crossings.

Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative. This alternative would designate a comprehensive trail system and equestrian use would be restricted to this trail system. The Forest Plan would be amended to 1) prohibit cross-country riding, 2) eliminate trail density standards, and 3) limit group size in wilderness to twenty. User-created trails not included

24 in the designated system would be closed and rehabilitated over a period of 5-6 years. A temporary (up to 2 years), seasonal closure in wilderness areas from December 1-March 31 would be implemented during the period of trail reconstruction. In addition, the Lusk Creek Wilderness would be closed to equestrian use for 24 hours following a rainfall of one inch or more (applies to months of April, May, September, October, and November).

This alternative would result in a decrease in total miles of trail available for riding and number of stream crossings. Four additional stream crossings would be designated in the Lusk Creek Zoological area. This alternative would result in a decrease in total miles of trail available for riding and number of stream crossings. Two crossings, one above Salt Peter Cave and the Blanchard Church Crossing would be closed seasonally from March 15 to May 15 to protect lamprey spawning and nest sites (see Table 3).

Alternative 3 would designate an extensive trail system by incorporating most of the user- created trails into the system. Cross-country riding would be allowed in areas outside of wilderness, but equestrian use in wilderness would be restricted to the trail system. Within wilderness areas, user-created trails causing resource damage would be closed over a period of 7-8 years. Outside of the wilderness, user-created trails not proposed for designation would be left open. A trail density standard would not be identified.

This alternative slightly decreases the total miles of trail and the number of stream crossings; however, six new crossings are proposed within the Lusk Creek Zoological Area. Two of these crossings would be closed seasonally from March 15 to May 15 to protect lamprey spawning and nest sites. The seasonal closure for lamprey would also be applied to one crossing on Little Bay Creek, and one crossing in the Bay Creek Wilderness (see Table 3).

Alternative 4 would designate a minimal trail system and emphasize resource protection. The designated trail system would incorporate current Forest Plan density standards of one mile per square mile of system trail in wilderness and would be applied individually to Bay Creek, Garden of the Gods, and Lusk Creek wilderness areas. Equestrian use would be prohibited in natural areas and cross-country riding would not be allowed. User-created trails not selected for designation would be closed and rehabilitated over a period of 3-5 years. A temporary (up to 2 years) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek, Garden of the Gods, and Bay Creek wilderness areas from November 1-May 15 would be implemented during the period of trail reconstruction. In addition, no equestrian use would be allowed in the Lusk Creek Wilderness following a rainfall of one inch or more during May, September, and October. A seasonal closure for lamprey would be applied to one crossing in Little Bay Creek. This alternative greatly reduces the total miles of trail and the number of stream crossings.

25 400 350 300 250 200 150

Trail Miles Trail 100 50 0 Big Upper Eagle Lusk All Grand Bay Alt. 1 78 69 125 97 369 Alt. 2 50 49 58 66 223 Alt. 3 52 52 87 71 262 Alt. 4 49 37 40 53 179

Figure 2. Trail miles by drainage resulting from each alternative and all drainages combined. Alternative 1 includes all current user-created and designated trails.

100

Wilderness Trail Miles 0 Garden of Lusk Bay Creek All Gods Alt. 1 20 60 10 90 Alt. 2 15 25 9 49 Alt. 3 15 48 10 73 Alt. 4 812525

Figure 3. Trail miles by wilderness area and all wilderness areas combined resulting from each alternative. Alternative 1 includes all current user-created and designated trails.

26 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Big Upper All- Eagle Lusk All Number of Stream Crossings Grand Bay Eagle Alt. 1 60 50 170 100 330 380 Alt. 2 40 30 100 50 190 220 Alt. 3 60 50 160 100 320 370 Alt. 4 40 20 60 40 140 160

Figure 4. Number of stream crossings (intermittent and perennial) resulting from each alternative. Alternative 1 includes all current stream crossings for user-created and designated trails.

Project Area-The project area is located on the east side of the Shawnee National Forest in Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Pope, and Saline counties. The affected area includes the Big Grand Pierre (65,253 acres), Upper Bay (42,468), Lusk (56,425), and Eagle Creek (36,825) watersheds (see Figure 1).

Existing Conditions-Shawnee National Forest streams within these drainages have good to excellent water quality and habitat (Hite et al. 1990; Shasteen et al 2003; Shawnee National Forest 2004 unpublished data). Ephemeral streams, those that flow only during periods of high precipitation, far outnumber intermittent and perennial streams; however, total stream miles are dominated by intermittent and perennial streams that flow most of the year. Stream habitat is characterized by 1) coarse substrates relatively free of sediment, 2) abundant cover (e.g., undercut banks and woody debris), 3) healthy riparian areas, 4) good canopy coverage, and 5) stable banks with little unnatural erosion. Not surprisingly, these streams support diverse fish, mussel, and crustacean communities (Page et al. 1991).

Species richness is relatively high within the four stream drainages (Table 1). Collectively, the four drainages provide habitat for 65 fish, 15 crustaceans (including isopods and amphipods), and 24 mollusks. Fish species diversity is highest in the Big Grand Pierre Drainage, while mollusk diversity is highest in Big Grand Pierre and Lusk drainages, and crustacean diversity is highest in the Lusk Drainage. Six State of Illinois Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species are found within the four drainages and include 1 fish, 3 mollusks, and 2 crustaceans. Big Grand Pierre Drainage has the highest number of T&E species.

27 Table 1. Number of fish, mollusk, crustacean and State of Illinois T&E species found within the Big Grand Pierre, Eagle, Lusk, and Upper Bay drainages.

No. of Species Big Grand Pierre Eagle Lusk Creek Upper Bay Creek Creek Creek Fish 56 17 45 45 Mollusk 17 10 17 14 Crustacean 3 6 11 6 T&E 4 2 2 1

Figure 5. Predicted cumulative area of affected stream habitat (acres) below trail crossings resulting from each alternative and all alternatives combined. Total acres within each drainage are given in parentheses above bars.

Stream habitat directly affected by trail crossings is small relative to the total acres of stream habitat within the drainages. For example, under Alternative 1 only 1.9 of the 580 acres of stream habitat is directly affected by trail crossings. Thus, direct impacts to habitat at stream crossings are relatively minor unless these stream crossings pass through or just upstream of known least brook lamprey spawning sites.

The effect of sediment on stream habitat and aquatic communities is well documented. Sedimentation decreases pool habitat, decreases available spawning substrate for fish, inhibits macroinvertebrate production, reduces food availability and feeding activity for fish, and may interrupt spawning and reduce spawning success (Waters 1995; Bryan and Rutherford 1995). These effects may be direct (i.e., at trail crossings) or indirect (i.e., throughout the watershed).

Given the importance of maintaining high quality habitat, which is relatively free of sediment, surveys have been conducted to document sedimentation and identify areas of habitat degradation. In general, the amount of sedimentation in streams on the Shawnee National Forest is relatively low (Figure 6). Upper Bay Creek Drainage has the highest percentage of sediment, while the Eagle Creek Drainage has the lowest percentage of sediment.

With the exception of Upper Bay, the amount of sediment in streams on the Forest is relatively low. The amount of sedimentation in the Upper Bay Drainage, although higher than other drainages, is still close to the acceptable range (generally <15%; Waters 1995; Bain and Stevenson 1999). At most sites within the Upper Bay Watershed, sedimentation rates were low (< 10%); however, streams near Lake Glendale and Sugar Creek Lake had higher sedimentation rates. These higher sedimentation rates were encountered in streams near impoundments and highways. This discrepancy was in large part responsible for the overall high average.

20 15 10 5 0 Average Silt (%) Big Grand Eagle Lusk Upper Pierre Bay Drainage

Figure 6. Average silt (%) at stream sites on the National Forest; Big Grand Pierre data from Hite et al. 1990. All others from Shasteen et al. 2003 and 2003-2004 Shawnee Forest surveys.

Sedimentation and associated changes in habitat have been shown to negatively affect warmwater fish communities (Waters 1995). Although many warmwater fishes are adapted to more turbid conditions, a great variation exists among these species in tolerance to suspended sediment and some species may be lost from an otherwise viable fish community (Waters 1995). Sedimentation has also been shown to have negative effects on

29 mussel and crustacean communities and declines in relative abundance of species have been linked to increased siltation (Page 1985; Cummings and Mayer 1992).

Relevant Historical Conditions and Past Management Activities-Past practices that have affected stream habitat and aquatic communities include a reduction in vegetated stream corridors and increased sedimentation from agricultural activities (Hite et al. 1990). During the mid 1800’s much of the forested land in southern Illinois was cleared for agricultural production, resulting in increased sedimentation in streams. Conversely, since the mid 1900’s much of this land has been reforested, leading to a reduction in sediment load. Although reforestation has improved conditions, these streams continue to be affected by past management practices as they revert back to more stable and natural states (Kandl 1987).

In addition to agriculture, which has likely exerted the greatest influence on stream habitat, other past activities have affected habitat conditions and the abundance of aquatic organisms via erosion and sedimentation. These actions include residential development, timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, all terrain vehicle (ATV) use, and off- highway vehicle (OHV) use. Actions that have had a positive effect include Natural Area and Wilderness Area management.

Another important activity that has altered habitat and aquatic communities is stream impoundment. In particular, impoundments within the Bay Creek Drainage (e.g. Bay Creek #5, Sugar Creek Lake, and Lake Glendale) have resulted in habitat alteration and changes in fish community structure. Impoundments alter flow, temperature, and sediment regimes of streams, which affects aquatic organisms and alters the physical habitat not only within the impounded area but also downstream of the impoundment. Impoundments also fragment systems, isolating previously continuous populations (Cushing and Allen 2001).

Present practices affecting stream habitat and aquatic communities, primarily via erosion and subsequent sedimentation, include agricultural and logging activity on private land, construction and maintenance of roads, and recreational activity on the Shawnee National Forest. Erosion resulting from pastures and row crop production is evident on lands within these watersheds (Hite et al. 1990) and does influence downstream habitat on the Shawnee National Forest. Road construction and maintenance also contributes sediment to streams and can influence available habitat (Waters 1995). Although new road construction within the Forest and the surrounding area is minimal, erosion from existing roads and maintenance activities on roads (e.g., bridge or culvert replacement) add sediment to the streams. Management of impoundments and the associated effects noted above are another present day practice affecting stream habitat and biotic communities.

Present day activities within the National Forest, mainly those related to recreational activity, also impact aquatic habitat and aquatic communities. Recreational pressure is relatively high within the National Forest. In the four affected watersheds, nearly 40% of the land lies within the Shawnee National Forest. The relatively high percentage of Forest Service ownership leads to more intense recreational pressure. Dispersed recreation on roads and trails, including hiker, equestrian, and all terrain vehicle traffic (including illegal ATV use) does impact watersheds within the Shawnee Forest (Hite et al. 1990; Widowski

30 and Fitch 2000). Although recreational use on the National Forest does have an impact, activities adjacent to and surrounding the Forest exert the greatest impact.

Current Management Emphasis-The current management emphasis, as outlined in Forest Plan provides protection for aquatic resources. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines emphasize protection of water quality and provide for filter strips adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams, which greatly reduces sedimentation. Special designations for Wilderness Areas and Natural Areas also afford protection of aquatic resources. For example, Lusk Creek (bank to bank) is designated as a Natural Area, which greatly limits the amount and type of disturbance allowed.

Standards and Guidelines also provide specific protection for Illinois Threatened and Endangered Species (T&E) and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). For example, in streams known to contain T&E species all pool/riffle complexes within project areas are protected from activities that may result in habitat degradation. The taking of sensitive or forest-listed species requires a permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if the species in question is protected under the Illinois Endangered Species Act. Taking, as defined by the Illinois Endangered Species Act (520 ILCS 10/3) is as follows: “’Take’ means, in reference to animals and animal products, to harm, hunt, shoot, pursue, lure, wound, kill, destroy, harass, gig, spear, ensnare, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct.” The taking of a sensitive or forest-listed animal species may be prohibited by a Forest Service closure order if needed.

III. Scoping and Surveys

Public scoping was conducted to determine issues related to the project. Two significant aquatic-related issues were identified and include 1) Effects to aquatic and soil resources from trail system erosion and sedimentation and 2) Potential effects on least brook lamprey habitat and spawning activity. These significant issues will be considered in the effects analysis.

Past surveys, unrelated to this project, have been conducted in all of the affected watersheds. These surveys were completed by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, and Southern Illinois University as part of a standardized monitoring or research programs. In addition to these surveys, the Shawnee National Forest conducted habitat and fish population surveys between 2001 and 2004 in all of the affected watersheds. The purpose of these surveys was to gather additional data to determine the status of aquatic populations and assess current habitat conditions. In 2005 a survey was conducted specific to the least brook lamprey. This survey provided information on spawning locations, timing and duration of spawning, availability of spawning habitat, and the proximity of spawning populations to proposed and existing trail crossings. Also in 2005, mussel surveys were conducted within the Big Grand Pierre, Bay, and Lusk Creek drainages.

31 IV. Aquatic Species of Concern Considered in the Analysis

An analysis of the project area indicated that 11 aquatic species of concern were known to occur within the five counties (i.e., Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Pope and Saline; Table 2) encompassing the project area. Species of concern include Regional Forester Sensitive, Management Indicator, and Illinois Threatened and Endangered. After extensive review, seven of the species were selected for additional analysis, relative to the effects of the proposed action. These seven species were selected based upon known populations within the project area, known populations downstream of the project area, and/or the availability of suitable habitat within or downstream of the project area. Species selected for further review included two fish (least brook lamprey and rainbow darter) two crustaceans (Indiana crayfish and anomalous spring amphipod), and three mollusks (spike, little spectacle case, and purple lilliput).

It should be noted that information on crayfish distribution and abundance within the project area is not complete. Habitat requirements for this species have been well documented and some information is available on historic locations and recent collections (see Page 1985; Taylor 2003; Illinois Natural History Survey 2004); however, thorough surveys have not been conducted within the project area.

Species not selected for further review included two crustaceans, the Kentucky crayfish, and bigclaw crayfish, and two mussels, the butterfly, and kidneyshell. The two crustaceans were excluded because historically they have been confined to the Big Creek Drainage, which is not affected by this project. The two mussel species were excluded because they are known only from the Ohio River. Suitable habitat for these mussel species (i.e., medium to large rivers) is not found within the project area and this project will not substantially impact the Ohio River.

32 Table 2. Species of concern known to occur in counties (i.e., Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Pope, and Saline) surrounding the project area. Species of concern codes: RFSS=Regional Forester Sensitive Species, MIS=Management Indicator Species, ST=Illinois State Threatened, and SE=Illinois State Endangered.

Species Common Species of Habitat suitability or known *Species to Name Concern occurrence of listed species within be analyzed (scientific name) Code project area further? Fish least brook lamprey Known populations occur within YES (Lampetra aepyptera) ST project area. rainbow darter Known populations occur within YES (Etheostoma caeruleum) MIS project area. Crayfish Indiana crayfish RFSS Known populations in the Eagle Creek YES (Orconectes indianensis) SE Drainage downstream of project area. Kentucky crayfish RFSS No known populations or suitable NO (O. kentuckiensis) SE habitat within project area. Species historically confined to the Big Creek Drainage. Bigclaw crayfish RFSS No known populations or suitable NO (O. placidus) SE habitat within project area. Species historically confined to the Big Creek Drainage. Mollusks spike ST Known to occur in Big Grand Pierre YES (Elliptio dilatata) Creek. little spectaclecase ST Known to occur in Big Grand Pierre YES (Villosa lienosa) Creek. butterfly ST No know locations within project area, NO (Ellipsaria lineolata) or on the Forest. Habitat (i.e., large rivers) not found within project area. kidneyshell SE No known locations within project NO (Ptychobranchus area, or on the Forest. Habitat (i.e., fasciolaris) medium-large rivers) not found within project area. purple lilliput SE Known to occur in Big Grand Pierre YES (Toxolasma lividus) Creek. Amphipods anomalous spring SE Suitable habitat (springs) found within YES amphipod project area; only known locations are (Crangonyx anomalus) in Lusk Creek/Big Grand Pierre drainages. *Yes – The proposed project’s potential effects on these species would be further analyzed in this document. *No – No further analysis is necessary and a determination of “No impact” is rendered.

33 V. Analysis of Effects

The following analysis includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects that would occur as the result of the implementation of the four individual alternatives. The analysis focuses on key threats or limiting factors for each of the individual species. “Direct effects” are those caused by the project action and occur at the same time and place. For example, a trail crossing located at a known fish spawning site would result in a direct effect on individual fish. “Indirect effects” are also caused by the action, but are later in time or farther removed in distance, yet still reasonably foreseeable. For example, rehabilitation or closure of a trail would reduce erosion and sedimentation in the stream, resulting in a positive effect on habitat for aquatic organisms downstream. Direct and indirect effects may be negative or positive and are those that occur as the result of the project’s action. Thus, they are limited to the project boundary, or the four watersheds included in this analysis.

Measurement indicators used to determine effects include 1) total trail miles for indirect impacts to aquatic habitat via sedimentation and 2) the number of stream crossings for direct impacts on least brook lamprey and rainbow darter. No threshold was set for a significant indirect effect, because it is difficult to quantify the exact amount of sediment entering the stream from trails. Instead, a decrease or increase in the total miles of trail was used to identify a general positive or negative effect (e.g., an increase in trail miles would result in a negative effect). Similarly, the number of trail crossings was used to generally determine a positive or negative effect (e.g., a decrease in the number of trail crossings would result in a positive effect).

Cumulative effects are those which result from the incremental impact of the project’s action, combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. A cumulative effect occurs if the project action, combined with other actions, causes a significant effect on population viability (i.e., the persistence of a population). A cumulative effect can be positive as well as negative. The cumulative effects analysis for this project will be based upon the following:

Spatial Bounds of Analysis - The boundary for all species includes the four watersheds in the project area, Eagle, Bay, Big Grand Pierre, and Lusk. However, for the least brook lamprey and Indiana crayfish, the boundary is expanded to include the Sugar Creek Drainage (see Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions below for justification of analysis boundary). This spatial boundary allows for the assessment of potential direct effects within the project area, as well as potential indirect effects downstream of the project area and takes into account past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Temporal Bounds of Analysis - The time frame for analysis extends backward in time to the mid 1800s, when much of the land was cleared for agriculture production and forward to a point fifteen years into the future. This time frame includes all past actions, which have altered stream habitat, as well as the potential actions that could alter stream habitat.

Significant Cumulative Effect—An effect that alters the gain or loss of individuals in such a way that persistence of a population, or population viability, is diminished or improved. A viable population is defined as a population that has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species throughout its existing range in the planning area (FSM 2605).

Threshold for Significance—The loss of any known populations within individual streams. Relative abundance data for individual species is incomplete, so increases or decreases in the number of individuals making up a population would be impossible to detect. However, historical and present day locations for populations of mussels, crayfish, and fish have been documented. Thus, the proposed actions of this project would be considered significant if they are likely to result in the disappearance of a species from a stream that is presently inhabited.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions—A comprehensive list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions can be found in Appendix A. The cumulative effects analysis for aquatic resources focuses on that subset of past, present, and future actions that have impacted or could potentially impact aquatic resources. These include agriculture, stream impoundment, recreation, road construction, maintenance, and use, and timber harvest.

During the mid 1800’s much of the forested land in southern Illinois was cleared for agricultural production. The result was a reduction in vegetated stream corridors and increased sedimentation from agricultural activities (Hite et al. 1990). Conversely, since the mid 1900’s much of this land has been reforested, leading to a reduction in sediment load. Although reforestation has improved conditions, these streams continue to be affected by past management practices as they revert back to more stable and natural states (Kandl 1987).

Stream impoundment has also had a profound effect on habitat and aquatic communities. In particular, impoundments within the Bay Creek Drainage (i.e., Bay Creek #5, Sugar Creek Lake, and Lake Glendale) have resulted in habitat alteration and changes in fish community structure. Impoundments alter flow, temperature, and sediment regimes of streams, which affects aquatic organisms and alters the physical habitat not only within the impounded area but also downstream of the impoundment. Impoundments also fragment systems, isolating previously continuous populations (Cushing and Allen 2001).

In addition to agriculture and stream impoundment, which have likely exerted the greatest impact on stream habitat, other activities that have affected aquatic habitat include recreation, road construction and maintenance, and timber harvest. Recreational activities that can contribute sediment to streams include use of trails by equestrians and hikers and the use of trails and roads by all terrain vehicles (ATV) and off highway vehicles (OHV). Past road construction has also affected aquatic habitat by introducing sediment to streams, altering stream habitat, and in some cases fragmenting populations (e.g., culverts that limit fish passage). Past timber harvest, especially during the mid

35 1800s when much of the land was cleared, has undoubtedly affected habitat. Within the recent past (i.e., last 10 years) most of the timber harvest has occurred on private land. All of these past practices continue into present day and are discussed in more detail below. Although all of the aforementioned activities have affected habitat in the project area, streams within the area are still considered to have good to excellent water quality.

Present practices affecting stream habitat and aquatic communities, primarily via erosion and subsequent sedimentation, include agricultural and logging activity on private land, construction and maintenance of roads, and recreational activity on the Shawnee National Forest. Erosion resulting from pastures and row crop production is evident on lands within these watersheds (Hite et al. 1990) and does influence downstream habitat on the Shawnee National Forest. Road construction, maintenance, and use also contribute sediment to streams and can influence available habitat (Waters 1995). Although new road construction within the Forest and the surrounding area is minimal, erosion from existing roads and maintenance activities on roads (e.g., bridge or culvert replacement) add sediment to the streams. Management of impoundments and the associated effects noted above are another present day practice affecting stream habitat and biotic communities.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area anticipated to occur within the next five years include all of the above present actions. Despite enforcement efforts, illegal use of ATVs and OHVs is expected to continue. Although agricultural activity will continue, modern conservation-oriented practices would help to alleviate resource damage to aquatic habitat. Another anticipated action, prescribed burning for vegetation management, could add minor amounts of sediment to streams. However, best management practices (e.g, disking of firelines, reseeding, placement of water bars, and construction of fire lines by hand in sensitive areas) should mitigate any adverse impacts from erosion of burned areas.

Outside of the project area, but within the spatial boundary of this analysis, construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek (tributary to South Fork of the Saline River) could impact the least brook lamprey and Indiana crayfish. Thus, the spatial boundary for cumulative effects analysis for these species was expanded to include the Sugar Creek Drainage. The city of Marion has proposed construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek, which would completely destroy one lamprey spawning site and have drastic impacts on another

36 (Weitzell et al. 1998). The Indiana crayfish is also known to inhabit the area and would likewise be affected by the construction. Mitigation for the reservoir project would include purchasing land or easements within the Bay and Lusk drainages (Mierzwa and Copeland 2002). The proposed mitigation would result in beneficial impacts within the trails designation project area, because habitat acquired could be protected and managed to ensure the continued existence of these species.

Lampetra aepyptera – least brook lamprey

The least brook lamprey is widely distributed throughout the eastern half of the United States and is native to 16 states (NatureServe 2004). In Illinois, this species has a relatively small historic range and is currently listed as a threatened species. On the Shawnee Forest, the least brook lamprey is found in the Big Creek, Big Grand Pierre Creek, Lusk Creek, and Bay Creek watersheds. Based upon surveys conducted by Weitzell et al. (1998), Burr and Stewart (1999), and Shawnee Forest personnel, the least brook lamprey is known to occur at 15 sites on the Forest: Sugar Creek (2), Little Bay Creek (1), Bay Creek (7), Lusk Creek (1), Big Grand Pierre Creek (2), and Big Creek (2). All of the locations, except for Sugar Creek and Big Creek, fall within the project area. Identification of new populations, combined with previously known populations, indicates that distribution on the Shawnee Forest may be more widespread than previously thought.

Within the project area, spawning surveys were conducted in 2005 (Table 3). The purpose of the spawning surveys was 1) to document spawning locations, 2) identify existing spawning habitat, and 3) determine the proximity of spawning sites to trail crossings. The survey included all stream crossings included in the proposed action (Alternative 2) in the Big Grand Pierre, Bay, and Lusk drainages. Due to time constraints, the upper portion of Little Lusk Creek was not surveyed during the spawning period. However, habitat surveys subsequent to the spawning period found that no spawning habitat would be affected by the crossings proposed in Alternative 2. No surveys were conducted in the portion of the Eagle Creek Drainage affected by the project because suitable habitat is not available.

Spawning activity, including pit (nest) construction, aggregations of individuals, and physical spawning, was observed at 31 sites. At three other sites, Bell Smith Springs (2) and Hunting Branch, only individual adult lamprey were observed. Seven spawning sites were located in close proximity to existing trails, but only two sites (identified by boldface type) were at trail crossings included within the proposed action. Spawning activity was first observed on March 31 and last observed on April 5.

37 Table 3. Least brook lamprey spawning sites in the Bay, Big Grand Pierre, and Lusk drainages. Location *Spawning **Seasonal Stream Location Description At Closure Crossing? BAY CREEK N37 33.262 W88 36.763 Bay Creek Wilderness YES Alt 3 BAY CREEK N37 32.749 W88 37.647 Bay Creek Wilderness NO BAY CREEK N37 32.785 W88 37.593 Bay Creek Wilderness NO BAY CREEK N37 32.796 W88 37.538 Bay Creek Wilderness NO BAY CREEK N37 33.126 W88 37.153 Bay Creek Wilderness NO BAY CREEK N37 30.854 W88 39.801 Bell Smith Springs-Natural Arch NO BAY CREEK N37 31.049 W88 39.322 Below Bell Smith Springs NO BAY CREEK TRIBUTARY N37 33.223 W88 37.068 Bay Creek Wilderness-Tributary to Bay NO HUNTING BRANCH N37 31.183 W88 39.532 Hunting Branch Picnic Area NO LITTLE BAY N37 29.182 W88 41.476 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls NO LITTLE BAY N37 29.236 W88 41.464 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls NO LITTLE BAY N37 29.308 W88 41.494 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls NO LITTLE BAY N37 29.446 W88 41.504 Confluence w/Bay to Jackson Falls NO LITTLE BAY N37 30.200 W88 41.404 Near Jackson Falls YES Alt 3 and 4 LITTLE LUSK N37 30.895 W88 30.848 Lusk Creek Wilderness NO LITTLE LUSK N37 30.983 W88 30.777 Lusk Creek Wilderness NO LITTLE LUSK N37 31.026 W88 30.760 Lusk Creek Wilderness NO LITTLE LUSK N37 30.910 W88 30.691 Lusk Creek Wilderness NO LITTLE LUSK N37 30.979 W88 30.163 Lusk Creek Wilderness NO LUSK N37 30.367 W88 32.186 Reagan Ford NO LUSK N37 30.389 W88 32.212 Reagan Ford NO LUSK N37 32.885 W88 32.310 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Blanchard YES Alt 2 and 3 LUSK N37 32.876 W88 32.277 Lusk Creek Wilderness-E of Coyote Club NO LUSK N37 32.128 W88 32.900 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Natural Bridge NO Lusk Creek Wilderness-Below Natural LUSK N37 32.133 W88 32.795 B. NO Lusk Creek Wilderness-Above Salt LUSK N37 32.128 W88 32.900 Peter YES Alt 2 and 3 LUSK N37 31.638 W88 32.932 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Goat Trail YES LUSK N37 28.353 W88 32.846 Eddyville Blacktop Bridge NO LUSK N37 28.422 W88 32.720 Upstream of Eddyville Blacktop Bridge NO LUSK 37 28.462 W88 32.673 Upstream of Eddyville Blacktop Bridge NO LUSK N37 31.785 W88 32.678 Lusk Creek Wilderness-River to River NO LUSK N37 29.173 W88 32.250 Rose Ford NO LUSK N37 32.037 W88 32.956 Lusk Creek Wilderness-Salt Peter Cave YES *Spawning at crossing: “Yes” if spawning activity was observed within 15 feet of a trail crossing. **Seasonal closure will be implemented from March 15 to May 15 under the alternatives listed.

38 Preferred habitat is high quality streams characterized by continuous flow, moderate to high gradient, clear water, gravel and sand substrates, and riparian zones that buffer the stream from sedimentation, turbidity, and high water temperature. Spawning occurs from late-March through early-April at temperatures between 16 and 18 C (Burr and Stewart 1999). A survey conducted by the Shawnee National Forest in 2005 documented pre- spawn and spawning activities between March 31 and April 5 at temperatures between 12 and 15 C. Eggs are deposited in shallow pits, formed by the lamprey moving gravel and pebbles. Reported incubation rates vary from approximately 4 days (Pfleiger 1997) to 3- 4 weeks (Smith 1979; NatureServe 2004). Newly-hatched ammocoetes (larvae) drift downstream into low velocity pools. Burr and Stewart (1999) described these pools as having substrate composition of 60% sand, 25% coarse material, and 15% silt and organic matter. Ammocoetes mature in three or four years, spawn the following spring, and die shortly thereafter (Pfleiger 1997; Burr and Stewart 1999).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to lamprey populations are most likely to occur at trail crossings, especially those that go through or are in close proximity spawning sites. Spawning typically occurs on rocky and gravelly riffles, which are coincidentally the best locations for crossing by equestrians and hikers. Direct effects can be broken down into three categories: 1) the disruption of spawning activity at crossings, 2) physical damage to spawning pits and loss of egg viability, and 3) physical alteration of spawning habitat, both at and immediately below the trail crossing. All of these effects can occur as horses or hikers move across the stream. Physical alteration of spawning habitat can also occur from sediment deposited downstream from a trail crossing, but would be less dramatic than the categories listed above. As erosion occurs at the trail crossing, sediment is deposited downstream and alters the habitat. Thus, the greater the number of trail crossings, the greater the potential for direct effects.

Indirect effects to lamprey populations may occur as the result of sedimentation and are not limited to stream crossing sites. Bare soil exposed by trails would erode during periods of heavy precipitation, resulting in an increased amount of sediment entering the stream. Increased sedimentation reduces available spawning habitat (i.e., clean gravel) by filling interstitial spaces and can lead to reduced egg survival. Because continued reproductive success depends upon clean sand and gravel substrates, high amounts of sediment would be detrimental. Thus, the higher the number of trail miles the greater the potential for indirect effects that result from sedimentation.

39 Alternative 1

Direct effects to lamprey populations are expected to be negative because of existing user-created trails and new user-created trails created by cross-country riding. Alternative 1 includes 300 miles of trail and 330 stream crossings, the highest levels of any alternative, within drainages where lamprey are found. At least one user-created trail crossing passes through a spawning location and there are potentially more undiscovered sites within the massive network of existing user-created trails. Continuation of cross- country riding would add new user-created trails and increase the likelihood that other spawning sites would be impacted. Over time user-created trails causing resource damage would be closed and rehabilitated, but identification and closure of these trails may take up to 10 years. In the meantime, new trails would be created by cross-country riding. Cross-country riding would result in a cycle of creation, discovery, closure, and rehabilitation of new user-created trails and continued negative impacts.

Indirect effects are also expected to be negative. Runoff from disturbed areas, including user-created and designated trails, would increase the sedimentation rate within streams unless the trails are adequately maintained (e.g., graveling and water bars). Designated trails would be maintained, but user-created trails would not. As user-created trails deteriorate and begin to cause resource damage they would be closed. Because closure of these trails is expected to take up to 10 years, sediment from deteriorating user-created trails will continue to negatively impact stream habitat. Once all existing user-created trails are closed, some positive effects of reduced sedimentation would be expected. In addition, the prohibition on commercial equestrian traffic after a one inch rainfall would also reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion. However, the creation of new user-created trails caused by cross-country riding will continue to negatively affect stream habitat.

Alternative 2

Direct effects of this alternative would be positive, because user-created trails not included in the designated system would be closed and cross-country riding would be discontinued. This alternative would reduce trail miles by 42% and stream crossings by 42%, close or relocate trails where resource damage is occurring, and maintain trails within the designated system. Closing these trails would lower the number of crossings and eliminate potential negative impacts at these crossings. Seasonal closures of designated trail crossings at known spawning sites would eliminate direct effects to spawning lamprey.

40 period of trail reconstruction. Likewise, the wet weather closure should also reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. This seasonal closure would provide additional protection from stream sedimentation. Reducing sedimentation would improve habitat conditions for all life stages of the least brook lamprey.

Alternative 3

A slight, negative, direct effect is expected under this alternative; but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area or cause a trend toward federal listing. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness area could result in impacts at stream crossings. Stream crossings on system trails would be closed seasonally to avoid impacts to spawning lamprey. However, non-system trails or new non-system trails from cross country riding would only be closed if spawning lamprey were found at those crossings. Monitoring of lamprey populations would be difficult at non-system trail crossings and it is likely that some impacts would go undetected. Some indirect effects from trail erosion and stream sedimentation are anticipated. Within drainages where lamprey are found, 210 of the 300 existing miles (70%) would be incorporated into the trail system. Of the remaining non-system trails, 19 miles would be closed and rehabilitated and 91 miles would be available for use. Non-system trails could be closed, but only if resource damage was occurring. It is reasonable to assume that the non-system trails, which would not be maintained, would eventually be closed; however, closure of these trails would likely take up to 10 years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas would result in the creation of more non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment.

This alternative is expected to result in short-term impacts to habitat downstream of the project area, because of sedimentation from non-maintained, non-system trails. In addition, continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness area would result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor, compared to other sources, short-term effects would be relatively minor.

Alternative 4

Direct effects under this alternative would be positive. This alternative would reduce trail miles by 53% and stream crossings by 58%. As stream crossings are reduced the direct effects to spawning and spawning habitat are also reduced. The discontinuation of cross- country riding would also preclude the creation of new user-created trails and potential impacts at stream crossings.

Indirect effects from this alternative would also be positive. The lower number of trail miles would result in a positive indirect effect as sedimentation within the drainage is reduced. The short-term (1-3 year) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Additional protection would be afforded by the closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness after rainfall of

41 an inch or more. Reductions in trail miles, combined with seasonal closures and weather- related closures, would result in reduced sedimentation.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion. Incremental effects of these alternatives may have some positive or negative impacts to habitat and individuals; however, activities on private land surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on stream habitat within these watersheds. The effects of these alternatives, combined with other past, present, and future actions, are not expected to cause a loss of population viability within the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Recent confirmation of historic locations and the discovery of new locations, suggest that the population on the Shawnee National Forest is stable and that distribution on the Forest may be more widespread than previously thought.

One potential future action that could affect existing populations in Illinois is the planned construction of a new reservoir on Sugar Creek. If the project goes forward, populations and habitat within Sugar Creek would be affected. A loss of population viability within the Sugar Creek drainage would limit the distribution of this species and increase the relative importance of populations and suitable habitat on the Forest. Proposed mitigation for the reservoir project includes land and easement purchases within the Bay and Lusk drainages. This mitigation would have a beneficial effect within the project area, because these acquisitions would allow for greater protection of existing habitat and populations.

Summary of Effects

Implementation of Alternative 1 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Continued use of user-created trails that cross through spawning sites and erosion from the vast network of user-created and designated trails would negatively affect individuals and habitat. Cross-country riding offers the potential for creation of even more trails, producing additional negative impacts at stream crossings and throughout the watersheds. Trails where resource damage is occurring could be closed, thereby avoiding negative impacts; however, this alternative does not allow for a designated trail system and maintenance and monitoring would be tenuous at best. Although negative impacts would occur, these effects are not expected to cause a loss of population viability. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trails. Other actions adjacent to and surround the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on habitat and individuals. Given the fact that populations within the project area appear stable, and that effects would be limited, no loss of populations or deleterious effect on populations is predicted.

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Closing of user-created trails and elimination of cross-country riding would reduce the potential for disruption of spawning activity and degradation of spawning habitat. Fewer miles of trail, closure and rehabilitation of user-created trails, and the short-term seasonal closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment entering the streams. Although the effects of this alternative is predicted to be beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to erosion from trails. Actions on land adjacent to and surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on habitat and individuals.

Implementation of Alternative 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas would result in the creation of more non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment.

Implementation of Alternative 4 would have a “beneficial impact.” Reducing the number of stream crossings would alleviate the potential for interruption of spawning and impacts to spawning habitat. Fewer trail miles, combined with the closure of user- created trails and discontinuation of cross-country riding would reduce the amount of sediment entering streams. Likewise, wet weather closures in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would prevent erosion of trails and reduce the amount of sediment entering Lusk Creek. Although the effects of this alternative are predicted to be beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to erosion from trails. Actions on land adjacent to and surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on habitat and individuals. Of all alternatives, this alternative provides the greatest benefit for aquatic resources.

Etheostoma caeruleum-rainbow darter

The rainbow darter has been designated as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for riparian areas. Management Prescription 6.3 applies to all riparian areas forest wide. Within these management areas, MIS have been identified to monitor effects of management practices. The rainbow darter is common throughout the Shawnee Forest and is present in Big Grand Pierre, Lusk, and Upper Bay watersheds, but not in the Eagle Creek Watershed. Baseline data for the MIS can be found in the Fishes of the Shawnee (Burr and Mayden 1979), which listed all known locations on the Forest at that time. Using Fishes of the Shawnee information as the baseline, we compared these historic locations within the project area to present day locations. In 1979 there were six locations for the rainbow darter. Surveys conducted by the Forest from 2001-3005 found that rainbow darter were still present at or in the near vicinity of locations documented in 1979. In addition, these surveys identified six other locations where the rainbow darter

43 occurs in the project area. Given that populations in different streams continue to persist, there does not appear to be any concern with population viability.

Habitat for the rainbow darter is generally rocky and/or gravelly riffles of clear, high gradient, upper elevation streams having permanent, strong flow (Burr and Mayden 1979). This species is most abundant in streams with predominately silt-free bottoms and is less tolerant of turbidity and intermittent flow than other darter species. Spawning habitat consists of riffle sections with swift current and gravelly bottoms that are suitable for egg deposition. Eggs are deposited and buried under the gravel (Pfleiger 1997).

Potential threats to existing populations include sedimentation, pollution, and impoundment of streams. In areas where these actions have occurred, populations have been decimated (Smith 1979). Sediment can come from many sources including agriculture, forestry, mining, road construction, and urban development (Waters 1995), activities that occur on land surrounding and adjacent to the Shawnee National Forest. On the Forest, the greatest threat to rainbow darters would be increased stream sedimentation. High sedimentation rates would be expected to negatively affect this species, because the rainbow darter prefers habitat free of silt (Pfleiger 1997). Two sources of sediment on the Forest are equestrian and illegal ATV traffic. Erosion of trails and stream banks caused by ATV and equestrian traffic would result in increased stream sedimentation. These activities can also directly damage spawning habitat by movement of coarse substrates and bank erosion at stream crossings. In addition, increased sedimentation could affect feeding habits and consequently survival of individual species due to the disappearance of sediment intolerant invertebrates (i.e., primary food items).

The following effects analysis would be limited to watersheds where this species, or available habitat, is known to occur. These include Big Grand Pierre, Lusk Creek, and Bay Creek.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Similar to the least brook lamprey, direct effects on the rainbow darter are most likely to occur at trail crossings. Thus, the greater the number of trail crossings, the greater the potential for direct effects. Direct effects include 1) the disruption of spawning activity at crossings, 2) physical damage of eggs at riffle sites, and 3) physical alteration of spawning habitat, both at and immediately below the trail crossing. These effects can occur as horses or hikers move across the stream. Physical alteration of spawning habitat can also occur from sediment. As erosion occurs at the trail crossing, sediment is deposited at and directly below the crossing and alters the habitat.

44 stream. Thus, the higher the number of trail miles, the greater the potential for indirect effects that result from sedimentation. Increased sedimentation reduces available spawning habitat (i.e., clean gravel) by filling interstitial spaces and can lead to reduced egg survival. In addition, increased sedimentation may cause changes in the types of insects present (i.e., those that are primary food items for the rainbow darter). Shifts from sediment-intolerant to sediment-tolerant macroinvertebrates would cause changes in feeding habitats that can influence growth and survival.

Alternative 1

Direct effects to rainbow darter populations are expected to be negative because of existing user-created trails and new user-created trails created by cross-country riding. Spawning typically occurs on rocky and gravelly riffles, which are coincidentally the best locations for crossing by equestrians and hikers. Implementation of this alternative would not reduce the miles of trail or stream crossings from existing conditions (300 trail miles and 330 stream crossings). In fact, the continuation of cross-country riding would add more user-created trails and more stream crossings. Interruption of spawning and alteration of spawning habitat at and below the crossings would result in a direct negative effect. This direct negative effect would be limited to the spring (i.e., the spawning period) and could be mitigated by closing trails where resource damage is occurring. However, closure of user-created trails where damage is occurring is expected to take up to 10 years.

Indirect effects under Alternative 1 would be negative, because of continued erosion of user-created trails. Runoff from disturbed areas, including user-created and designated trails, increases sedimentation streams unless the trails are adequately maintained (e.g., graveling and water bars). Designated trails would be maintained, but user-created trails would not. High levels of sedimentation would have an indirect negative effect on available habitat and would cause a shift in invertebrate (i.e., insect) composition from sediment-intolerant to sediment-tolerant. As user-created trails deteriorate and begin to cause resource damage they would be closed. Because closure of these trails is expected to take up to 10 years, sediment from deteriorating user-created trails will continue to negatively impact stream habitat. Once all existing user-created trails are closed, some positive effects of reduced sedimentation would be expected. However, the creation of new user-created trails caused by cross-country riding will continue to negatively affect stream habitat.

Alternative 2

Direct effects of this alternative would be positive, because many user created trails would be closed and the number of stream crossings would be reduced. The practical effects of this alternative would be to reduce trail miles by 42% and stream crossings by 42%, close or relocate trails where resource damage is occurring, and maintain trails

45 within the designated system. In addition, discontinuation of cross-country riding would preclude the formation of new user-created trails. The benefit would be less potential for interruption of spawning sites at stream crossings and reduced sedimentation from erosion at stream crossings.

Indirect effects of this alternative would also be positive. As trail miles decline, sedimentation within the watershed would also decline. The closure and rehabilitation of user-created trails, combined with the discontinuation of cross-country riding, should greatly reduce the amount of sediment coming from trails. In addition, the short-term (1- 3 years) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. This seasonal closure would provide additional protection from stream sedimentation. Reductions in sediment would result in improved habitat conditions for all life stages of the rainbow darter and invertebrate populations.

Alternative 3

Implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to adversely affect individuals, but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in effects at stream crossings. Within drainages where rainbow darters are found, 210 of the 300 existing miles (70 percent) would be incorporated into the trail system. Of the remaining non-system trails, 19 miles would be closed and rehabilitated and 91 miles would be available for use. Non-system trails could be closed, but only if resource damage were occurring or if they were newly developed. It is reasonable to assume that the non-system trails, which would not be maintained, would eventually be closed; however, closure of these trails could take up to ten years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in the creation of more non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment.

This alternative is expected to result in the short term in adverse affects on habitat downstream of the project area, because of sedimentation from non-maintained, non- system trails. In addition, continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness area could result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed until they are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor, compared to other sources, short-term effects would be relatively minor.

Alternative 4

Direct effects of Alternative 4 would be positive. This alternative would include the fewest trail miles and stream crossings compared to other alternatives. Trail miles would be reduced by 53% and stream crossings by 58%. As stream crossings are reduced, direct effects to spawning and spawning habitat are also reduced. The cessation of cross- country riding would also preclude the creation of new user-created trails and potential impacts at stream crossings.

46 The lower number of trail miles would result in a positive indirect effect as sedimentation within the drainage is reduced. The short-term (1-3 year) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Additional protection would be afforded by the closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness after rainfall of an inch or more. Reductions in trail miles, combined with seasonal closures and weather-related closures, would result in reduced sedimentation.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion. Activities on private land surrounding the forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on stream habitat within these watersheds. Incremental effects of these alternatives may have some positive or negative impacts to habitat and individuals; however, activities on private land surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on stream habitat within these watersheds. The effects of these alternatives, combined with other past, present, and future actions, are not expected to cause a loss of population viability within the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Regardless of the effects of these alternatives, positive or negative, no long-term impacts to populations are expected to occur under any of the alternatives.

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Continued use of user-created trails that cross through spawning sites and erosion and subsequent sedimentation from the vast network of user-created and designated trails would affect individuals and habitat. These direct effects would mainly be limited to springtime when spawning occurs. Indirect effects are also expected to be negative, because of the increased potential for sedimentation. Cross-country riding offers the potential for creation of even more trails, producing additional negative impacts at stream crossings and throughout the watersheds. Impacts from negative, indirect effects are somewhat lessened because user-created trails where resource damage is occurring could be closed. However, it would likely take up to 10 years to complete closures on all user-created trails. Given that populations are stable and habitat is available throughout the drainages, it is apparent that this alternative would have no effect on the population viability of this species.

Alternative 2 would result in a slight “beneficial impact.” Closing user-created trails and elimination of cross country riding would reduce the potential for direct effects (i.e., disruption of spawning activity and degradation of spawning habitat). Fewer miles of trail, closure and rehabilitation of user-created trails, and the short-term seasonal closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment entering the streams. Although the effects of this alternative are predicted to be

47 beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Trails contribute only a portion of the total sediment entering the stream and the positive effects here would be limited. Other actions adjacent to and surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on stream habitat.

Alternative 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” The number of stream crossings and miles of trail would be slightly reduced relative to existing conditions. Fewer trail miles would lessen the amount of sediment entering streams. However, these positive effects would be offset by continued use of user- created trails and cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas. Cross-country riding would result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed. Overall, this alternative is predicted to have some negative indirect effects to habitat and individuals.

Alternative 4 would have a “beneficial impact.” Reducing the number of stream crossings would alleviate the potential for interruption of spawning and impacts to spawning habitat. Fewer trail miles, combined with the closure of user-created trails and discontinuation of cross-country riding would reduce the amount of sediment entering streams. Likewise, wet weather closures in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would prevent erosion of trails and reduce the amount of sediment entering Lusk Creek. Although the effects of this alternative are predicted to be beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Actions on land adjacent to and surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on habitat and individuals. Of all alternatives, this alternative provides the greatest benefit for aquatic resources.

Orconectes indianensis – Indiana crayfish

Existing Conditions-The Indiana crayfish has a limited range in the lower Ohio River Valley, where it occurs in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana. In Illinois the Indiana crayfish is found in the following counties and streams: Gallatin County-Eagle and Robinette Creek; Hardin County-Honey Creek, Sheridan Branch, and Rock Creek; Johnson County-Clifty Creek and Sugar Creek; Pope County-Burden Creek; Saline County-Little Saline River and Rocky Branch; With County-Brushy Slough; and Williamson County-South Fork Saline River and Sugar Creek. (Page 1985; Taylor 2003). This species is listed as endangered in Illinois.

48 contain the Indiana crayfish, all pool/riffle complexes will be protected from activities that may result in habitat degradation.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects on the Indiana crayfish are not expected under any alternatives, because it is not known to occur in the project area. Indirect effects, however, could result from erosion of user-created and system trails in the vicinity of the Garden of the Gods Ecological Area. Trail erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation could impact habitat in the Eagle Creek Drainage, which is downstream of the project area. Sediment that is deposited in these streams will fill the interstitial spaces between pebble, cobble, and rubble substrate. These interstitial spaces are an important habitat component for the Indiana crayfish. Sedimentation impacts will be highest in areas with a high trail density, especially if the trails are not well maintained.

The only populations potentially affected by this project are found in Eagle Creek Drainage, downstream of the project area. No direct effects are expected under any alternative. Thus, the following effects analysis will focus on indirect and cumulative effects to populations within the Eagle Creek Drainage.

Alternative 1

No direct effects.

Indirect effects of this alternative are expected to negatively impact habitat and individuals downstream in the drainage. This alternative would not reduce trail miles in the Eagle Creek Drainage and would allow continued use of user-created trails. User- created trails and system trails contribute sediment to the drainage. System trails are maintained, but user-created trails are not. The deterioration of user-created trails would lead to increased sedimentation downstream of the project area. Increased sedimentation would negatively affect habitat for known populations, resulting in an indirect negative

49 effect. As user-created trails deteriorate and begin to cause resource damage they would be closed. Closure of these trails is expected to take up to 10 years. As deteriorating user-created trails are closed, new trails created by cross-country riding would be created. Once all existing user-created trails are closed, some positive effects of reduced sedimentation would be expected. However, the creation of new user-created trails caused by cross-country riding will continue to negatively affect stream habitat. This alternative does not allow for a designated trail system, which would make inventory and maintenance more difficult. Thus, areas where resource damage is occurring may go unnoticed and unchecked.

Alternative 2

No direct effects.

Alternative 2 is expected to result in a beneficial effect on the species. Indirect effects under this alternative would be beneficial. Within the Eagle Creek drainage, Alternative 2 would reduce trail miles by 29 percent and stream crossings by 40 percent. Eliminating many non-system trails and reducing trail miles and crossings would reduce sedimentation within the drainage. Likewise, maintenance of formerly non-system trails would also be expected to have a beneficial effect by reducing erosion and sedimentation. In the short-term (5-7 years), some sedimentation of streams would occur as non-system trails are closed and rehabilitated and new proposed trails are installed. Because trails contribute only a small percentage of total sediment reaching aquatic habitat, adverse effects on aquatic species would be minimal and not result in adverse population effects. In the long-term (10-15 years), a reduction of sediment would result in a slight, indirect beneficial effect on downstream habitat. Water quality is presently rated by the State as “full support” and is expected to be maintained or improved, thus aquatic habitat conditions are expected to improve as well.

Alternative 3

No direct effects.

Alternative 3 is expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Within the Eagle Creek drainage, this alternative would reduce trail miles by only four percent, with little to no reduction in the number of stream crossings. Three miles of existing trail would be closed and rehabilitated, but about twenty miles of non-designated trail would remain available for use. Non-system trails could be closed, but only to prevent and/or repair resource damage, or if new. It is reasonable to assume that the non-system trails, which could not be maintained, would eventually be closed over the next ten years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in the development of new non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment in the short term until the new trails are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor

50 (see Soils and Aquatic Resources Sections), this alternative is expected to result in minor, adverse affects on habitat downstream of the project area in the short term.

Alternative 4

No direct effects.

An indirect positive effect is expected. Within the Eagle Creek Drainage, Alternative 4 would reduce trail miles by 46% and stream crossings by 60%. This alternative would have the lowest miles of trail of all alternatives. Fewer trail miles would mean less erosion from trails and would make it easier to maintain designated trails. Thus, sedimentation is expected to decrease and would result in an indirect positive effect on downstream habitat.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 would have an adverse effect upon habitat and individuals, but these effects do not exceed the threshold for a significant cumulative effect (i.e., no loss of populations within the project area). Likewise the beneficial effects noted in Alternatives 2 and 4 would not result in an increase in populations, nor would they be expected to cause an increase in distribution on the Forest.

Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion (see Project File, Soil and Water Resources Working Paper). Incremental effects of these alternatives may have some positive or negative impacts to habitat and individuals within the Eagle Creek Drainage, but they will not result in a negative or positive cumulative effect on the Indiana crayfish. Past practices, such as deforestation, agriculture, and stream impoundment have resulted in a narrow distribution for this species. Present-day practices, such as agriculture, road construction and maintenance, and recreation will continue into the future, but these practices are not likely to deleteriously affect populations within the project area.

One potential future action outside the project boundary, but within the spatial boundary for cumulative effects analysis, that may affect existing populations in Illinois is the planned construction of a new reservoir on Sugar Creek. If the project goes forward, populations and habitat within Sugar Creek would be affected. A loss of population viability within the Sugar Creek drainage would narrow the distribution of this species and increase the relative importance of populations and suitable habitat downstream of the project area.

51 Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” The deterioration of user-created trails, combined with erosion from any new trails formed by cross-country riding, would lead to increased sedimentation downstream of the project area. Increased sedimentation within the Eagle Creek Drainage would negatively affect habitat for known populations, resulting in an indirect, negative effect.

Alternatives 2 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Closing of user-created trails and maintenance of formerly user-created trails would reduce the total amount of sedimentation in the Eagle Creek Drainage. Reduction in trail miles should have a positive effect on downstream habitat.

Alternative 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” This alternative is expected to result in short-term impacts to habitat downstream of the project area. No long-term impacts are expected, because over time non-system trails would be closed and system trails would be maintained. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor (see Soils and Aquatic Resources Section), compared to other sources, short- term effects would be relatively minor.

Alternative 4 would have a “beneficial impact.” Greatly reducing the miles of trail within the Eagle Creek Drainage would result in a noticeable decrease in sedimentation. Over time, this would result in improved habitat conditions downstream where populations are known to exist.

Elliptio dilatata-spike, Villosa lienosa–little spectaclecase, and Toxolasma lividus–Purple Lilliput

The spike, Elliptio dilatata, is widespread throughout the United States, but sporadic in distribution (Cummings and Mayer 1992). This species is listed as threatened in Illinois. On the Shawnee National Forest, this species is known to occur in Big Grand Pierre Creek, but only within a relatively small section of stream near Big Grand Pierre Lake (INHS Collection Database 2004). Surveys conducted by the Forest in 2005 found that this species was not present at or in the vicinity of proposed trail crossings. Habitat is small to large streams and occasionally lakes in mud or gravel.

Recent surveys have documented declines in mussel populations throughout the United States. Some possible explanations for these declines include commercial harvest, sedimentation, poor land management, stream channelization, stream impoundment, competition from introduced species, and chemical pollution (Cummings and Mayer

52 1992; Smith 2001). In Missouri the range has been severely reduced by siltation and channelization (Oesch 1984).

The little spectaclecase, Villosa lienosa, is found in 15 states. It is widespread but uncommon in the Ohio River drainage and is listed as endangered in Illinois (Cummings and Mayer 1992; NatureServe 2004). On the Shawnee National Forest, this species is known to occur in Big Grand Pierre Creek, but only within a relatively small section of stream near Big Grand Pierre Lake (INHS Collection Database 2004). Surveys conducted by the Forest in 2005 found that this species was not present at or in the vicinity of proposed trail crossings.

Habitat for this species has been described as soft substrates (i.e., sand and mud) in slight to moderate current in small creeks to medium-sized rivers (NatureServe 2004). Cummings and Mayer (1992) list habitat in the Midwest as small to medium streams in sand and gravel.

The purple lilliput, Toxolasma lividus, is found in 12 states. In Illinois this species is listed as endangered. On the Shawnee National Forest, this species is known to occur in Big Grand Pierre Creek, but only within a relatively small section of stream near Big Grand Pierre Lake (INHS Collection Database 2004). Surveys conducted by the Forest in 2005 found that this species was not present at or in the vicinity of proposed trail crossings.

Habitat for this species is lakes and small to medium size streams in gravel (Cummings and Mayer 1992). Threats to existing populations include 1) loss of high quality riffle habitat, 2) pollution resulting in poor water quality, 3) sedimentation, 4) stream modification including dredging and impoundment, and 5) biological modifications to fish communities (NatureServe 2004).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to mussels could occur at trail crossings as the result of horses and hikers moving across the stream. At stream crossings, individuals could be displaced and shells could be crushed. All three species are known to occur in the Big Grand Pierre Drainage, but have not been found in areas where trail crossings are proposed. Thus, no direct effects at stream crossings are anticipated. Although there would be no direct effects, there could be indirect effects to individuals and habitat downstream of trail crossings.

Indirect effects from these alternatives may occur because of increased sedimentation downstream of the project area. Mollusks are filter feeding organisms and increased turbidity in the stream has a deleterious effect on feeding. In addition, host fish (i.e., fish, such as crappie, that serve as hosts for larvae and are necessary to complete the life cycle) might also be negatively impacted by increased turbidity and sedimentation. Although the relative contribution of sediment from trails is low compared to other sources, any

53 sediment entering the stream from unnatural sources would be expected to have a negative impact on individuals and habitat. An increase in trail miles would be expected to cause negative indirect effects, while a reduction in trail miles would be expected to cause positive indirect effects.

Alternative 1 and 3

No direct effects.

Alternatives 1 and 3 are expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Neither of these alternatives would result in a substantial reduction in trail miles within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage. Erosion from the non-system trails would continue to contribute sediment to streams. Alternative 1 allows continued cross-country riding inside and outside wilderness areas, while Alternative 3 allows cross-country riding outside wilderness areas. Because cross-country riding would be allowed, more non- system trails would likely be created and sedimentation would increase. Sediment delivered downstream would impact individuals by altering habitat and interfering with feeding. Because trails contribute a small percentage of the total sediment within the watershed, negative effects would be only slight and would not cause the loss of populations.

Alternatives 2 and 4

No direct effects.

Within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage, these alternatives would reduce trail miles by more than 35%. Reducing the total trail miles and number of stream crossings in the project area would reduce the total amount of sediment affecting downstream habitat. This would have a beneficial effect on downstream habitat and populations. However, the benefit would only be slight, because trails produce only a small portion of the sediment and other sediment-producing activities would likely continue.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. The incremental effects of these alternatives are expected to have no cumulative effect upon populations or habitat within Big Grand Pierre Creek. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trails. Other sources, particularly those on private land and upstream of known populations, have a greater effect upon stream habitat. No short-or long-term loss of mussel populations is predicted to result from these alternatives.

Summary of Effects

Alternative 1 and 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Neither of these alternatives would result in a substantial reduction in trail miles within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage. Erosion from the non-system trails would continue to contribute sediment to streams. Alternative 1 allows continued cross-country riding inside and outside wilderness areas, while Alternative 3 allows cross-country riding outside wilderness areas. Because cross-country riding would be allowed, more non- system trails would likely be created and sedimentation would increase. Sediment delivered downstream would impact individuals by altering habitat and interfering with feeding. Because trails contribute a small percentage of the total sediment within the watershed, negative effects would be only slight and would not cause the loss of populations.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage, these alternatives would reduce trail miles by more than 30%. Reducing the total trail miles and number of stream crossings in the project area would reduce the total amount of sediment affecting downstream habitat. This would have a beneficial effect on downstream habitat and populations. However, the benefit would only be slight, because trails produce only a small portion of the sediment and other sediment- producing activities would likely continue.

Crangonyx anomalus – anomalous spring amphipod

Existing Conditions- The anomalous spring amphipod, Crangonyx anomalus, is found in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio (NatureServe 2004). In Illinois the anomalous spring amphipod is listed as an endangered species and has been documented from only two locations. The Illinois Natural History Survey Database (INHS 2004) lists a collection in 1974 from a spring in the upper Lusk Creek Drainage (Pope County). Webb et al. (1993) reported a second location from a spring along Simmons Creek, just north of Golconda (Pope County).

55 subterranean animals as 1) increased turbidity and herbicides from agricultural activity and 2) fecal waste from livestock and humans.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects-There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species under any of the alternatives. The subterranean nature of this species would rule out any direct effects. This species could be somewhat indirectly affected by sediment from eroding trails washing into springs and seeps. However, true habitat for this species is underground aquifers, so groundwater contamination would have to occur. Given the relatively small contribution of sediment coming from trails, indirect effects are not likely. Because there would be no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

VI. Determination by Species

A determination of “no impact” is rendered for the following Regional Forester Sensitive, and State of Illinois Threatened and Endangered species: Kentucky crayfish, bigclaw crayfish, butterfly, kidneyshell, and subtle cave amphipod. These species are not known to occur within the project area and suitable habitat is not found within the project area.

Lampetra aepyptera – least brook lamprey

Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Closing of user-created trails and elimination of cross-country riding would reduce the potential for disruption of spawning activity and degradation of spawning habitat. Fewer miles of trail, closure and rehabilitation of user-created trails, and the short-term seasonal closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment entering the streams. Although the effects of this alternative are predicted to be beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Current models suggest that only 6% of sediment entering streams can be attributed to erosion from trails. Actions on land adjacent to and

56 surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on habitat and individuals.

Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in “no impact.” The number of stream crossings and miles of trail would be reduced relative to existing conditions. Fewer stream crossings would reduce impacts to spawning habitat, while fewer trail miles would lessen the amount of sediment entering streams. However, these positive effects would be offset by continued use of user-created trails and cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas. Cross-country riding would result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed. Overall, this alternative is predicted to provide little net benefit to habitat or individuals.

Etheostoma caerulum – rainbow darter

57 of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would result in a decrease in the amount of sediment entering the streams. Although the effects of this alternative are predicted to be beneficial, these effects are not expected to cause substantial changes in population viability or habitat availability. Trails contribute only a portion of the total sediment entering the stream and the positive effects here would be limited. Other actions adjacent to and surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest impact on stream habitat.

Alternative 3 “may adversely impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” The number of stream crossings and miles of trail would be reduced relative to existing conditions. Fewer stream crossings would reduce impacts to spawning habitat, while fewer trail miles would lessen the amount of sediment entering streams. However, these positive effects would be offset by continued use of user-created trails and cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas. Cross-country riding would result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed. This alternative is expected to result in the short term in adverse affects on habitat downstream of the project area, because of sedimentation from non-maintained, non-system trails. In addition, continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness area could result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed until they are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor, compared to other sources, short-term effects would be relatively minor

Orconectes indianensis – Indiana crayfish

Alternative 1 “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” The deterioration of user-created trails, combined with erosion from any new trails formed by cross-country riding, would lead to increased sedimentation downstream of the project area. Increased sedimentation within the Eagle Creek Drainage would negatively affect habitat for known populations, resulting in an indirect, negative effect.

Alternatives 2 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Closing of user-created trails and maintenance of formerly user-created trails would reduce the total amount of

58 sedimentation in the Eagle Creek Drainage. Reduction in trail miles should have a positive effect on downstream habitat.

Alternatives 3 would have “no impact.” The positive effect of reducing sedimentation in the Eagle Creek Drainage, via reduction in the number of trail miles, would likely be negated by the continuation of cross-country riding. Cross-country riding would result in the creation of new user-created trails and the effects of sedimentation would continue.

Elliptio dilatata-spike, Villosa lienosa–little spectaclecase, and Toxolasma lividus–Purple Lilliput

Alternative 1 “may adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.” Erosion of user-created trails will continue to contribute sediment to streams. Because cross-country riding would be allowed, more user-created trails would likely be created and sedimentation would increase. Sediment delivered downstream would impact individuals by altering habitat and interfering with filter-feeding. Because trails contribute a small percentage of the total sediment within the watershed, negative effects would be only slight and would not cause the loss of populations.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a “beneficial impact.” Reducing the total stream miles and number of trail crossings in the Big Grand Pierre Creek Drainage would reduce the total amount of sediment moving downstream. This would have a beneficial impact on downstream habitat and populations. However, the benefit would only be slight, because trails produce only a small portion of the sediment and other sediment- producing activities would likely continue.

Crangonyx anomalus – anomalous spring amphipod

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have “no impact.” This species occupies subterranean habitat, precluding any direct impacts. Indirect effects are also unlikely, because there is little chance of sediment from eroding trails entering the groundwater via springs and seeps.

VII. Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Effects

Mitigation incorporated into all action alternatives will be used to reduce or eliminate potential effects on least brook lamprey at all stream crossings. The following effects analysis assumes that any potential impacts to least brook lamprey will be mitigated by the following:

Mitigation Measure: All stream crossings in close proximity to least brook lamprey spawning sites would be seasonally closed from March 15-May 15. Purpose of Mitigation Measure: To prevent or reduce disturbance to spawning adults and to protect incubating eggs in spawning pits (nests). How we know mitigation will be effective: Disturbance of spawning sites will be reduced or eliminated as an adverse impact to spawning adults and incubating eggs. This mitigation measure provides a seasonal buffer to protect spawning activity and incubating eggs. The time period for the seasonal closure covers the entire duration of spawning, from pre-spawn (i.e., gathering of adults at spawning sites) through incubation, hatching, and downstream drift of ammocoetes. The dates for seasonal closure were developed based upon 1) field investigations conducted by Shawnee National Forest personnel in 2005, 2) a previous study conducted by Burr and Stewart (1999), and 3) reported egg incubation rates (Smith 1979; NatureServe 2004). Mitigation Monitoring: All stream crossing sites affected by project implementation will be surveyed during the spawning period to 1) identify any new spawning locations impacted by crossings and 2) ensure that spawning activity is occurring at crossings that are closed. Monitoring will occur annually for three years once the project is initiated. Responsible Person: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for assuring that mitigation is implemented.

Mitigation incorporated into all action alternatives will be used to reduce or eliminate the potential effects of increased sedimentation on state-listed mussels. The following effects analysis assumes that any potential impacts to habitat for state-listed mussels will be mitigated by the following:

Mitigation Measure: All designated stream crossings would be armored and maintained with gravel or rock; system trails would be graveled as needed; water bars would be installed as needed on all designated and abandoned/closed trails. Purpose of Mitigation Measure: To prevent erosion and subsequent sedimentation of stream habitat. How we know mitigation will be effective: Armoring trails and stream crossings with gravel or rock will increase the wet strength of the trail (Stroh and Struckhoff 2002). Installing water bars on system and abandoned/closed trails will reduce slope length of the trails, thereby reducing erosion (Dissmeyer 1984). Mitigation Monitoring: Upon initiation of the project, surveys will be conducted at trail crossings within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage. Twelve sites will be surveyed, including four sites at each of the following: 1) existing crossings, 2) new crossings, and 3) closed crossings. This monitoring design will allow for detection of increased sedimentation that may result from project implementation. Each site will be surveyed prior to project initiation to gather baseline information. A Wohlman Pebble Count and Residual Pool Depth measurement will be used to identify any increases in sedimentation. Responsible Person: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for assuring that mitigation is implemented.

60 VIII. Responsibility for a Revised Biological Evaluation

This Biological Evaluation was prepared based on the most current scientific information. If the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that reveals the action may impact threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological Evaluation would be required.

IX. Contacts

Scott Shasteen, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Sarah Calloway, Shawnee National Forest Jana Hirst, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Mike Spanel, Shawnee National Forest-retired Don Webb, Illinois Natural History Survey Steve Widowski, Shawnee National Forest

X. Literature Cited

Bain, M. B. and N. J. Stevenson. 1999. Substrate. Pages 95-103 in Aquatic habitat assessment: common methods. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Bryan, C. F. and D. A. Rutherford, editors. 1995. Impacts on warmwater streams: guidelines for evaluation, second edition. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society.

Burr, B. M. and R. L. Mayden. 1979. Fishes of the Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Department of Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Cummings, K. S. and C. A. Mayer. 1992. Field guide to freshwater mussels of the Midwest. Illinois Natural History Survey Manual 5. 194 pp.

Cushing, E.C. and J.D. Allan. 2001. Streams: their ecology and life. Academic Press, New York.

Hite, R. L., C. A. Bickers, and M. M. King. 1990. An intensive survey of Shawnee

61 National Forest Region Streams of Southern Illinois. IEPA/WPC/90-171. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield.

Illinois Natural History Survey. 2004. INHS Collection Database. INHS, Champaign, Illinois. Available http://www.ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu:591/INHScollections. (Accessed: February, 2004).

Mierzswa, K. S. and T. E. Copeland. 2002. Marion Reservoir Habitat Conservation Plan. TAMS Consultants, Inc., Chicago, Illinois.

Moyle, P. B. and J. J. Cech. 2004. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 1.8, NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: February, 2004)

Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiads: a guide to mussels of the Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Page, L. M., K.S. Cummings, C. A. Mayer, S. L. Post, and M. E. Retzer. 1991. Biologically significant Illinois streams: an evaluation of the streams of Illinois based on aquatic biodiversity. Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, Champaign. Technical Report 1992(1).

Page, L. M. 1985. The crayfishes and shrimps (Decapoda) of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, Vol. 33, Art. 4 p. 335-448.

Pfleiger, W. L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Shasteen, S. P., M. R. Matson, M. M. King, J. M. Levesque, G. L. Minton, and S. J. Tripp. 2003. An intensive survey of the Saline River/Bay Creek Basin. IEPA/BOW/02-025. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, Illinois.

Smith, P. W. 1979. The fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 314 pp.

Smith, D. G. 2001. Pennak’s freshwater invertebrates of the United States, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York.

62 Taylor, S. J. and D. W. Webb. 2000. Human impacts on groundwater quality and subterranean aquatic biota in southwestern Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Reports No. 361:2-3.

Taylor, C. A. 2003. Conservation assessment for the Indiana crayfish. Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign.

USDA, Forest Service. 1992. Shawnee National Forest, Amended Land and Resource Management Plan, Harrisburg, Illinois.

Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, Maryland.

Webb, D. W., S. J. Taylor, and J. K. Krejca. 1993. Biological resources of Illinois caves and other subterranean environments. Illinois Natural History Survey Center for Biodiversity. Technical Report, pp. 1-157.

Widowski, S. and B. Fitch. 2000. A watershed assessment for the Shawnee National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Shawnee National Forest, Vienna.

63 Appendix A. Aquatic monitoring plan for trails designation project.

The trails designation project proposes to create a designated trail system within the Eagle Creek, Lusk Creek, Bay Creek, and Big Grand Pierre Creek drainages. Three action alternatives are being considered for implementation. This monitoring plan would be incorporated regardless of which alternative is selected. Significant issues identified in the scoping process relative to aquatic resources included 1) Effects to aquatic resources from trail system erosion and sedimentation, and 2) A species-specific concern related to potential effects on the least brook lamprey, a State of Illinois Threatened Species.

Issue: Least Brook Lamprey—direct effects at trail crossings and indirect effects from sedimentation

Direct Effects at Stream Crossings--Least Brook Lamprey Spawning

Objective: Ensure that least brook lamprey spawning activity and spawning habitat are not reduced by implementation of the Trail Designation Project. Desired Result: Spawning sites and spawning habitat will remain after implementation. Methods: Upon initiation of the project, spawning surveys will be conducted at all trail crossings on the following streams: Bay, Little Bay, Lusk and Little Lusk. All proposed trail crossings on these streams will be monitored to determine (1) use by adult lamprey for spawning, 2) the approximate number of individuals present, and 3) any sedimentation impacts in known spawning riffles. Additional mitigation measures will be proposed if the number of spawning sites is reduced by > 20% and it is determined that spawning habitat has been impacted by trails. The baseline will be the number of spawning sites observed during the 2005 survey. Duration: Three consecutive years, starting when the project is initiated. Responsibility: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Issue: Indirect effects to aquatic resources from trail system erosion and sedimentation

Indirect Effects of Sedimentation --spike, little spectaclecase, and purple lilliput

Objective: Ensure that habitat for the spike, little spectaclecase and purple lilliput is not reduced by implementation of the Trail Designation Project. Desired Result: Habitat for state-listed mussels will remain after implementation. Methods: Upon initiation of the project, surveys will be conducted at trail crossings within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage. Twelve sites will be surveyed, including four sites at each of the following: 1) existing crossings, 2) new crossings, and 3) closed crossings. This monitoring design will allow for detection of increased sedimentation that may result from project implementation. Each site will be surveyed prior to project initiation to gather baseline information. A Wohlman Pebble Count and Residual Pool Depth measurement will be used to identify any increases in sedimentation.

64 Duration: Three consecutive years, starting when the project is initiated. Responsibility: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for monitoring and for recommending for any additional mitigation needed after the project is initiated.

• Upon completion of the three year project monitoring period, standardized Forest stream surveys will be used to detect any changes in habitat or aquatic biota. At present, streams within the four watersheds are monitored on a 4-5 year rotation. Within these watersheds standard sites are sampled for fisheries, habitat and water quality (e.g., 20 sites within the Lusk Creek Watershed). The standardized monitoring will be used to detect any changes in fish populations, as well as habitat conditions. The Forest expects to continue monitoring of these streams on a 4-5 year rotation. • Additional data is collected within the watersheds by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The Forest has assisted with this sampling and plans to continue assisting in the future. Collaboration between the Forest and these agencies will also be used to monitor changes within the watersheds.

65 III. Aquatic Resources

A. Affected Environment – Aquatic Resources

Streams within the project area have good-to-excellent water quality and aquatic habitat (Hite et al. 1990, Shasteen et al. 2003, Shawnee National Forest 2001-2004 unpublished data). Stream habitat is characterized by coarse substrates relatively free of sediment, abundant cover (e.g., undercut banks and woody debris), healthy riparian areas, good canopy coverage (shade) and stable banks with little unnatural erosion.

Because of this high-quality habitat, these streams support diverse fish, mussel and crustacean communities (Page et al. 1991). Species richness is relatively high within the four stream drainages. Collectively, they provide habitat for 65 fish species, 15 crustacean species (including isopods and amphipods) and 24 mollusk species. Fish species diversity is highest in the Big Grand Pierre Creek drainage, while mollusk diversity is highest in Big Grand Pierre and Lusk drainages and crustacean diversity is highest in the Lusk drainage. Six Forest-listed species are found within the project area and include one fish, three mollusks and two crustaceans. The Big Grand Pierre drainage has the highest number of Forest-listed species.

Erosion and sedimentation were identified during public scoping as the significant aquatic-related issues: The location, design and density of the trail system could cause erosion and sedimentation that affects aquatic resources. These issues are considered in the effects analysis.

The effect of sediment on stream habitat and aquatic communities is well documented. Sedimentation decreases pool habitat, lessens available spawning substrate for fish, inhibits macroinvertebrate production, reduces food availability and feeding activity for fish and may interrupt spawning and reduce spawning success (Waters 1995, Bryan and Rutherford 1995). Sedimentation and associated changes in habitat adversely affect fish communities (Waters 1995) and have been linked to declines in relative abundance of mussels and crustaceans (Page 1985, Cummings and Mayer 1992).

Erosion from recreational trails for foot, horse, or motorized traffic can have localized effects on stream habitat via sedimentation (Waters 1995). At present, there are 380 trail crossings on intermittent and perennial streams within the four watersheds. Field surveys conducted during 2003 and 2004 indicated that sedimentation from erosion at trail crossings was evident within the first 15 feet downstream of a crossing. Combining this information with mean stream widths obtained during surveys yielded information on the direct effect of trail crossings to stream habitat (Figure 23).

Stream habitat directly affected by trail crossings is small relative to the total acres of stream habitat within the drainages. For example, under Alternative 1, only 1.9 of the 580 acres of stream habitat is directly affected by trail crossings. Thus, direct affects on

66 habitat at stream crossings are relatively minor unless these stream crossings pass through or just upstream of known spawning sites.

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Stream Habitat Affected (acres) 0.0 Big Grand Eagle Lusk Upper Bay All Pierre Alt. 1 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.5 1.9 Alt. 2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 1.1 Alt. 3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.2 Alt. 4 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.8

Figure 23. Predicted area of affected stream habitat (acres) at trail crossings resulting from each alternative.

Given the importance of maintaining high-quality habitat, surveys have been conducted to document sedimentation and identify areas of habitat degradation. In general, the amount of sediment accumulation in project-area streams is relatively low (Figure 25). Upper Bay Creek drainage has the highest percentage of sediment, while the Eagle Creek drainage has the lowest percentage of sediment. The amount of sedimentation in the Upper Bay drainage, although higher than other drainages, is still close to the acceptable range of less than 15 percent (Waters 1995, Bain et al. 1999). At most sites within the Upper Bay watershed, sedimentation rates were low (less than ten percent); however, streams near Lake Glendale and Sugar Creek Lake (outside of the project area, but tributaries of Bay Creek) had higher sedimentation rates. These rates were encountered in streams near impoundments and highways and were in large part responsible for the overall high average.

67 20 15 10 5 0 Average Silt (%) Big Grand Eagle Lusk Upper Pierre Bay Drainage

Figure 24. Average silt (%) at stream sites on the Forest; from Hite et al. 1990, Shasteen et al. 2003, and 2003-2004 Forest surveys.

B. Affected Environment - Aquatic Species

An analysis of the project area indicated that 11 aquatic species of concern have been known to occur within the five counties of the project area (Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Pope and Saline). Species of concern are the Regional Forester Sensitive, Management Indicator and Forest-Listed. After extensive review, seven of the species were selected for additional analysis based upon known populations within the project area, known populations downstream of the project area and/or the availability of suitable habitat within or downstream of the project area (Table 25). Species selected for further review included two fish (least brook lamprey and rainbow darter), two crustaceans (Indiana crayfish and anomalous spring amphipod) and three mollusks (spike, little spectacle-case and purple lilliput). Additional information on the status, distribution, habitat preferences, and limiting factors for these aquatic species is found in the Biological Evaluation for aquatic resources.

Table 25. Aquatic species addressed in the biological evaluation for the project. Common Name Scientific Name Status Regional Forester Sensitive Species Indiana crayfish Orconectes indianensis State of Illinois - Endangered species Spike mollusk Elliptio dilatata State of Illinois - Threatened species Little spectacle-case mollusk Villosa lienosa State of Illinois - Threatened species Purple lilliput mollusk Toxolasma lividus State of Illinois - Endangered species Anomalous spring amphipod Crangonyx anomalus State of Illinois - Endangered species Least brook lamprey Lampetra aepyptera State of Illinois - Threatened species Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Management Indicator Species

Information on crayfish and mussel distribution and abundance within the project area is not complete. Although habitat requirements for these species have been well documented and some information is available on historic locations and recent collections (Page 1985, Cummings and Mayer 1992, Carmody 1989, Taylor 2003,

68 Illinois Natural History Survey 2004) thorough surveys have not been conducted within the project area. Therefore, caution was exercised in excluding species from further analysis. This analysis was conservative to protect these species and erred on the side of caution in design and incorporation of mitigation.

Species not selected for further review included two crustaceans, the Kentucky crayfish and bigclaw crayfish, and two mussels, the butterfly and kidneyshell. The two crustaceans were excluded because, historically, they have only been found in the Big Creek drainage, which is not affected by this project. The two mussel species were excluded because they are known only from the Ohio River. Suitable habitat for these mussel species (i.e., medium to large rivers) is not found within the project area and the project in any alternative is not expected to measurably affect the Ohio River. Further information can be found in the Aquatic Resources working paper in the Project Record.

1. Indiana Crayfish In Illinois, the Indiana crayfish is found in Gallatin, Hardin, Johnson, Pope, Saline, White and Williamson Counties (Taylor 2003).

Habitat for the Indiana crayfish is rocky riffles and pools of small to medium-sized streams. Other important habitat components include rocks and woody debris, which provide interstitial space for cover. The primary threat to this species is habitat alteration, including impoundment of streams, removal from streams of cobble and gravel substrate and woody debris, and the loss of preferred habitat via sedimentation (Taylor 2003).

At present, there is little information on habitat availability and distribution and abundance of this species on the Forest. Taylor (2003) stated that populations of this species likely occur on the Forest in headwater tributaries of Eagle Creek. Surveys conducted in the upper Eagle Creek drainage (in the project area) in September of 2004 found no crayfish and poor habitat (i.e., steep gradient, ephemeral streams) in tributaries flowing north into Eagle Creek from the Garden of the Gods (Saline and Gallatin counties). Although this species is found within the drainage, it has not been observed in any areas that would be directly affected by the trails project.

2. Spike, Little Spectacle-Case and Purple Lilliput Mussels These species are known to occur on the Forest only in Big Grand Pierre Creek. All three have been collected within the project area, but only within a relatively small section of stream near Big Grand Pierre Lake (INHS Mollusk Collection Database 2004). Habitat for these species ranges from small to large streams in gravel and mud for the spike, sand and mud in small creeks and medium rivers for the little spectacle-case, and small to medium streams in gravel for the purple lilliput (Cummings and Mayer 1992, NatureServe 2004).

Threats to existing populations include the loss of high-quality riffle habitat; pollution that results in poor water quality; sedimentation; stream modification, including dredging and impoundment; and biological modifications of fish communities (Oesch 1984, Cummings and Mayer 1992, Smith 2001, NatureServe 2004).

3. Anomalous Spring Amphipod In Illinois the anomalous spring amphipod is listed as an endangered species and has been documented from only two locations. The Illinois Natural History Survey Database (INHS 2004) lists a collection in 1974 from a spring in the upper Lusk Creek Drainage (Pope County). Webb et al. (1993) reported a second location from a spring along Simmons Creek, just north of Golconda (Pope County).

Springs and caves throughout the Lusk Creek drainage provide habitat for this species (Page et al. 1991, INHS 2004). However, species within the genus Crangonyx are subterranean and are found in underground aquifers. They are occasionally flushed out into springs and seeps where they are collected (Don Webb, Illinois Natural History Survey, personal communication) and are also occasionally observed in wells (Smith 2001). Amphipods in general are extremely sensitive to aquatic pollution, including turbidity caused by sedimentation (Waters 1995). Thus, an important component of amphipod habitat is clean, clear water. Taylor and Webb (2000) listed increased turbidity and herbicides from agricultural activity and fecal waste from livestock and humans as potential threats to subterranean animals.

4. Least Brook Lamprey The least brook lamprey is widely distributed throughout the eastern half of the United States and is native to 16 states (NatureServe 2004). In Illinois this species has a relatively small historic range and is currently listed as threatened. On the Forest, the least brook lamprey is found in the Big Creek, Big Grand Pierre Creek, Lusk Creek and Bay Creek watersheds. Based upon surveys conducted by Weitzell et al. (1998), Burr and Stewart (1999) and Forest personnel, the least brook lamprey is known to occur at 15 sites on the Forest. All but two of the locations fall within the project area. Recent identification of new populations, combined with previously known populations, indicates that distribution on the Forest may be more widespread than previously thought.

Preferred habitat is high-quality streams characterized by continuous flow, moderate to high gradient, clear water, gravel and sand substrates and riparian zones that buffer the stream from sedimentation, turbidity and high water-temperature. Spawning occurs from late March through early April at temperatures between 16 and 18 C (Burr and Stewart 1999). A survey conducted by the Forest in 2005 documented pre-spawn and spawning activities between March 31 and April 5 at temperatures between 12 and 15 C. Eggs are deposited in shallow pits, formed by the lampreys’ moving gravel and pebbles. Reported incubation rates vary from about four days (Pfleiger 1997) to three to four weeks (Smith 1979, NatureServe 2004). Newly hatched ammocoetes (larvae) drift downstream into low-velocity pools. Burr and Stewart (1999) described these pools as having substrate composition of 60 percent sand, 25 percent coarse material and 15 percent silt and organic matter. Ammocoetes mature in three or four years, spawn the following spring and die shortly thereafter (Pfleiger 1997; Burr and Stewart 1999).

Within the project area, spawning surveys were conducted in 2005 to document spawning locations, identify existing spawning habitat, and determine the proximity of spawning

70 sites to trail-crossings. Spawning activity, including pit (nest) construction, aggregations of individuals and physical spawning, was observed at 31 sites. Four existing stream crossings in the project area had lampreys spawning within 15 feet of the crossing. In order to protect lamprey spawning these four stream crossings would be closed to use by hikers and equestrians seasonally from March 15 to May 15. Table 26 shows those trail crossings that would be closed to hikers and equestrians under each action alternative.

Table 26. Stream crossings closed seasonally (March 15- May 15) to protect least brook lamprey spawning and nest sites.

Alternative Location Stream Description 2 3 4 Bay Creek Bay Creek Wilderness n/a X n/a Little Bay Creek Near Jackson Falls n/a X X Lusk Creek Wilderness- Blanchard X X n/a Lusk Creek Church Lusk Creek Lusk Creek Wilderness - Above Saltpeter X X n/a n/a = Not applicable because the trail is not proposed for designation under that alternative.

Potential threats to existing populations include stream impoundment and sedimentation of streams (Weitzell et al. 1998, Moyle and Cech 2004). Sediment can come from many sources, including agriculture, forestry, mining, road construction and urban development (Waters 1995). All of these activities occur on private land surrounding and adjacent to the Forest. On the Forest, Burr and Stewart (1999) suggested that ATV and equestrian traffic posed the greatest threat to lamprey populations.

5. Rainbow Darter The rainbow darter has been designated as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for riparian areas. Within these management areas, MIS have been identified to monitor effects of management practices. The rainbow darter is common throughout the Shawnee Forest and is present in Big Grand Pierre, Lusk, and Upper Bay watersheds, but not in the Eagle Creek Watershed. Baseline data for this MIS can be found in the Fishes of the Shawnee (Burr 1979), which listed all known locations on the Forest at that time. In 1979 there were six locations for the rainbow darter within the project area.

Fish population and habitat surveys conducted by the Forest from 2001-2005 found that rainbow darter were still present at or in the near vicinity of locations documented in 1979. In addition, these surveys identified six other locations where the rainbow darter occurs in the project area. Population data from these surveys can be found in the project record for this analysis. Survey information was collected by trained professionals using scientifically-approved sampling methods (i.e., active fish sampling including electrofishing and seining; Murphy and Willis 1996). This data is not only the best available, but is also of high quality. Given that populations in different streams continue to persist and new locations have been recorded, it appears that rainbow darter populations are stable and the distribution across the Forest is more widespread than previously known.

71 Habitat for the rainbow darter is generally rocky and/or gravelly riffles of clear, high gradient, upper elevation streams having permanent, strong flow (Burr and Mayden 1979). This species is most abundant in streams with predominately silt-free bottoms and is less tolerant of turbidity and intermittent flow than other darter species. Spawning habitat consists of riffle sections with swift current and gravelly bottoms that are suitable for egg deposition. Eggs are deposited and buried under the gravel (Pfleiger 1997).

Potential threats to existing populations include sedimentation, pollution, and impoundment of streams. In areas where these actions have occurred, populations have been decimated (Smith 1979). Sediment can come from many sources, including agriculture, forestry, mining, road construction, and urban development (Waters 1995), activities that occur on land surrounding and adjacent to the Shawnee National Forest. On the Forest, the greatest threat to rainbow darters would be increased stream sedimentation. High sedimentation rates would be expected to negatively affect this species, because the rainbow darter prefers habitat free of silt (Pfleiger 1997). Two sources of sediment on the Forest are equestrian and illegal ATV traffic. Erosion of trails and stream banks caused by ATV and equestrian traffic would result in increased stream sedimentation. These activities can also directly damage spawning habitat through movement of coarse substrates and bank erosion at stream crossings. In addition, increased sedimentation could affect feeding habits and consequently survival of individual species due to the disappearance of sediment intolerant invertebrates (i.e., primary food items).

C. Mitigation Measures for Aquatic Resources

Mitigation incorporated into all action alternatives (Table 8) will be used to reduce or eliminate potential effects on aquatic resources. The following effects analysis assumes that potential affects on aquatic resources will be mitigated by the actions listed below.

72 2005, 2) a previous study conducted by Burr and Stewart (1999), and 3) reported egg incubation rates (Smith 1979; NatureServe 2004). Mitigation Monitoring: All stream crossing sites affected by project implementation will be surveyed during the spawning period to 1) identify any new spawning locations impacted by crossings and 2) ensure that spawning activity is occurring at crossings that are closed. Monitoring will occur annually for three years once the project is initiated. Responsible Person: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for assuring that mitigation is implemented.

Mitigation Measure: All designated stream crossings would be armored and maintained with gravel or rock; system trails would be graveled as needed; water bars would be installed as needed on all designated and abandoned/closed trails. Purpose of Mitigation Measure: To prevent erosion and subsequent sedimentation of stream habitat. How we know mitigation will be effective: Armoring trails and stream crossings with gravel or rock will increase the wet strength of the trail Stroh and Struckhoff 2002). Installing water bars on system and abandoned/closed trails will reduce slope length of the trails, thereby reducing erosion (Dissmeyer et al. 1984). Mitigation Monitoring: Upon initiation of the project, surveys will be conducted at trail crossings within the Big Grand Pierre Drainage. Twelve sites will be surveyed, including four sites at each of the following: 1) existing crossings, 2) new crossings, and 3) closed crossings. This monitoring design will allow for detection of increased sedimentation that may result from project implementation. Each site will be surveyed prior to project initiation to gather baseline information. A Wohlman Pebble Count and Residual Pool Depth measurement will be used to identify any increases in sedimentation. Responsible Person: The Forest Fisheries Biologist will be responsible for assuring that mitigation is implemented.

D. Direct and Indirect Effects on Aquatic Resources

Measurement indicators used to determine effects are 1) total trail miles that could contribute indirect effects on aquatic habitat via sedimentation and 2) the number of stream crossings that could have direct effects on least brook lamprey and rainbow darter. A decrease or increase in the total miles of trail was used to identify a generally beneficial or adverse effect (e.g., an increase in trail miles would be expected to result in an adverse effect). Similarly, the number of trail crossings was used to determine a generally beneficial or adverse effect (e.g., a decrease in the number of trail crossings would be expected to result in a beneficial effect).

1. Indiana Crayfish Because it is not known to occur in the project area, direct effects on the Indiana crayfish are not expected under any of the alternatives. Indirect effects, however, could result from erosion of non-system and system trails in the vicinity of the Garden of the Gods Ecological Area. Trail erosion and subsequent stream sedimentation could affect habitat

73 in the Eagle Creek drainage, downstream of the project area. Sediment deposited in these streams could fill interstitial spaces between pebble, cobble and rubble substrate, which would diminish available habitat. The only populations potentially affected by this project are found in the Eagle Creek drainage. Therefore, the following effects analysis will focus on indirect effects to populations within the Eagle Creek drainage.

Alternative 1 - Indiana Crayfish Alternative 1 is expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. This alternative would not reduce trail miles in the Eagle Creek Drainage and would allow continued use of non-system trails. Non-system trails and system trails contribute sediment to the drainage. System trails are maintained, but non-system trails are not. The deterioration of non-system trails would lead to increased sedimentation downstream of the project area, adversely affecting habitat for known populations. As non-system trails deteriorate and begin to cause resource damage they would be closed. Closure of these trails could take up to ten years.

Once many existing non-system trails are closed, some beneficial effects of reduced sedimentation would be expected. However, development of new non-system trails caused by cross-country riding could adversely affect stream habitat until the new trails are closed. With a trail system that relies on non-system trails, monitoring and mitigation would be prohibitively difficult.

Alternative 2 - Indiana Crayfish Alternative 2 is expected to result in a beneficial effect on the species. Indirect effects under this alternative would be beneficial. Within the Eagle Creek drainage, Alternative 2 would reduce trail miles by 29 percent and stream crossings by 40 percent. Eliminating many non-system trails and reducing trail miles and crossings would reduce sedimentation within the drainage. Likewise, maintenance of formerly non-system trails would also be expected to have a beneficial effect by reducing erosion and sedimentation. In the short-term (5-7 years), some sedimentation of streams would occur as non-system trails are closed and rehabilitated and new proposed trails are installed. Because trails contribute only a small percentage of total sediment reaching aquatic habitat, adverse effects on aquatic species would be minimal and not result in adverse population effects. In the long-term (10-15 years), a reduction of sediment would result in a slight, indirect beneficial effect on downstream habitat. Water quality is presently rated by the State as “full support” and is expected to be maintained or improved, thus aquatic habitat conditions are expected to improve as well.

Alternative 3 - Indiana Crayfish Alternative 3 is expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Within the Eagle Creek drainage, this alternative would reduce trail miles by only four percent, with little to no reduction in the number of stream crossings. Three miles of existing trail would be closed and rehabilitated, but about twenty miles of non-designated trail would remain available for use. Non-system trails could be closed, but only to prevent and/or

74 repair resource damage, or if new. It is reasonable to assume that the non-system trails, which could not be maintained, would eventually be closed over the next ten years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in the development of new non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment in the short term until the new trails are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor (see Soils and Aquatic Resources Sections), this alternative is expected to result in minor, adverse affects on habitat downstream of the project area in the short term.

Alternative 4 - Indiana Crayfish Alternative 4 is expected to result in an indirect, beneficial effect. Within the Eagle Creek drainage, Alternative 4 would reduce trail miles by 46 percent and stream crossings by 60 percent. This alternative would have the least miles of trail of all alternatives. Fewer trail miles would mean less erosion from trails and easier maintenance. Thus, sedimentation is expected to decrease, resulting in an indirect, beneficial effect on downstream habitat.

2. Spike, Little Spectacle-Case, and Purple Lilliput Mussels Direct effects to mussels could occur at trail crossings as the result of horses and hikers moving across the stream. At stream crossings, individuals could be displaced and shells could be crushed. All three species are known to occur in the Big Grand Pierre drainage, but have not been found in areas where trail crossings are proposed. Thus, no direct effects at stream crossings are anticipated. Although there would be no direct effects, there could be indirect effects to individuals and habitat downstream of trail crossings.

Populations downstream of the project area could be indirectly affected by sedimentation. Mollusks are filter-feeding organisms and increased turbidity in the stream has a deleterious effect on feeding. Although the relative contribution of sediment from trails is low compared to other sources, any sediment entering the stream would be expected to have an adverse effect on individuals and habitat. An increase in trail miles would be expected to cause adverse indirect effects, while a reduction in trail miles would be expected to cause beneficial indirect effects. Because populations of these mussels are found only in Big Grand Pierre Creek and no direct effects are expected, the comparison of alternatives is limited to indirect and cumulative effects within this drainage. Water quality in Big Grand Pierre Creek is currently rated at “full support,” thus aquatic habitat for mussels is in good condition.

Alternatives 1 and 3 - Spike, Little Spectacle-Case, and Purple Lilliput Mussels Alternatives 1 and 3 are expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Neither of these alternatives would result in a substantial reduction in trail miles within the Big Grand Pierre drainage. Erosion from non-system trails would continue to contribute sediment to streams. Both alternatives would allow for continued cross- country riding, which could lead to new non-system trails and increased sedimentation until the new trails are closed. Sediment delivered downstream could affect individuals by altering habitat and interfering with feeding. However, because trails contribute only

75 a small percentage of the total sediment within the watershed, adverse effects would be minimal and not cause the loss of populations.

Alternatives 2 and 4 - Spike, Little Spectacle-Case, and Purple Lilliput Mussels Alternatives 2 and 4 are expected to result in a beneficial effect. Within the Big Grand Pierre drainage, these alternatives would reduce trail miles by more than 35 percent. Reducing the total trail miles and number of stream crossings in the project area would reduce the total amount of sediment affecting downstream habitat. This would have a beneficial effect on downstream habitat and populations. However, the benefit would only be slight, because trails produce only a small portion of the sediment and other sediment-producing activities would likely continue.

3. Anomalous Spring Amphipod There would be no effects on this species under any of the alternatives. The subterranean nature of the species rules out any direct effects. And, although it could be indirectly affected by sediment washing into springs and seeps, groundwater contamination would have to occur. The relatively small contribution of sediment from trail use is not expected to contaminate groundwater, so indirect effects are not likely.

4. Least Brook Lamprey Direct effects to lamprey populations are most likely to occur at trail crossings, especially those through or near spawning sites. Spawning typically occurs on rocky and gravelly riffles, which are coincidentally the best locations for crossing by equestrians and hikers. Direct effects fall into three categories: 1) the disruption of spawning activity at crossings, 2) physical damage to spawning pits and loss of egg viability, and 3) physical alteration of spawning habitat, both at and immediately below the trail crossing. All of these effects can occur as horses or hikers move across the stream. Physical alteration of spawning habitat can also occur from sediment being deposited downstream from a trail- crossing, but would be less dramatic than the categories listed above. Thus, the greater the number of trail crossings, the greater the potential for direct effects.

Indirect effects to lamprey populations can occur as the result of sedimentation and are not limited to stream-crossing sites. Bare soil exposed by trails would erode during periods of heavy precipitation, resulting in an increased amount of sediment entering the stream. Increased sedimentation reduces available spawning habitat (i.e., clean gravel) by filling up the spaces between the small stones, leading to reduced egg-survival. Because continued reproductive success depends upon clean sand and gravel substrates, high amounts of sediment would be detrimental. Thus, the higher the number of trail miles the greater the potential for indirect effects that result from sedimentation.

Alternative 1 - Least Brook Lamprey Implementation of Alternative 1 is expected to adversely affect individuals; but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Direct effects to lamprey populations are expected to be adverse because of existing non-system trails and any new non-system trails developed by cross-country

76 riding (until they are closed). Alternative 1 includes the most trail miles and stream crossings of any alternative. At least one non-system stream crossing passes through a spawning location and there are potentially more undiscovered sites. Continuation of cross-country riding could lead to new non-system trails and increase the likelihood that other spawning sites could be adversely affected before the new trails are closed. We expect that non-system trails causing resource damage would be closed and rehabilitated within ten years. Cross-country riding would continue a cycle of development, discovery, closure and rehabilitation of new non-system trails and continued adverse effects.

Indirect effects are also expected to be adverse. Runoff from disturbed areas, including non-system and system trails, would increase the sedimentation rate within streams unless the trails are adequately maintained. System trails would be maintained, but non- system trails would not. As non-system trails deteriorate, they would be closed. Because closure of these trails could take up to ten years, sediment from deteriorating non-system trails would continue to adversely affect stream habitat. Once most of the existing non- system trails are closed, some beneficial effects of reduced sedimentation are expected. In addition, the prohibition on commercial equestrian traffic after a one inch rainfall would also reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion. However, the development of new non-system trails caused by cross-country riding would continue to adversely affect stream habitat until the new trails are closed.

Alternative 2 - Least Brook Lamprey Implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to result in a beneficial effect. Direct effects of this alternative would be beneficial because non-system trails not included in the designated system would be closed and cross-country riding would be discontinued. This alternative would reduce trail miles by 42 percent and stream crossings by 42 percent, in the three watersheds the species is known from (Big Grand Pierre, Lusk and Bay Creeks) close or relocate trails where resource damage is occurring, and maintain trails within the designated system. Closing undesignated trails would lower the number of crossings and eliminate potential adverse effects at these crossings. Seasonal closures of system trail crossings at known spawning sites would eliminate direct effects to spawning lamprey.

Indirect effects of this alternative would also be beneficial. As trail miles decline, sedimentation within the watershed would also decline. The closure and rehabilitation of non-system trails, combined with the discontinuation of cross-country riding, should reduce the amount of sediment coming from trails. In addition, the short-term (1-3 years) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Likewise, the wet weather closure should also reduce the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Reducing sedimentation would improve habitat conditions for all life stages of the least brook lamprey.

Alternative 3 - Least Brook Lamprey Implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to have a slightly adverse effect on individuals; but this not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness areas could result in effects at stream crossings. Stream crossings on system trails would be closed seasonally to avoid affects on spawning lamprey. However, non- system trails would be closed only if spawning lamprey were found at those crossings. Monitoring of lamprey populations would be difficult at non-system trail crossings and it is likely that some effects would go undetected.

Some indirect effects from trail erosion and stream sedimentation are anticipated. Within drainages where lampreys are found, 210 of the 300 existing miles (70 percent) would be incorporated into the trail system. Of the remaining non-system trails, 19 miles would be closed and rehabilitated and 91 miles would be available for use. Non-system trails could be closed if resource damage was occurring. It is reasonable to assume that the non- system trails, which would not be maintained, would eventually be closed; however, closure of these trails could take up to ten years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in the creation of more non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment until they are closed.

This alternative is expected to result in adverse affects on habitat downstream of the project area in the short term, because of sedimentation from non-maintained, non-system trails. In addition, continuation of cross-country riding outside of the wilderness area could result in the creation of additional trails, thereby contributing additional sediment to the watershed until they are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor, compared to other sources (see Soils and Water Resources), effects are expected to be relatively minor.

Alternative 4 - Least Brook Lamprey Implementation of Alternative 4 would have a beneficial effect. Direct effects under this alternative would be beneficial. This alternative would reduce trail miles by 53 percent and stream crossings by 58 percent. As stream crossings are reduced, the direct effects to spawning and spawning habitat are also reduced. The discontinuation of cross-country riding would also preclude the creation of new non-system trails and potential effects at stream crossings.

Indirect effects from this alternative would also be beneficial. The lower number of trail miles would result in a beneficial indirect effect as sedimentation within the drainage is reduced. The short-term (1-3 year) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Additional protection would be afforded by the closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness after rainfall of an inch or more. Reductions in trail miles, combined with seasonal closures and weather-related closures, would result in reduced sedimentation.

78 5. Rainbow Darter Direct effects on the rainbow darter are most likely to occur at trail crossings. Thus, the greater the number of trail crossings, the greater the potential for direct effects. Direct effects include 1) the disruption of spawning activity at crossings, 2) physical damage of eggs at riffle sites, and 3) physical alteration of spawning habitat, both at and immediately below the trail crossing. These effects can occur as horses or hikers move across the stream. Physical alteration of spawning habitat can also occur from sediment. As erosion occurs at the trail crossing, sediment is deposited at and directly below the crossing and alters the habitat.

Indirect effects to rainbow darter populations may occur as the result of sedimentation and are not limited to stream crossing sites. Bare soil exposed by trails may erode during periods of heavy precipitation, resulting in an increased amount of sediment entering the stream. Thus, the more trail miles, the greater the potential for indirect effects that result from sedimentation. Increased sedimentation reduces available spawning habitat (i.e., clean gravel) by filling interstitial spaces and can lead to reduced egg survival. In addition, increased sedimentation may cause changes in the types of insects present (i.e., those that are primary food items for the rainbow darter). Shifts from sediment-intolerant to sediment-tolerant macroinvertebrates would cause changes in feeding habitats that can influence growth and survival.

Alternative 1 - Rainbow Darter Implementation of Alternative 1 is expected to adversely affect individuals, but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Direct effects to rainbow darter populations are expected to be adverse because of existing non-system trails and new non-system trails developed by cross-country riding. Spawning typically occurs on rocky and gravelly riffles, which are coincidentally the best locations for crossing by equestrians and hikers. Implementation of this alternative would not reduce the miles of trail or stream crossings from existing conditions in drainages where the rainbow darter is found (300 trail miles and 330 stream crossings). In fact, the continuation of cross-country riding would add more non-system trails and more stream crossings. Interruption of spawning and alteration of spawning habitat at and below the crossings would result in a direct adverse effect. This direct adverse effect would be limited to the spring (i.e., the spawning period) and could be mitigated by closing trails where resource damage is occurring. However, closure of non-system trails where damage is occurring is expected to take up to 10 years.

Indirect effects under Alternative 1 also are expected to be adverse, because of continued erosion of non-system trails. Runoff from disturbed areas, including non-system and system trails, increases sedimentation of streams unless the trails are adequately maintained (e.g., graveling and water bars). System trails would be maintained, but non-system trails would not. High levels of sedimentation would have an indirect adverse effect on available habitat and could cause a shift in invertebrate (i.e., insect) composition from sediment- intolerant to sediment-tolerant. As non-system trails deteriorate and begin to cause resource damage they would be closed. Because closure of these trails could take up to ten years, sediment from deteriorating non-system trails could adversely affect stream habitat.

79 Once all existing non-system trails are closed, some beneficial effects of reduced sedimentation would be expected. In addition, the prohibition on commercial equestrian traffic after a one inch rainfall would also reduce the potential for sedimentation and erosion. However, the creation of new non-system trails caused by cross-country riding will continue to adversely affect stream habitat, until they are closed.

Alternative 2 - Rainbow Darter Implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to result in a slightly beneficial effect. Direct effects of this alternative would be beneficial, because many non-system trails would be closed and the number of stream crossings would be reduced. The practical effects of this alternative would be to reduce trail miles by 42 percent and stream crossings by 42 percent, close or relocate trails where resource damage is occurring and maintain trails within the designated system. In addition, discontinuation of cross- country riding would preclude the formation of new non-system trails. The benefit would be less potential for interruption of spawning sites at stream crossings and reduced sedimentation from erosion at stream crossings.

Indirect effects of this alternative would also be beneficial. As trail miles decline, sedimentation within the watershed would also decline. The closure and rehabilitation of non-system trails, combined with the discontinuation of cross-country riding, should greatly reduce the amount of sediment coming from trails. The short-term (1-3 year) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Additional protection would be afforded by the closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness after rainfall of an inch or more. Reductions in sediment would result in improved habitat conditions for all life stages of the rainbow darter and invertebrate populations.

Alternative 3 - Rainbow Darter Implementation of Alternative 3 is expected to adversely affect individuals, but this is not likely to result in a loss of viability in the project area, or cause a trend toward federal listing. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in effects at stream crossings. Within drainages where rainbow darters are found, 210 of the 300 existing miles (70 percent) would be incorporated into the trail system. Of the remaining non-system trails, 19 miles would be closed and rehabilitated and 91 miles would be available for use. Non-system trails could be closed, but only if resource damage were occurring or if they were newly developed. It is reasonable to assume that the non-system trails, which would not be maintained, would eventually be closed; however, closure of these trails could take up to ten years. Continuation of cross-country riding outside of wilderness areas could result in the creation of more non-system trails, providing new sources of sediment.

80 sediment to the watershed until they are closed. Because the input of sediment from trails is minor, compared to other sources, short-term effects would be relatively minor.

Alternative 4 - Rainbow Darter Implementation of Alternative 4 is expected to have a beneficial, direct effect. This alternative would include the fewest trail miles and stream crossings compared to other alternatives. Trail miles would be reduced by 53 percent and stream crossings by 58 percent. As stream crossings are reduced, direct effects to spawning and spawning habitat are also reduced. The cessation of cross-country riding would also preclude the creation of new non-system trails and potential effects at stream crossings.

The lower number of trail miles would result in a beneficial, indirect effect as sedimentation within the drainage is reduced. The short-term (1-3 year) seasonal closure in the Lusk Creek Wilderness would reduce erosion during the period of trail reconstruction. Additional protection would be afforded by the closure of trails in the Lusk Creek Wilderness after rainfall of an inch or more. Reductions in trail miles, combined with seasonal closures and weather-related closures, would result in reduced sedimentation.

E. Cumulative Effects – Aquatic Resources

The cumulative effects analysis is spatially bound by the four watersheds in the project area for all species except Indiana crayfish and least brook lamprey. The spatial boundary of analysis for these species is expanded to include the Sugar Creek Drainage. Although the Sugar Creek Drainage is outside of the project area and off the National Forest, proposed reservoir construction in the drainage may have impacts on these two species. Thus, the potential effect of reservoir construction must be considered when analyzing the cumulative effects of the trails designation project. The temporal boundary for analysis includes a time-frame extending from the mid-1800’s, when much of the land was cleared for agriculture, to a point 15 years in the future. This time-frame includes all past actions that have altered stream habitat as well as potential actions that could alter stream habitat.

A comprehensive list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area can be found at the beginning of this chapter. The cumulative effects analysis for aquatic resources focuses on the subset of actions that have affected or could potentially affect these resources. These include agriculture; stream impoundment; recreation; timber harvest and road construction, maintenance and use.

1. Agriculture – Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Resources During the mid-1800’s much of the forested land in southern Illinois was cleared for agricultural production. The result was a reduction in vegetated stream corridors and increased sedimentation from agricultural activities (Hite et al. 1990). Conversely, since the mid-1900’s, much of this land has been reforested, leading to a reduction in sediment load. Although reforestation has improved conditions, these streams continue to be

81 affected by past management practices as they revert back to more stable and natural states (Kandl 1987).

2. Stream Impoundment – Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Resources Stream impoundment has also had a profound effect on habitat and aquatic communities. In particular, impoundments within the Bay Creek drainage (i.e., Bay Creek #5, Sugar Creek Lake and Lake Glendale) have resulted in habitat alteration and changes in fish community structure. Impoundments alter flow, temperature and sediment regimes of streams, which affect aquatic organisms and alter the physical habitat not only within the impounded area, but also downstream of the impoundment. Impoundments also fragment systems, isolating previously continuous populations (Cushing and Allen 2001).

Outside of the project area and spatial boundary of this analysis, construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek (tributary of South Fork of the Saline River) could affect the least brook lamprey and Indiana crayfish. The City of Marion is planning construction of a reservoir on Sugar Creek that would destroy one lamprey spawning site and have drastic effects on another (Weitzell et al. 1998). The Indiana crayfish is also known to inhabit the area and would likewise be affected by the construction. Mitigation for the reservoir project is to include the purchase of land and/or easements within the Bay and Lusk drainages (Mierzwa and Copeland 2002), which could provide additional protection of habitat and populations within the project area.

3. Roads and Timber Harvest – Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Resources Past road construction has also affected aquatic habitat by introducing sediment to streams, altering stream habitat and, in some cases, fragmenting populations (e.g., culverts that limit fish passage). Within the past ten years, most timber harvest has occurred on private land. These past practices continue into present day. Although all of the aforementioned activities have affected habitat in the project area, monitoring indicates that streams within the area have good to excellent water quality.

Present practices affecting stream habitat and aquatic communities are agricultural and logging activity on private land, the construction and maintenance of roads, and recreational activity on the Forest. Erosion from pastures and row-crop production is evident on lands within these watersheds (Hite et al. 1990) and influences downstream habitat on the Forest. Road construction, maintenance and use also contribute sediment to streams and can influence available habitat (Waters 1995). Although new road construction within the Forest and the surrounding area is minimal, erosion from existing roads and maintenance activities on roads (e.g., grading, bridge or culvert replacement) add sediment to the streams.

4. Recreation – Cumulative Effects for Aquatic Resources Recreational activities that can contribute sediment to streams include use of trails by equestrians and hikers and the use of trails and roads by ATVs and OHMs. Present-day recreational activities on the Forest also affect aquatic habitat and aquatic communities. Recreational pressure is relatively high on the Forest. In the project area, nearly 40

82 percent of the land lies within the Forest. Dispersed recreation on roads and trails, including hiker, equestrian and ATV/OHM traffic affects watersheds within the Forest (Hite et al. 1990, Widowski and Fitch 2000). Although recreational use on the Forest does have an effect, activities adjacent to and surrounding the Forest exert the greatest effect.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area include all of the present and proposed actions. Despite enforcement efforts, unauthorized use of ATVs and OHMs is expected to continue. Authorized use of ATVs (i.e., use permitted for persons with disabilities) is also expected to continue. Although agricultural activity will continue, modern conservation-oriented practices would help to alleviate resource damage to aquatic habitat. Another anticipated action, prescribed burning for vegetation management, could add minor amounts of sediment to streams. However, best management practices (e.g., disking of fire-lines, reseeding, placement of water bars and construction of fire-lines by hand in sensitive areas) would mitigate adverse effects from erosion of burned areas. Best management practices will be implemented for all project activities.

5. Cumulative Effects – Aquatic Species

Cumulative Effects - Indiana Crayfish No measurable cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 3 are expected to have a minor, adverse effect on habitat and individuals, but these effects would not reduce population viability within the project area. Likewise, the beneficial effects noted in Alternatives 2 and 4 would not result in a measurable increase in populations, nor would they be expected to cause a measurable increase in distribution on the Forest.

Current models suggest that less than ten percent of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion (see Project File, Soil and Water Resources working paper). The effects of any alternative, when considered with the minor effects of other, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, described above, are expected to result in undetectable cumulative effects on the Indiana crayfish.

Cumulative Effects - Spike, Little Spectacle-Case, and Purple Lilliput Mussels Current models suggest that less than ten percent of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trails. Sediment sources from activities occurring on private land (e.g.

83 agriculture, timber, and road construction and maintenance) have a greater effect upon stream habitat via sedimentation. The effects of any of the alternatives, when considered with the minor effects of other, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, described above, are expected to result in undetectable cumulative effects on mussel populations or habitat within Big Grand Pierre Creek.

Cumulative Effects - Anomalous Spring Amphipod Because there would be no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects - Least Brook Lamprey No cumulative effects are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Current models suggest that less than ten percent of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion. The incremental contributions of these alternatives may have some beneficial or adverse affects on habitat and individuals; however, activities on private land surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest negative effect on stream habitat within the project area.

The effects of these alternatives, when considered with the minor effects of other, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, described above, are expected to maintain population viability in the project area, preventing a trend toward federal listing. Recent confirmation of historic locations and the discovery of new locations, suggest that the population on the Forest is stable and that distribution on the Forest may be more widespread than previously thought.

Cumulative Effects - Rainbow Darter Because of the minor nature of all the effects of the alternatives on these species, no cumulative effects are anticipated from any of them. Current models suggest that less than ten percent of sediment entering streams can be attributed to trail erosion. The incremental contributions of these alternatives may have some beneficial or adverse affects on habitat and individuals; however, activities on private land surrounding the Forest will continue to exert the greatest negative effect on stream habitat within the project area. The effects of these alternatives, when considered with the minor effects of other, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, described above, are expected to result in undetectable cumulative effects on habitat and individuals.