Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Appendix “A”: Biological Evaluation

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (with PETS Checklist) of

Ecosystem Management Activities

Wildcat Hollow Project Area Barnhart, Bear Creek West and Brogan Watersheds (Compartments 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488)

Fourche Unit

of the

Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest

Yell County, Arkansas

by

Mary Lynn Mentz, MS and Sarah Thompson, MS Wildlife Biologists Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District P.O. Box 459 Danville, AR 72833 479-495-2844(voice) 479-495-7231 (fax) [email protected] [email protected]

April 2012

2012 1 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Project Area Description and Location

The Wildcat Hollow Project Area is located in the western portion of the Fourche Unit of the Jessieville- Winona-Fourche Ranger District. The eastern portion of the Project Area is bisected by State Highway 27. The Project Area’s north boundary consists of the Fourche LaFave River and forest administrative boundary located west of Lake Nimrod. The southern boundary is primarily composed of Forest Road 72. The Project Area contains a total of 17,897 acres with 16,555 acres administered by the U.S. Forest Service under the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). The Project Area includes 1,342 acres of privately owned industrial timberland.

Land within the Project Area has been assigned to six Management Areas (MA) that include: MA-3 (Developed Recreation Areas – Fourche Mountain), MA-6 (Rare Upland Communities), MA-9 (Water and Riparian Area), MA-14 (Ouachita Mountains, Habitat Diversity Emphasis), MA-17 (Semi-Primitive), and MA-21 (Old Growth Restoration – Barnhart Old Growth Unit). Detailed descriptions of these Management Areas are found in the Environmental Assessment for this Project and also in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

The area is typical of the Ouachita Mountain region with a ridge and valley landscape where ridges are primarily oriented on an east-west axis resulting in distinct north and south slopes. Mesic (more moist) north slopes, riparian areas, and smaller drainages are vegetated by hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types and often contain extensive areas of ferns as a dominant ground cover plant. Xeric (drier) south slopes are vegetated by pine and pine-hardwood forest types. Riparian areas are typically narrow with upland pine and hardwood forest types often occurring directly adjacent to stream channels particularly in upland intermittent and ephemeral drainages. Forest Service land is variable in steepness and ranges in elevation from just over 1500 feet AMSL at Allen Peak to approximately 350 feet along the Fourche LaFave River. The entire Project Area is part of a larger, fire sub-climax ecosystem (Kulhavy and Conner 1986, Nowacki and Abrams 2008). USGS Quad Maps for the area are Bluffton (B-12), Chula (C-12), Onyx (C-13), Plainview (B-16), and Rover (B-13).

Three primary streams occur within the Project Area all draining north into the Fourche LaFave River above Lake Nimrod. These streams, in descending order of area drained, are Wildcat, Barnhart and Brogan Creeks. Each of these streams traverse privately held land for distances ranging from 0.5 to almost 1.0 mile north of the project boundary and before entering the Fourche LaFave River. All streams within the Project Area are flashy and move outside their banks following significant rain events. Debris trapped in adjacent vegetation at a height of five feet and greater is commonly encountered and roads in lower portions of the watershed may, on occasion, be impassable for brief periods of time. All stream channels within the Project Area are essentially intermittent, becoming dry during summer months with some pools remaining in channels primarily, but not exclusively, below Roads 795 and 796 near the north boundary. There appears to be limited spring activity feeding larger pools in Wildcat Creek above Road 796 as evidenced by considerable side channel flow during fish surveys in July 2010. Lower portions of these main channels offer suitable habitat for multiple mussel species. There are a number of smaller headwater stream segments that in most cases are intermittent and exhibit continuous flow during wet periods of the year. During periods of continuous flow these smaller stream reaches may offer additional habitat and spawning areas for fish as evidenced by fishes trapped in pools far up drainages during summer. Natural fish barriers in the form of cascades with drops are numerous and present in all three stream systems due to large rock substrate material and tilted bedrock. Fish apparently navigate around these barriers during high water periods. Protective Streamside Management Areas 30 feet and 100 feet wide will be established on each side of all intermittent and perennial streams, respectively, to further protect aquatic resources where management activities are planned. In some broad, flat areas along main channels where streams frequently escape their banks protective barriers will need to be extended.

2012 2 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Special Habitat Designations

There are no designations of “critical habitat” (Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) or “essential habitat” (Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service) within, adjacent to, or affected by this Project Area. Critical habitats are those areas designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, for the survival and recovery of (federally) listed species. Essential habitats are those areas designated by a Regional Forester as possessing the same characteristics as critical habitat without having been declared critical habitat by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce. Essential habitats are those necessary to meet recovery objectives for endangered, threatened and proposed species and those necessary to maintain viable populations of sensitive species.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List and Federally Listed Species (PETS Checklist)

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA- Forest Service 2007a) is composed of 66 species of plants and animals known to occur or that may occur on Forest Service lands and for which there is a viability concern. In addition there are 14 plants and animals federally listed by the United State Fish and Wildlife Service as Proposed, Endangered or Threatened ( PET ). Of these 80 species 10 are Federally designated as Endangered, 4 are Federally designated as Threatened, and 66 are Forest Service designated as Sensitive (PETS ). The Forest Service is to ensure that approved projects do not result in a loss of viability or create trends toward Federal listing of any Sensitive species and to ensure that approved projects enhance rather than degrade any habitat occupied by threatened and/or endangered species. Detailed information regarding Forest Service Sensitive Species can be found in the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals.

Purpose, Need and Objectives of the Biological Evaluation

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to provide a documented review of how the Proposed Action may affect any PETS species and is performed as part of the site specific environmental analysis. This discussion of effects upon PETS species and/or their habitats is needed to provide useful information to decision makers in the careful selection of activities to accomplish goals and achieve desired future conditions with overall objectives of maintaining wildlife, fish and plant populations and diversity of habitats. This evaluation considers the best available information/science on populations of PETS species and their habitats for the Project Area and the area of its influence with sources that include data gathered during on-the-ground field inventories and surveys, review of the scientific literature, review of “gray literature” (reports, studies and surveys which have been conducted within or adjacent to the area but which have not been published in a refereed journal), conversations with knowledgeable individuals in the academic, scientific, and resource management communities, and my best professional judgment in an effort to determine which PETS species occur or may occur.

Protective Measures

Protective measures have been set forth in a variety of guiding documents and correspondence including the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2005a), associated documents including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-Forest Service 2005b), Biological Assessment (USDA-Forest Service 2005c), the corresponding Concurrence Letter issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a) regarding eight federally listed species, the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the American Burying Beetle (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b), and the revised Programmatic Biological Opinion for the American Burying Beetle (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

An example of a protective measure established in the Revised Forest Plan and applied at the site specific level is the establishment of 30-foot and 100-foot Streamside Management Areas (SMAs) either side of intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. These areas are established to protect aquatic environments and associated

2012 3 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______plant and animal species (Management Area 9). In addition, strict operating guidelines are included as part of timber harvest and related silvicultural/wildlife contracts and are administered and enforced on-the-ground by a Timber Sale Administrator, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and/or Inspectors. Additional protective measures and more detailed information are outlined in the Project EA.

Project Coordination-District Level

The district Silviculturist, Timber Management Assistant, Timber Sale Administrator(s) and other District ID Team members have been advised of the occurrence/potential occurrence of Regional Forester Sensitive plant and animal species in the Project Area. This Biological Evaluation and associated PETS Checklist are available in the Project File for their review and review by their on-the-ground technicians.

Communications History with State Agencies

The Element of Occurrence Records database CD (ANHC 2007) provided to the Forest Service by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) was examined for the occurrence of PETS species previously documented from the Project Area. None were documented inside the Project Area; however the Ozark chinquapin was noted to occur just south of Forest Road 72 near Allen Peak.

The ANHC website was consulted (2011) and a “rare species search” was conducted for Yell County to provide baseline information for species to be considered and further investigated.

On 5 April 2010, Theo Witsell, Botanist, ANHC, accompanied a monitoring and watershed examination flight crew aboard a Forest Service contract helicopter with now retired Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, David Saugey. The purpose was to fly the Project Area in search of unique plant communities most easily documented from an aerial platform during the leaf-off period. Witsell has flown with Forest Service personnel for the past several years and found this to be a useful process in locating unique communities and habitats, momentarily hovering to record the GPS location, and then later ground-truthing these sites for rare plants. Witsell noted areas of glade and talus communities primarily on steep slopes scattered throughout the Project Area.

On 19 July 2010, Theo Witsell ground-truthed glade and talus communities and inspected for rare plants and examined the best potential stream habitat for the Federally Endangered plant harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum ). Harperella was not documented inside the Project Area and habitat was determined to be unsuitable. However, harperella does occur outside the watershed drainages in the South Fourche LaFave River, so it will be discussed. Rare plants were not observed in the talus and glade communities or elsewhere. Habitat conditions were considered favorable for the Ozark chinquapin though none were documented.

On 26 August 2010, Theo Witsell provided the District with shape files showing the locations of talus and glade communities documented through direct observation on the ground, from the air, and via remote sensing technology.

Mussel relics (shells) were collected on several occasions from the lower pooled portions of Barnhart and Wildcat creeks during site-specific biological field work. Relics were collected above and below Roads 795 and 796. These relics were forwarded to Dr. John Harris for identification. Dr. Harris is a nationally recognized malacologist (mussel expert) and recently-retired Ecologist formally with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department in Little Rock. All relics were identified as the Louisiana fatmucket, Lampsilis hydiana , a species found on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA-Forest Service 2007a).

Forest Level Consultation History with the U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and pursuant to Section 7 of said Act, Formal Consultation was requested by the Acting Regional Forester in a letter (dated August 9, 2005) to the

2012 4 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Arkansas Field Supervisor of the United States Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Biological Assessment of the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005c). The letter requested Formal Consultation based on the finding of “likely to adversely affect” for American Burying Beetle (ABB) due to proposed ground disturbing activities. The Biological Assessment also conveyed “not likely to adversely affect” findings for Leopard darter ( Percina pantheria ), Leopard darter critical habitat, harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum ), Arkansas fatmucket mussel ( Lampsilis powellii ), Scaleshell mussel ( Leptodea leptodon ), Ouachita rock-pocketbook mussel ( Arkansia wheeleri ), Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis ), Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus ) and Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ). In response to this request for Formal Consultation the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service submitted a transmittal letter (dated August 17, 2005) accepting the request. The letter stated that a Biological Opinion would be prepared assessing the effects of Revised Forest Plan implementation on the ABB. The transmittal letter also concurred with the “not likely to adversely affect” finding for Leopard darter, Leopard darter critical habitat, harperella, Arkansas fatmucket mussel, Scaleshell mussel, Ouachita rock-pocketbook mussel, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Bald Eagle and Indiana bat (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a).

On May 3, 2010, the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Forest Supervisor the Service’s revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the 2005 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) and Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a). The revised PBO concluded that after review of the current status of ABB, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, that the Revised Forest Plan, as proposed, is “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of ABB across its entire range”. The revised PBO also provide terms and conditions for incidental take and concluded that the “[level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat]” to the ABB (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2010a). Issuance of the revised PBO by the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service concluded all Formal Consultation on the Revised Forest Plan as proposed by the Ouachita National Forest. The ‘action area” described in the revised PBO is designated the “American Burying Beetle Area” (ABBA) which occurs in portions of Logan and Scott Counties in western Arkansas and LeFlore County in eastern Oklahoma. The ABBA is the area from which ABBs have been documented. It contains approximately 81,400 acres with the spatial extent defined by considering positive and negative ABB survey data acquired since 1992, planning unit boundaries, and proximity to other known ABB locations.

The Project Area lies in Yell County outside the ABBA. Site specific surveys for this species have not been conducted within the Project Area with the focus of ABB surveys on the Fourche Unit concentrated along the western District Boundary (Forest Road 18 area) northwest of the Project Area and closer to known ABB occurrences. These surveys have been negative for the ABB (District ABB project survey files).

District Level Communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Field Office

This biological evaluation will be sent for informal consultation to USFWS for concurrence of not likely to adversely affect harperella or its habitat and not likely to adversely affect scaleshell mussel or its habitat.

Population Levels of PETS Species

PETS species that occur within the administrative boundary of the Ouachita National Forest consist of plants and non-game (non-consumptive, not hunted) species of wildlife, with the term “wildlife” encompassing everything from mussels to fish to birds. In most instances we do not have specific population or density data for PETS species because studies of their populations may never have been conducted in general, or more specifically, within a particular area. On the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche District the best population data are for plants where a technique known as a Visual Encounter Survey (qualitative) (Heyer et al . 1994) has been employed, whereby a biologist passes through suitable habitat in search for a particular species. Survey and

2012 5 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______monitoring reports generated by Bates (1992a,b,c 1993, 2000), Hardcastle and Williams (2001), Witsell (2004, 2005, 2007a,b), annual monitoring activities by the Forest Service regarding the Federally Endangered plant harperella, and Harris and Gordon (1988), Brown and Brown (1989), Harris (1992, 2001) and Stoeckel and Moles (2002) for mussel species, are examples of this method. Numbers of individuals encountered are counted and form a basis for future reference and comparison (monitoring) for population numbers at specific sites and, in more general terms, for larger areas. Some of these studies also report quantitative data derived from quadrat sampling methods. Vaughn et al. (1997) suggested that a combination of quadrat and timed encounter searches provide the best overall data when surveying for mussels.

Generating population numbers/densities for many terrestrial and aquatic species of wildlife present rigorous challenges because they are mobile, small, in many cases nocturnal, and cryptic (Wilson et al . 1996). However, information concerning the habitat needs and/or preferences of species based upon published accounts, experience, field studies etc., do provide useful information because those habitat conditions described are where the species has been observed in previous encounters, here or elsewhere. Using this mosaic of data we may then make decisions based on availability of those habitat conditions (type and area) within the Project Area, whether species are likely to occur or not based on their known distributions and other factors, what the potential consequences of our actions or inactions might be, and whether or not additional surveys are required/desired. These decisions, then, will have been based on the “best scientific and/or commercial data/information” available to us at the time of the analysis (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1998; USDA- Forest Service 2007b). This information is then used to identify those species on the PETS Checklist that may be affected by the Proposed Action and require further analysis and provides guidance in the development of the Biological Evaluation.

Cumulative Effects: PETS Habitats

Cumulative effects are the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the Proposed Action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of the source, whether it be a federal or non-federal agency or individual (40 Code Federal Regulations 1508.7). Additional guidance is found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation Handbook (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

Past Actions

Pine and pine-oak timberlands (commercial pine sites) and to a lesser extent north slope hardwoods in both public and private ownership have been harvested on more than one occasion using a variety of techniques. Unregulated clearcut harvests in the Ouachita Mountains before the Forest was established would have resulted in large areas of older growth and old growth habitat being lost. On Forest, even-aged management utilizing intermittent thinning and final harvest clearcutting were the preferred methods from approximately 1964 until 1990 (Robertson 2004). Harvests were typically followed by silvicultural activities that may have included site preparation, prescribed burning, ripping of soils and replanting with superior trees. Herbicides have likely been applied to reduce hardwood competition with pine crop trees at least one time on Forest Service lands, but more likely have been applied on several occasions to adjacent industrial lands. The extensive use of clearcutting and associated hardwood control during this period on both public and private land would have favored the development of appropriate habitat for Bachman’s Sparrow (grass/forb/shrub vegetation) and Diana fritillary butterfly (high quality nectar producing plants), both Sensitive Species, and other early forest stage habitat obligate species. Even-aged management would have had both positive and negative effects on the Red- cockaded Woodpecker during this time. Commercial thinning and follow-up mid-story hardwood control in older pine forest types would have benefitted this bird by providing near optimum habitat conditions but the continued use of large area clear-cut harvest would have continued to chip away at older pine forest habitat opportunities. Habitat available on treated acres for species preferring dense, older, shaded, forested conditions would have been reduced but non-treated acres offering this condition was and still is very abundant on forest. The ban on clearcut harvest in 1990, termed the “Walk-in-the Woods” (Robertson 2004) and the subsequent

2012 6 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______implementation of uneven-aged harvest methods dramatically reduced the quantity and quality of available early forest stage cover (less than 10 years of age) on the landscape. By the mid 1990’s this lack of even-aged regeneration harvest, in conjunction with natural succession on existing stands of early forest stage cover, significantly reduced preferred habitat for these two Sensitive species and other animals and plants, including Management Indicator Species, that occur in and/or require early forest stage cover vegetation. The recent re- introduction of even-aged harvest has begun to provide early forest stage cover habitat but often not at the recommended 6-14% of the suitable land base.

At the turn of the 19 th century, hardwoods, particularly white oaks, were harvested for crossties to extend railroad tracks up drainages to facilitate commercial pine timber removal. Many of these large hardwoods came from what we now term Streamside Management Areas (SMA) and north slopes where hardwoods are more frequently encountered. Much of this timber was part of the last remaining old growth timber (pine and hardwoods) in the region (Smith 1986). Remnants of these rail beds are rarely encountered now but evidence that these harvests occurred are reflected in the predominance of the oldest hardwood stands typically being 70- 110 years of age.

This virtual clearcut harvest of that hardwood resource would have provided early forest stage habitat conditions for species such as the Diana fritillary butterfly and Bachman’s Sparrow but, as on pine sites, benefits would have been short-lived as this condition class is ephemeral. For early forest stage habitat to be continuously present on the landscape it must routinely be created or existing habitat must be maintained by fire and/or other means. The loss of hard and soft mast production from various hardwood tree species would have negatively impacted wildlife populations dependent on these spring and winter foods and the wholesale loss of cavities would have impacted a wide range of animals including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Species requiring standing dead trees (snags) and large forest floor woody debris (logs/large limbs) would have benefitted from these harvests and their resulting conditions.

Designated SMAs adjacent to medium-sized and smaller perennial and intermittent streams were essentially non-existent until the early 1980s, when their values at reducing siltation to streams and negative impacts to aquatic life, habitat for upland wildlife, and as important habitats for rare plant communities were acknowledged. Until this time it was not uncommon for timber to routinely be harvested up to the edge of streams with hardwood riparian sites and mesic north slope hardwood stands converted to and replanted with economically desirable pines. The Ouachita National Forest Amended Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-Forest Service 1990) established Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) of 30-feet and 100-feet adjacent to each side of intermittent and perennial streams, respectively. These designations were retained in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Drainages, where many of the Forest’s sensitive plants such as Southern lady’s slipper occur, are where timber access and removal roads were constructed and undoubtedly resulted in the destruction of many of these sensitive plant communities and increased siltation to area streams.

Due to decades of aggressive fire suppression activities, wildland fires have been rare on the landscape but smaller, less intense, controlled burns for site preparation and wildlife habitat improvement objectives have occurred in the past, although infrequently, and with relatively long return intervals. This lack of fire on the landscape would not have benefited Bachman’s Sparrow or the Diana fritillary butterfly because they have evolved in a fire dependent landscape. Sun-loving grasses, seed producing forbs, insect populations, and the nectar plants on which these animals depend are readily rejuvenated/enhanced by the occurrence of fire (Nowacki and Abrams 2008). Species such as the Federally Endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker also suffered habitat loss as the mature, open, pine woodlands became choked with mid-story hardwoods previously controlled by periodic fire (Cox and Widener 2008).

In April 1940 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began construction of Nimrod Lake Dam and completed the project in March 1942. The primary purpose of the lake is flood control but also offers excellent recreation opportunities. The resulting impoundment effectively isolated aquatic organisms on the upstream side of the dam from downstream populations, except for those organisms swept downstream during high-water events.

2012 7 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Pre-impoundment and prehistoric information regarding aquatic species (plant and animals) occurrence and diversity is unknown.

Descriptions of the Ouachita Mountains with comments on game and non-game species of wildlife and plants beginning in about 1820 are found in Henderson and Hedrick (1991) and include many additional sources of information in the reference section.

Existing Conditions

Extensive areas of industrial loblolly pine timberlands occur on a rather large land base south and west of the Project Area. Under current management regimes these commercial timberlands do not now nor will they ever offer what the Forest Service considers mature (70 years +) pine/pine-oak forest habitat conditions as long as they remain in industrial ownership because of their short rotation cycle (45 years or less) and lack of an existing hard mast producing hardwood component. However, because of their short rotation period they do provide early forest stage cover on a temporal scale different from that on Forest Service lands, with management strategies complimenting one another and providing a habitat mosaic at a scale larger than the Project Area. At present a good number of these commercial stands offer little in the way of early forest stage cover because they have grown beyond that condition and exhibit closed canopies not beneficial to early forest stage cover species like Diana fritillary butterfly, Bachman’s Sparrow and quail.

Similarly, on Forest Service land the Desired Future Condition for Ouachita shortleaf pine-oak forest is not being met due to a lack of stands in the 0-5 and 5-10 year old age classes. This situation also negatively impacts habitat availability for these same species. At present, available early forest stage cover conditions occur only as small patches in tree-fall gaps and road and utility right-of-ways that receive full sun.

Ouachita shortleaf pine-oak stands in the Project Area closely resemble the “Current Condition” depicted in the Revised Forest Plan where early forest stage cover is well below the desired level. The majority of stands exist as older seral conditions (Figure 2, Page 8, Part I, Vision, USDA-Forest Service 2005a) and not as a habitat mosaic with a wide range of diverse habitat conditions well distributed over the Project Area. As a result, habitat needs for the disturbance dependent Bachman’s Sparrow, Diana fritillary butterfly, and various pollinators are not being provided, which may eventually contribute to trends resulting in extirpations (local extinction), reduced population viability, and/or trends toward Federal listing.

There are a number of older, Ouachita Dry-Mesic Oak Forest hardwood stands well-distributed within the Project Area that contribute important hard and soft mast food items for wildlife and provide cavities for hibernating, denning, nesting and rearing activities. Because of their closed canopy conditions, these stands have little to offer early forest stage species but do provide habitat to species of plants and animals that require dense, older, forested, and shaded conditions.

The most recent application of prescribed fire occurred on two small portions of the Project Area in 2007 (Compartment 477) and 2010 (Compartment 478). The remainder of the Project Area received prescribed fire some time prior to the year 2000. Benefits to plant and wildlife habitats will have likely diminished within the Project Area.

Proposed Project

The Proposed Project may be thought of as an “intermediate planned disturbance” that will create new habitats and new opportunities for species to thrive and, as a result, enhance area biodiversity. In this paradigm, the “normal” state of the community can be thought of as recovering from the last disturbance (entry) with the only constant being change. These planned activities (disturbances to current existing conditions) are not detrimental and will be valuable and essential for maintaining the health of the Project Area and overall forest ecosystem (Reice 2001).

2012 8 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Proposed timber harvest and related silvicultural/wildlife activities will occur in pine forest types over many acres within the Project Area. The resulting vegetative changes will create a dynamic and diverse mosaic of seral conditions, a multitude of habitat niches for wildlife and plants, and insure a continuum of successional age classes within the Ouachita shortleaf pine-oak forest while achieving Desired Future Conditions. Especially important will be the creation of early forest stage cover through proposed seed tree and clearcut harvests and the reestablishment of open-forest pine bluestem habitat in the Barnhart Old Growth Restoration Unit. Once these conditions are re-created the potential for natural immigration of the Federally Endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker into the Project Area could occur. At present, the majority of older pine stands old enough to provide RCW habitat have high basal areas (are too dense and crowded) and contain a heavy mid-story component. Implementation of thinning activities in these older stands will afford additional recovery opportunities for this species.

The Desired Future Condition (vertical structure and vegetative composition) in the Ouachita Dry-Mesic Forest (hardwood) component of the watershed will primarily be influenced by prescribed fire. Hardwoods are primarily managed for wildlife cover and food production. Wildlife Habitat Improvement, including overstory development and/or midstory removal is planned for a number of stands with the primary objective to improve wildlife habitat and food sources, and enhance forest health by reducing competition (number of trees per acre) for moisture, light, space, and nutrients with the potential re-establishment of early forest stage cover conditions and hardwood regeneration beneath retained, older timber. Usually management opens available and accessible stands to the public for wood cutting permits to assist in ground debris removal. However, if commercial interest is available for hardwood, it may be open to market, especially in site prep or seed tree areas.

Multiple prescribed burns are planned for the entire watershed and will occur in distinct burn units. Plants and animals associated with early successional forest habitat will benefit from the application of prescribed fire, especially in pine forest types where harvest and silvicultural/wildlife activities will have already occurred. The application of fire after these activities will have the cumulative effect of providing and maintaining more open conditions. Fire will reduce the number of hardwood sprouts and their associated shade and prolong the occurrence of nectar-producing plant species and grasses and forbs.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions

Within the next planning cycle (10-15 years distant) activities similar to those described in this Proposed Action may again occur as the Forest Service re-examines this and adjacent watersheds. By that time, early forest stage cover habitat generated during this project period should have transitioned to a later seral stage, while other seral conditions will have progressed in some instances to the next age/condition class. The primary recurring connection between past-present-future entries will be prescribed fire. These dormant season and occasional growing season burns may occur every 5-7 years, or more frequently, regardless of scheduled watershed entry in the Ouachita Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest community type primarily found in MA-14 (Desired Future Condition). Resource management activities on private, state and federal timberlands will likely be similar in type and scope to past actions but implemented at different times (temporal scale).

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

The purposes of the Proposed Action are to:
Develop early forest stage cover (early seral) habitat conditions.
Identify and improve the health and vigor of mature growth timber stands.
Improve the capability of hardwoods to produce hard and soft mast.
Restore and improve habitat for Neotropical migrant and resident birds.
Improve the volume, palatability and variety (diversity) of herbaceous plant species in the understory of hardwood and pine stands and in wildlife openings.

2012 9 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______
Improve the health and vigor of young stands by reducing excessive competition.
Excavate ponds to insure water is spatially available year-round throughout the watershed.
Reduce excessive fuel loads to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Provide a sustained supply of wood and wood products.
Restore native species.
Restore historic pine-bluestem habitat conditions in the Barnhart Old Growth Unit.
Review opportunities to close or decommission roads and reduce open road density.

The Proposed Action is needed because:
Early forest stage cover habitat (0-5 years, grasses and forbs; 6-10 years, grasses, forbs and shrubs) used by many species of wildlife is home to diverse assemblages of plants and a required habitat component by some Sensitive species (ex: Bachman’s Sparrow and Diana fritillary butterfly). This habitat condition is currently limited in availability. This habitat condition is transitory, rapidly fades via natural plant succession, and must be periodically maintained or made available on a continuous basis.
Many stands of older, mature timber are crowded (have high basal areas) that result in competition for growing space, water, nutrients and light, increasing stress on individual trees and the increased potential for disease and insect infestations.
The non-commercial thinning (spacing) of hardwoods during Wildlife Habitat Improvement (WHI) Overstory Development activities in hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types will allow for reduced competition for space, water, nutrients and light, increase crown breadth, potentially enhance future soft and hard mast production for wildlife consumption, encourage hardwood species reproduction, reduce the potential for disease and insect infestations, and increase the availability of cavity trees, snags and logs, which are important structural habitat components.
A variety of forested and non-forested conditions are needed to provide habitat for Neotropical migrant and resident landbirds that may occur within the Project Area. These habitat conditions can be provided and accentuated through proposed silvicultural and wildlife habitat improvement activities.
Canopy closure and lack of fire have resulted in a less diverse assemblage of herbaceous plant species that provide food and cover for wildlife. WHI Midstory Removal in pine, pine-hardwood and hardwood forest types will encourage herbaceous growth by reducing shaded conditions in selected areas.
Decreasing the basal area within young stands will reduce competition and stress among residual trees, enhance growth and health, reduce the potential for disease and insect infestations, and provide enhanced habitat conditions for various wildlife and shade-intolerant plant species.
Standing water, in the form of wildlife waterholes/ponds, is available throughout the Project Area. Perennial standing water is necessary for consumption by wildlife and as reproductive sites for native amphibian species. Some species of amphibians do not use flowing water as reproductive habitat (example: woodland salamanders) and depend upon fishless waterbodies for egg-laying sites.
Through time, the natural accumulation of leaf litter and woody debris in non-harvested stands, the generation of debris during harvest and other silvicultural activities, and as a result of natural stochastic events (ex: wind and ice storms) pose a threat as fuels for catastrophic wildfire. Wildfire potential can be significantly reduced through use of prescribed fire.
The harvest of timber will provide wood products and help achieve desired stand conditions.
The proposed removal of loblolly pine plantations through timber harvest and their replacement with native shortleaf pine and hardwoods will help achieve native species restoration efforts.
Areas of open, old growth, pine timber with early forest stage ground cover beneath were once common and provided habitat to a wide variety of plants and wildlife species, including the endangered Red- cockaded Woodpecker.

2012 10 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______
Opportunities to close or decommission roads will move open road density toward the desired level and simultaneously reduce associated human disturbance of wildlife.

Proposed Management Actions

The Proposed Action includes harvesting timber using seed-tree, clearcut, and commercial thinning methods within compartments 477-488. The even-aged regeneration harvest using modified seed-tree methods is proposed for approximately 817 acres. Clearcut of loblolly pine, also an even-aged harvest method, would occur on 80 acres primarily for the purpose of restoring native species. Commercial thinning is proposed on approximately 4,329 acres. Following seed tree harvest, natural forest regeneration would be promoted by site preparation. Treatment would consist of prescribed burning and hardwood reduction by application of herbicide on approximately 817 acres to reduce competition and develop ideal stocking levels (number of trees per acre).

Stand improvement would occur on 323 acres employing release management (“release” is treatment designed to free young trees from undesirable, usually over-topping, competing vegetation). Treated areas would include young stands within the project area. Release would be accomplished by application of herbicide. Mid-story removal by hardwood reduction would be accomplished with chainsaw cutting and the application of herbicide on 2,720 acres.

Prescribed burning would be used in the management of national forest land in the Project Area to accomplish multiple objectives. While a primary benefit of prescribed fire is reduction of fuel loads to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, there are other purposes to be accomplished with the use of controlled burning, including: preparation of sites for regeneration, controlling understory vegetation, wildlife habitat and native plant enhancement. The Project Area has been divided into 13 burn units ranging in size from 1,053 acres to 2,235 acres . Approximately 2 miles (2 acres) of new fireline would be established to accomplish the proposed prescribed burning.

Within the Project Area, there are 22 existing ponds; 60 additional ponds would be created to provide water source for wildlife. The majority of these ponds would be established in forest stands where silviculture 1 1 management activities would occur. Each pond would be approximately /8 to /4 acre in size and spaced to provide water at approximately ½-mile intervals throughout national forest land in the Project Area. 180 nest structures would be placed near newly constructed and existing wildlife ponds, streams, right-of-ways, and wildlife openings. Four existing wildlife food plots (12 acres) would continue to be maintained.

Wildlife habitat improvement employing midstory removal would occur in all commercially thinned stands and on additional areas to promote pine bluestem and habitat opportunities for Red-cockaded Woodpecker, totaling 1,332 acres. Overstory development would take place on 538 acres to insure a variety of hard mast wildlife food sources and to enhance herbaceous and grassy vegetation valuable for producing wildlife food and cover.

Discussion of Proposed Management Activities

Timber harvest, wildlife habitat treatments and silvicultural treatments have been grouped for discussion because they all involve the reduction of basal areas (of varying magnitudes) for commercial or non-commercial purposes and in this analysis are referred to as “timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities.”

Prescribed burning activities will extend beyond this 10-15 year planning cycle and will occur on a continuous basis in established burn units. Burn plans will be reviewed and modified, if necessary, by an ID Team each time that burn unit comes back into rotation. Burns will occur primarily during the vegetative dormant season but may also occur during the growing season. Firelines will be constructed to result in the least amount of ground disturbance and, where possible, natural and manmade features such as streams channels and roads will be used.

2012 11 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Temporary roads/skid trails will be constructed and then closed (blocked or gated) after management activities have been completed. Some roads may include stream crossings located in accordance with direction found in the Revised Forest Plan (Management Area 9). Ground disturbance will be kept to a minimum by keeping the width of roads, size of ditches (if applicable), and surface materials (if used) to the minimum necessary to allow safe movement of vehicles and removal of forest products while not impacting the movements of aquatic species or their habitats. Disturbed soils will be re-vegetated with native species or approved non-native species not considered invasive (Miller 2003, USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix E).

Placement of nest structures, excavation of wildlife ponds (typically less than one-quarter acre in size) and firewood gathering of dead or downed timber in specified areas will not occur in sensitive habitats, constitute insignificant impacts on the land because of the small areas involved, and are widely spaced over the watershed. Disturbed soils on pond dams and adjacent areas will be re-vegetated with native grass and herbaceous species (primarily big bluestem and little bluestem grasses, when available, and flowering nectar producers to enhance pollinator activity) or approved non-native species that are not considered invasive. Soil movement from excavated pond sites is rare. Soils that move from above the pond structure and on the pond-side of the dam are collected by the basin and assist in sealing the core and preventing leaks. Soils that move from the backside of pond dams are arrested by the woody vegetation debris field generated during site clearing.

Terrestrial Communities

All terrestrial communities represented in the Project Area are disturbance-dependent (Kulhavy and Conner 1986, Reice 2001, Nowacki and Abrams 2008), very resilient, and should not be considered especially vulnerable to incremental effects of creating different seral conditions. The time period between entries into watersheds for resource management activities is estimated to be 10-15+ years, a length of time that often prevents overlap of impacts from similar, past and present activities. Many of the impacts resulting from past activities (last entry), such as the creation of early forest stage cover, have completely faded and no longer offer that particular habitat.

Thinnings in pine and hardwood stands will have likely again become closed canopied stands as a result of crown growth and subsequent closure. The primary additive effect of this Proposed Action will be the incremental addition of early forest stage cover where timber is harvested by seed tree and clearcut methods, with an equal reduction in the available acreage of mature forest conditions, primarily in the pine forest types. The cumulative outcome will be to insure a continuum of varying habitat conditions ranging from grass-forb to mature growth and old growth. This Proposed Project is one of several recent, similar watershed level actions on the District that, by virtue of their spatial arrangement on the landscape, will collectively contribute to a desired habitat mosaic at a much larger scale (multi-watershed/district/forest). This Proposed Action will not fragment conditions within the watershed or at a larger scale, but will simply alter vegetative structure (vertical structure and tree density) and age to achieve Desired Future Conditions. Forested lands planned for harvest will remain forested lands and will not be converted to other resource uses (Rosenberg et al . 1999). Standards in the Revised Forest Plan have established ranges within which management activities can be implemented to help achieve and sustain Desired Future Conditions without compromising existing and future resources and dependent PETS species.

Herbicides and PETS – Site Preparation, Release, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Timber Stand Improvement

Herbicide application may be necessary to achieve desired goals of site preparation, release, and extend the duration of benefits from Wildlife Habitat Improvement Midstory Removal and Overstory Development and Silvicultural Midstory Removal. A mixture of herbicides with the active ingredients glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr would best achieve desired condition goals for site preparation. This mixture provides improved control over herbicides containing only imazapyr, in addition to reducing costs. Triclopyr, glyphosate and imazapyr would be applied at rates necessary to control targeted vegetation and will not exceed the label rate.

2012 12 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Application methods will include: 1) foliar spray, which involves application of herbicide to foliage of trees and shrubs less than six feet in height; 2) frill (girdling/hack and squirt) treatment, which involves application of herbicide by spray bottle into cuts that expose the tree’s sapwood; and 3) cut surface treatment, which involves application of herbicide by spray bottle to the surface of cut stumps. 4) Basal bark, which involves spraying bark from the ground up on the bark to kill. Application of foliar-spray methods would be made during the spring and summer seasons when vegetation is green and growing. Cut-surface treatments, which include frill and cut-stump treatments, however, are not dependent upon time of year and may be carried out during any season. Cut-surface treatments would involve the use of hand-operated tools such as chainsaws and machetes (Forest Wide Design Criteria HU001-HU016, HU018 ).

Non-native Invasive Plant Species Treatments

Herbicide treatments and in some case manual control would be applied to all areas within the watershed as needed to control and or eliminate the spread of non-native invasive plant species based on need and priority. Some of the more common NNIS species known to occur on the Ouachita National Forest include: sacred bamboo (Nandina domestica), mimosa ( Albizia julibrissin ), tree of heaven ( Ailanthus altissima ), tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum ), sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata ), autumn and Russian olive ( Elaeagnus umbellate and Elaeagnus angustifolia ), Japanese honeysuckle ( Lonicera japonica ), Chinese and Japanese privet (Ligustrum sinense and Ligustrum japonicum ). Species documented in this Project Area include mimosa, sericea lespedeza and Japanese honeysuckle. These treatments would include use of approved USDA herbicides and manual treatments such as prescribed fire and manual uprooting. Priorities would be set for removal and treatment of these species based on location and available funding. For example, an area that has sensitive plants that is being invaded would become a higher priority than a roadside ditch or sericea lespedeza might have a higher priority than a mimosa tree depending on the location. Within the Project Area, several known locations were identified to be treated according to priority and threat. The district will make a concerted effort to treat all known NNIS sites and any future locations or species. Herbicides will be applied to existing wildlife openings, timber stands, closed roads, and along roadways as needed for elimination of non-native noxious weeds. A mixture of herbicides containing the active ingredients glyphosate, imazapyr and triclopyr and an adjuvant for increased control would be used to eradicate noxious weeds that are encroaching on existing timber stands, wildlife openings and roadways. This mixture provides an effective means for control of undesired non-native invasive and noxious plant species and as a result aids in the release and establishment of desirable native grass and herbaceous plant species. PETS Species Considered

PETS Species Considered Common Name Scientific Name Classification* Harperella (plant) Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered Scaleshell Mussel Leptodea leptodon Endangered Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Sensitive Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana Sensitive Ozark chinquapin (tree) Castanea pumila ozarkensis Sensitive Kiamichi shiner (fish) Notropis ortenburgeri Sensitive Longnose darter (fish) Percina nasuta Sensitive Louisiana fatmucket mussel Lampsilis hydiana Sensitive Ouachita creekshell mussel Villosa arkansasensis Sensitive Purple lilliput mussel Toxolasma lividus Sensitive Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura Sensitive Southern hickorynut mussel Obovaria jacksoniana Sensitive

* Sensitive: USDA-Forest Service Designation

2012 13 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______All 80 PETS species that occur on the Amended Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list (USDA-Forest Service 2007a, USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) were considered. Of this number, 10 are designated Federally Endangered, 4 are designated Federally Threatened, 0 are Federally Proposed for listing and 66 are designated as Forest Service Sensitive species. Sixty-eight (68) species were eliminated from further evaluation due to one or more of the following factors: (1) the Project Area is not within their known, documented geographic range; (2) the species has never been documented from within the Project Area or its sphere of influence in field surveys, monitoring activities, reports, or scientific literature; and (3) the Project Area does not provide habitat conditions known to be needed or used by these species. See the PETS Checklist for this Project Area for an explanation as to why species were eliminated from further consideration or brought forward in this document for evaluation.

Species Evaluated

The remaining twelve (12) species are known, expected, or may occur within the project area and/or the area of its influence. These species will be considered during analyses of effects of the Proposed Action.

This group is composed of one (1) terrestrial vertebrate, one (1) terrestrial invertebrate, six (6) aquatic invertebrates, two (2) aquatic vertebrates and two (2) terrestrial plant species.

Harperella-Federally Endangered

Baseline data

Harperella was first protected under the Endangered Species Act on September 28, 1988, and was first documented in Arkansas by Vernon Bates in 1990. Habitat conditions preferred and areas of occurrence by harperella are well documented. Typical habitat for this plant is directly in stream channels where gravels stay moist year round and peak flows are dispersed over a broad terrace. It also grows well in cutoffs, adjacent small depressions and near small tributary inlets (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Bates’ (1992a, 1993), descriptions of locations in the Ouachita Mountains included gravel beds, sandy stream margins, densely packed into silt pockets between boulders, wedged into shale crevices packed with captured silt and on sandbars. Theo Witsell (2005) noted harperella in specific micro-habitats that included sunny and rocky margins of pools, exposed cobble and gravel bars, and exposed rocky channel bottoms at rifles where this plant often rooted in sandy sediment filling the interstitial spaces between cobbles within the stream channel that are exposed in late summer. Potential and existing habitat conditions for this species frequently change with flood and scour events and are not readily quantifiable or predictable form one year to the next.

Throughout the range of harperella population numbers often fluctuate from year to year in response to factors such as rainfall levels, winter conditions, and drought. There is significant dynamism in the persistence of individual stands, with population levels documented to have fluctuated as much as 30% in four years (USDI- Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Not all population estimates in Arkansas have been derived using standardized sampling techniques and are difficult to compare. A 2001 report by Hardcastle and Williams used repeatable methods to estimate populations on the Ouachita National Forest.

Harperella-Survey Information

Harperella has been documented in several locations along the South Fourche LaFave River and the Fourche LaFave River (Bates 1993, 2000, Witsell 2005). There are no sites located specifically in the Project Area or even adjacent to the watershed, but the occurrence of harperella in these potentially affected rivers is enough reason to do an effects analysis. The 2005 Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, pp. 48-52) states that “the South Fork of the Fourche watershed reflects minimal impairment”, but at the time, the known harperella occurrences were located on private lands. Theo Witsell ground-truthed potential sites for former/retired

2012 14 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______District Biologist, David Saugey, for harperella within the project area and Harperella was not found and the habitat was deemed unsuitable.

Harperella-Effects Analysis

Because harperella is an immobile plant, an effects analysis for pond construction will occur in this effects section due to ground disturbing activity and sedimentation.

Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities

Direct effects: No harperella sites were found within the boundaries of the Project Area. The felling of trees will have no direct effect on this plant because the species does not occur outside of the protected stream corridor habitat and there is not felling of trees proposed within the stream corridor. In addition, no skidder or logging activity is proposed within the stream corridor. If stream crossings are required to access timber, only designated crossings would be allowed and these would be approved by FS personnel.

Indirect effects: The Forest Plan analysis summary shows timber harvest and forest regeneration site preparation activities to have discountable effects on harperella. Increased water yield and potential soil movement due to reduced basal areas will be lessened through the buffering/filtering action of adjacent non- harvested stands, interception and utilization of water by residual overstory and midstory vegetation within harvested stands, existing ground cover vegetation, existing layer of organic duff and buffering/filtering action of established Streamside Management Areas adjacent to all intermittent and perennial streams.

Cumulative effects: An increase in water yield to the South Fourche and Fourche LaFave Rivers may occur incrementally as acres are treated. The effects of runoff and the potential for elevated sediment levels from timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities will be short lived due to the rapid re-vegetation of disturbed soils in the terrestrial environment once activities have ceased. Additionally, Forest Plan standards for erosion control will apply at the site-specific project level. Re-entry into this watershed for timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities is anticipated for 10-15 years. Silvicultural/wildlife and harvest activities are considered to have discountable effects on harperella (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007).

Potential sedimentation from proposed timber, silvicultural and wildlife activities is predicted to have no or discountable effects on harperella habitat associated with this Project Area due to forest-wide Management Area 9 Standards (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). These Standards provide designated minimum widths for Streamside Management Areas to be applied at the site specific project level (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Table 3.9, p. 103) and Forest-wide Standard TE003 (p. 77) provides flexibility to provide wider SMAs if needed. These Standards have been designed to maintain or improve the stability and function of the riparian community through Streamside Management Area establishment on-the-ground that will also assist in streambank maintenance and stream channel stability. The application of these Standards across the entire Project Area will help protect water quality and aquatic habitats on which this species depends.

Prescribed fire

Direct effects: Prescribed fire will have no direct effect on harperella because this plant lives directly in stream channels.

Indirect effects: Prescribed fire will release nutrients into the residual leaf litter and soil with the vast majority of these nutrients utilized on-site by terrestrial plants. A reduced quantity of released nutrients will be available for assimilation into the aquatic ecosystem by harperella and other species.

2012 15 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Cumulative effects: The input of nutrients into the South Fourche and Fourche LaFave Rivers may occur incrementally over several years as subunits are burned, however, this periodic increase will not have detrimental effect on the species.

Herbicide application

Direct effects: There will be no direct effects on harperella from herbicides during release activities because harperella does not occur in upland stands where treatment will occur. The use of herbicides is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Proposed, Endangered or Threatened plants (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 88, Standard HU010) or when weather conditions exceed the threshold for use that could cause drift (HU015, Table 3.8, pp. 88-89).

Indirect effects: None. Streamside Management Areas, other vegetated stands and leaf litter will buffer aquatic systems by arresting movement of run-off water and reducing the potential entry of herbicides into the aquatic ecosystem. Herbicides will not be applied to vegetation in Streamside Management Areas, within 100 feet of perennial streams such as South Fourche or Fourche LaFave Rivers, or within 30 feet of intermittent stream channels (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 103, Table 3.9).

Cumulative effects: Herbicide application is expected to have no effect on harperella (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007, 2010b).

Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Road construction, temporary roads, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning).

Direct effects: There will be no direct effects for harperella as a result of the proposed transportation system or fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). These rivers both occur on either private property or Corps of Engineer lands so actual plant sites are not typical on National Forests lands particularly in this Project Area; therefore we would not directly affect the sites by destroying the plants.

Indirect effects: One indirect effect of transportation activities is the potential production of sediment. Sediment production will be minimized by using the proper road construction techniques and road substrate, such as gravel, where needed. Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system on harperella habitat are considered discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007, 2010b) because the plant occurs several miles outside the Project Area and is protected by stream side management areas. Roads closed to reduce open road density are unlikely to be opened for general use until the next entry into this watershed, potentially 10-15 years in the future. Fourteen miles of roads are selected to be decommissioned in this proposed action which after they are seeded and gated will minimize siltation and erosion in this watershed. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Where fireline is constructed, segments often tie-in with permanent stream systems and are areas of potential sediment introduction into aquatic systems. Where this situation occurs, the terminal portion of the fireline near a stream is constructed by hand to reduce soil disturbance. All portions of firelines, whether created by hand or equipment, are constructed with water diversion bars to reduce potential siltation of streams by deflecting rainfall runoff into unburned leaf litter where litter and vegetation act as filters for particulate matter.

Cumulative effects: There will be no cumulative effects for harperella as a result of the proposed transportation system or fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the

2012 16 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Additionally, the construction of ground-disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established they are built in the best possible locations. Therefore there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied, since those locations will likely be used again. Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system or fireline construction on harperella habitat are considered discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007, 2010b) because the plant occurs several miles outside the Project Area and is protected by stream side management areas.

Pond Construction :

Direct effects: There will be no direct effects on harperella because no harperella sites, or suitable habitat actually occur in the Project Area in addition to no ponds being built in defined channels where the harperella might occur. The closest populations on the Fourche LaFave or South Fourche rivers occur on either private property or Corps of Engineer lands so actual plant sites are not typical on National Forests lands; therefore, we would not be near plants for direct destruction.

Indirect effects: One indirect effect of ground disturbing activities is the potential production of sediment. Ponds are typically so small and will be far enough away from harperella habitat that there will be no indirect effect.

Cumulative effects: Potential sedimentation from proposed pond construction is predicted to have no or discountable effects on harperella habitat within/outside this watershed due to forest-wide Management Area 9 Standards (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). These Standards provide designated minimum widths for SMAs to be applied at the site specific project level (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Table 3.9, p. 103) and Forest-wide Standard TE003 (p. 77) provides flexibility to provide wider SMAs if needed. These Standards have been designed to maintain or improve the stability and function of the riparian community through Streamside Management Area establishment on-the-ground that will also assist in streambank maintenance and stream channel stability. The application of these Standards across the entire Project Area will help protect water quality and aquatic habitats on which this species depends, and reduce any impacts.

Scaleshell mussel-Federally Endangered

Baseline data

The scaleshell mussel is a relatively small freshwater mussel species that lives in medium-sized and large rivers with stable channels and good water quality. Scaleshells bury themselves in sand and gravel river bottoms and siphon water for food that includes detritus, plankton and other microorganisms. The roles of scaleshell mussels in river ecosystems are as food for wildlife species, including muskrats, otters and raccoons and as a filter that improves water quality. Scaleshell eggs develop into microscopic larvae within the gills of the female mussel. When mature, the female sprays these larvae into the stream current where they must attach to the fins or gills of fish to continue development. These young mussels, now termed glochidia , can only develop on certain host fish. One such known host for the scaleshell is the freshwater drum ( Aplodinotus grunniens ) and there may be other suitable host fish species yet undiscovered. Glochidia continue to develop until they drop off their host and land on the river bottom where they mature into adults. Life expectancy appears to be less than 10 years (USDI- Fish and Wildlife Service 1999; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Register 2001).

2012 17 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Scaleshell mussel-Survey Information

There are historic occurrences of this mussel in the South Fourche La Fave River. In 1991 one live and one relict shell was found. In 1991, one live and one deceased specimen was found (Harris 1992). In a follow-up survey in 2001, Stoeckel and Moles (2002) did not find the species at the previous location. However, this occurrence did not occur within the project area but they were found approximately 20 miles from the project area. For the purpose of this Biological Evaluation, presence will be assumed.

Scaleshell mussel-Effects Analysis

Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities

Direct effects : Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities will not occur in streams nor will harvested timber be felled into streams. Direct impacts to mussels will not occur.

Indirect effects : The reduction in basal areas in harvested and/or treated stands will allow increased light levels to reach the forest floor promoting the growth of grasses and herbaceous vegetation. This, along with deciduous and pine leaf litter, will help absorb and filter potential sediment from runoff before it reaches stream channels. In addition, the presence of 30’ and 100’ wide Streamside Management Areas that act as runoff buffers between harvest units and stream channels will provide additional water quality protection in areas where soil disturbance may occur. Harvesting within these riparian areas will not occur nor will skid trails or temporary roads for timber removal. The input of nutrients into streams as a result of harvest methods in the Proposed Action will have no significant impacts to water quality (Beasley et al . 1987).

Cumulative effects : Potential sedimentation from proposed silvicultural/wildlife activities is predicted to have no or discountable effects on mussel habitat within this watershed due to forest-wide Management Area 9 Standards (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). These Standards provide designated minimum widths for Streamside Management Areas to be applied at the site specific project level (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Table 3.9, p. 103) and Forest-wide Standard TE003 (p. 77) provides flexibility to provide wider SMAs if needed. These Standards have been designed to maintain or improve the stability and function of the riparian community through Streamside Management Area establishment on-the- ground that will also assist in streambank maintenance and stream channel stability. The application of these Standards across the entire Project Area will help protect water quality and aquatic habitats on which this species depends.

Prescribed fire

Direct effects : Prescribed fires may occur anytime during the year but will have no direct effects on the scaleshell mussel, due to firelines occurring away from the main rivers, which are actually not on FS property.

Indirect effects : Proposed low to medium intensity prescribed burns (a few high intensity burns may occur in site prep areas) may augment stream nutrient levels, but like nutrient level increases from timber harvest, these are likely to peak the first year and then soon return to normal, preborn levels. Nutrients introduced into the perennial Fourche La Fave River from prescribed burning activities will be quickly diluted and not allowed to concentrate due to continuous water flow. Because most prescribed burns do not consume the entire layer of leaf litter, much of the nutrient volume released is retained by the residual duff and absorbed at origin. Nutrients and potential sediments that move in runoff water are further reduced in concentration and volume through uptake and filtration by Streamside Management Area vegetation (riparian areas) before reaching stream systems (Ilhardt et al. 2000). Low intensity prescribed fires rarely kill or significantly alter streamside vegetation and as a result do not affect water temperature, bank stability and other factors relating to the aquatic system they buffer.

2012 18 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Cumulative effects : Prescribed burns will be applied in increments by subdividing the watershed into manageable burn units. All units will not be burned within the same season or year resulting in minimal impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Due to separation in time and space, burns are unlikely to overlap one another to create cumulative inputs to streams with burns considered to have no effect on this species (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007).

Herbicide Application

Direct effects : There are no direct effects to mussels from herbicide application.

Indirect effects : There are no indirect effects to mussels or their habitats from the application of Triclopyr, Glyphosate or Imazapyr in upland terrestrial habitats. Streamside Management Areas, other vegetated stands and leaf litter will buffer aquatic systems by arresting movement of run-off water and preventing entry of herbicide into the aquatic ecosystem. Herbicides will not be applied to vegetation in Streamside Management Areas, within 100 feet of perennial streams such as the Fourche La Fave River, nor within 30 feet of intermittent stream channels (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 103, Table 3.9). Objective HU014 of the Forest Plan states that “soil applied herbicides are not used within 30 feet of undefined channels, nor are they used on solids less than 20 inches deep to bedrock or on other soils with more than 35 percent rock content that are 20-40 inches deep to bedrock. Objective HU011 states that no application will occur within a 300-foot buffer of any source waters without a site-specific analysis (USDA Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative effects : The risk characterizations for Triclopyr at an application rate of at 1lb per acre (proposed rate for the project area) indicate acute and chronic risks to aquatic animals (fish and invertebrates) are low. At the highest application rates considered in testing (10 lbs per acre), risks to aquatic animals remained substantially below the level of concern and risks to aquatic species are low over the entire range of application rates that may be used in Forest Service programs (SERA 2011c. Similar findings for Imazapyr and Glyphosate indicate that available data are sufficient to assert that no adverse effects associated with the toxicity of this product can be anticipated in aquatic animals from the use of this compound in Forest Service programs (SERA 2011a, b). The concentrations of any herbicide entering the aquatic ecosystem would be rapidly reduced by the mixing and diluting actions of flowing water. These herbicides are considered to have no cumulative effects on the Scaleshell mussel (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007).

Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Temporary roads, permanent road construction, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning)

Direct effects: There will be no direct effects on the scaleshell mussel because roads, skid trails, and firelines will not be constructed across the Fourche La Fave or South Fourche Rivers, nor are temporary crossings proposed for these rivers. Equipment used to remove felled timber (skidders/log trucks) will not be operated directly in the Fourche La Fave River or South Fourche River or along their banks and therefore individual mussels will not be harmed by vehicles. Where stream crossings occur elsewhere in this watershed they will be planned and installed so as not to create barriers to passage of host fishes or to cause soil movement into the aquatic ecosystem (USDA-Forest Service 2005a: Design Criteria TR001, TR003, TR008, TR009). Traffic levels resulting from implantation of the Proposed Action will be no greater than when past management activities have occurred.

Indirect effects : Included in this Proposed Action is the rehabilitation and permanent closure of 14 miles of roads. This will assist in elimination of erosion and siltation into this watershed, as well as reduce the road density within the management area(s). However, one of the indirect effects of the transportation system will be the potential production of sediment. Sediment occurring in the Fourche La Fave River and South Fourche River has the potential to affect aquatic biota by altering the substratum and by altering chemical and physical composition of the water. More specifically, sediment directly affects freshwater mussel survival primarily by interfering with respiration (suffocation), feeding, and reproduction (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal

2012 19 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Register 2001). The potential for sediment to be produced will be reduced by surfacing roads with gravel where needed, revegetating exposed soils outside the needed roadbed width, establishing hay-bale sedimentation traps in drains leading directly to streams, directing roadside diversion ditches so outlets empty onto non-disturbed soils, and by not establishing roads, skid trails and stream crossings (except as allowed by the Forest Plan) within streamside corridors. Constructed fireline segments often tie-in with permanent stream systems and are areas of potential sediment introduction into aquatic systems. Where this situation occurs, the terminal portion of the fireline near a stream is constructed by hand to reduce soil disturbance. All portions of firelines, whether by hand or equipment, are constructed with water diversion bars to reduce potential siltation of streams by deflecting rainfall runoff into unburned leaf litter where litter and vegetation act as filters for particulate matter.

Cumulative effects : Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system on the scaleshell mussel and/or its habitat are considered to be discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). Additionally, the footprint of fireline on the landscape is small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. The construction of ground disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established they are built in the best possible locations. Therefore there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied, since those locations will likely be used again. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce disturbance of soils and impact to this mussel.

Bachman’s Sparrow-Sensitive

The natural history of Bachman’s Sparrow and its preferred habitats are well documented. Bachman’s Sparrow is a specialist of Southern pinelands where it forages strictly on the ground in dense grass or shrub habitat found in early forest stage cover conditions preferring areas burned within the past three years (Cox and Jones 2008, Cox and Widener 2008). They glean insects, spiders and seeds in summer and seeds in winter. This species belongs to the guild that consists of ground-nesting, herb-gleaning, insectivore-granivores. Key habitat requirements for breeding/nesting activity are dense grassy places where scattered trees or saplings are present, usually in pine forest types, but have also been documented utilizing glades (Hardin et al. 1982, Tucker et al . 2006). Prior to logging and fire protection this species was common in fire-maintained shortleaf pine forests with a well-developed herbaceous understory (Thill et al . 2004, Wood et al . 2004, Eddleman et al. 2007). They build domed nests with side entrances on the ground in dense cover such as underbrush or saplings. In Florida most (>85%) nests were located in areas burned the previous growing season (Cox and Widener 2008). Summer populations utilize clear-cut areas characterized by a heavy tangle of vegetation including young pines, hardwood sprouts and weeds averaging 1-2 meters high (Gainer 1921, Haggerty 1986, 1988, 1995, 1998, 2000) but this habitat condition is ephemeral and rapidly disappears when not maintained by fire or other means. This species occurs as a nesting bird in pine-bluestem habitat and/or habitat suitable for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (Wood et al. 2004). Nesting occurs from 17 April until 26 August with 85% of eggs laid between May and July (Haggerty 1988). Winter habitat requirements are similar to those of summer and always involve thick grassy cover under open stands of pine and grassy fields that contain species such as broomsedge (James and Neal 1986, DeGraaf et al . 1991, Hamel 1992). Bachman’s Sparrow is endemic to the United States (Dunning 2006).

Bachman’s Sparrow – Environmental baseline

A lack of early forest stage cover and open pine (savannah), forested conditions are identifiable threats/limiting factors for this species. Many scientists consider early forest stage cover to be critical for many species, including this bird, and ecosystem health (Askins 2001; Hunter et al . 2001, Litvaitis 2001, Lorimer 2001, Trani et al . 2001). Bachman’s Sparrow populations have declined throughout its southern range in recent decades (DeGraaf et al . 1991, Hamel 1992, La Sorte et al . 2007, Sauer et al. 2007, Cox and Jones 2008, NABCI website, accessed 2010) and has been placed on the Partners in Flight (PIF) Watch List in the “extremely high” priority category, and is considered a PIF Species of Continental Importance for the United States and Canada (Pashley et al . 2000, Fitzgerald and Pashley 2000, Rich et al . 2004) and Audubon WatchList Red List Status (National

2012 20 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Audubon Society website, accessed 2011). Red list designation implies this species is rapidly declining and faces major conservation threats.

Bachman’s Sparrow prefers pine habitats that are found at opposite ends of the silvicultural spectrum – early forest stage cover and open mature growth (pine savanna) with an early forest stage ground cover component primarily composed of Andropogon spp grasses. Both conditions existed on the landscape now designated the Ouachita National Forest but pine savanna probably dominated prior to wide scale timber harvesting and exclusion of fire. Pine savanna has been suggested to be this bird’s preferred habitat (Askins 2000). In the late 1800s the habitat scale began to tip to expansive areas of early forest stage cover with extensive harvesting of the mature pine forest (Smith 1986) and with increased habitat available populations likely increased as well. Changes in Ouachita National Forest management direction in 1990 from predominantly even-aged, clear-cut harvest to use of modified even-aged and uneven-aged techniques contributed to a significant decline in the availability of early forest stage cover (Hedrick et al . 2007, USDA-Forest Service 2008). According to Haggerty (1988), population declines may occur in response to a shortage of breeding habitat and/or a high adult mortality rate caused by a shortage of wintering habitat. The harvesting of the older more valuable timber has reduced the available acreage of open, mature pine (savanna) conditions on the landscape and the exclusion of fire has been documented to have negative effects on this and other birds and their habitats (Rich et al . 2004, Conner et al . 2005, Tucker et al. 2006, Eddleman et al . 2007, Nowacki and Abrams 2008, Klaus et al . 2010). This species is virtually never encountered outside of early forest stage cover habitat [0-10 years of age] (Thill et al. 2004) and has been shown to disappear from stands within 5 years following prescribed fire, subsequent closure of vegetation, and the shading of required herbaceous plants and grasses (Tucker et al . 2006). Regardless of how large clearcuts are they offer only temporary habitat (Askins 2000). The current domination of the pine landscape by mid-successional timber with dense mid-story vegetation and lack of herbaceous and grassy forest floor cover, in this Project Area and on Forest in general, does not bode well for this species. Continued declines in populations appear inevitable if disturbance is not routinely introduced into these communities to reset portions of the vegetative structure to an earlier stage of plant succession (Reice 2001) and allow pine forest types to age to open, mature and old growth conditions with abundant herbaceous forest floor vegetation. Pine savannas with periodic disturbance by fire provide long-term, stable habitat for this species (Askins 2000). These deficiencies in available and suitable habitat conditions can be remedied, to a major degree, through management activities (timber harvest, silvicultural/wildlife treatments, and the application of prescribed fire) which may prevent further population declines and lessen the potential for this species to become Federally listed (Wood et al . 2004, Dunning 2006).

New threats that may impact Bachman’s Sparrow involve two non-native invasive species (NNIS) - the Red Imported Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta, and the feral hog, Sus scrofa . Fire ants are becoming more common throughout the Forest and are most prevalent in disturbed habitats such as early forest stage cover conditions - the favored nesting habitat of this bird. In addition to direct attacks on eggs and nestlings, fire ants have the potential to affect availability, biomass and diversity of invertebrate insect prey important to growth and development of juvenile birds (Allen et al. 1995, Mueller et al . 1999, Harveson et al . 2004, Tucker et al . 2010). Feral hogs are spreading across Arkansas and are known from nearby Petit Jean Wildlife Management Area (AGFC Website, accessed 2011). Feral hogs graze on grasses and forbs that may provide seeds for this bird and have been documented to prey on invertebrates, ground nesting bird eggs and birds (Hayes et al . 2009, Wilcox and Van Vuren 2009). The cumulative effect of lost offspring, lost food resources, and un-useable, though suitable habitat may further imperil this species and other ground nesting birds.

This species has a Global rating of 3 indicating it is vulnerable to extinction and an Arkansas status of S3B that refers to conservation concerns for the breeding population (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011). This bird has been listed as a Forest Service Sensitive species because of the limited amount of preferred early seral habitat and its limited distribution. The overall viability risk for this species is low (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

2012 21 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Bachman’s Sparrow - Survey Information

A total of 75 Land-bird Monitoring Points occur within the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District and represent all available habitat conditions on District. During the period 2000-2011 Bachman’s Sparrow was not recorded even though a number of these points are located in or adjacent to early forest stage habitat. Specifically, points located within or adjacent to this watershed (Points 14 and 15) did not report this species in 2009, 2010 or 2011 (Fourche Unit BBS records). This trend is widespread throughout the southeast (LaSorte et al. 2007). Additional surveys are not needed to provide more definitive information to improve the determination of effects to this Sensitive species because the Proposed Action is expected to have “beneficial impacts” to habitat conditions without impacts to individuals”. District land-bird points are permanently monumented and monitored annually by university level research scientists and Forest Service employees. Bachman’s Sparrow - Effects Analysis Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities : Direct effects : Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities are not likely to directly affect adult birds or nests with eggs or nestlings because timbered stands to be harvested or receive timber, silvicultural/wildlife treatments do not offer suitable nesting habitat at the time of treatment. Adults are highly mobile, and if located within a stand to be treated can easily move to another location. There could be a loss of nests, eggs, or nestlings if located within the treatment area. Creation of openings will occur in older stands proposed for harvest or in non- harvested stands too old to provide nesting habitat and there will be no direct impacts. Indirect effects : The reduction of basal areas in treated stands will allow increased light levels to reach the forest floor promoting the transition to more suitable nesting and foraging habitat by increasing the growth of grasses, herbaceous vegetation and the production of fruits, seeds and associated insect prey. Peak beneficial vegetative response to regeneration harvest, thinning and follow-up treatments will likely occur 2-4 years post treatment then rapidly decline. The magnitude of these beneficial responses will vary by treatment and residual basal areas with greatest benefits from clearcut and seed-tree harvests, commercial thinning of old growth and mature growth pine resulting in open conditions, and the least from thinning of younger, more dense stands (Blair and Feduccia 1977, Fenwood et al . 1984, Masters et al . 1996, Askins 2000, Masters and Waymire 2000). Permanent openings, if periodically maintained and allowed to re-vegetate naturally, will offer small areas of foraging habitat spatially arranged over the Project Area but are not likely to benefit reproduction due to small size.

Cumulative effects : Early forest stage cover and older open forested conditions generated through past management are effectively absent in the Project Area. Proposed timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities offer incremental methods to introduce disturbance into portions of the watershed whereby resident species persist while providing for colonizing species that exploit disturbed areas, such as Bachman’s Sparrow. Short-term, habitat conditions will be greatly enhanced and spatially distributed in the watershed where clear-cut and seedtree harvests and follow-up silvicultural treatments occur. These enhanced conditions generally fade within 5 years or less emphasizing the ephemeral nature of this cover type and the need to provide it on a continuing basis. Because these effects only persist for about one-third of an entry cycle (entry cycle = 10-15 years) similar timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities on nearby and adjacent public and private lands are key to keeping this habitat stage available. The thinning of older pine forest types resulting in a grass and herbaceous understory will provide more stable and longer lasting habitat for this bird. The cumulative effect of providing these two habitat conditions within the Project Area will benefit this species. Similar management activities will likely occur in this watershed during future entries but the only common thread connecting them and maintaining any semblance of early forest stage habitat will be the periodic application of fire.

Prescribed fire :

Prescribed fire has been demonstrated an important component in Bachman Sparrow’s natural history (Shriver and Vickery 2001, Tucker et al. 2004, Wood et al. 2004).

2012 22 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Direct effects : Harvested timber stands, where this bird would find suitable nesting habitat (clearcut/seed-tree), are typically not burned once forest regeneration has been established and at a time when grasses and forbs have become dominant forest floor vegetation. Prescribed burns may be conducted in older thinned stands at any time following harvest. Prescribed fires conducted during the non-nesting season will have no direct effect on adult birds, eggs or nestlings. Growing season burns, typically but not always executed after the primary nesting period has occurred, have been shown not to adversely affect the density of this bird (Tucker et al. 2004). Growing season burn occurring during nesting season could result in the loss of nesting females, eggs and/or nestlings.

Indirect effects : The application of prescribed fire will encourage growth of herbaceous vegetation and grass species and the presence of associated insect prey by reducing leaf litter thickness and possibly reducing woody (brushy stage) stems (Haggerty 1998). These beneficial effects may be magnified when the application of fire occurs following, but in concert with, timber harvest and/or silvicultural /wildlife treatments.

Cumulative effects : Prescribed fire will occur over most of the watershed and is an effective way to introduce and maintain a degree of disturbance in a variety of stand types. Burns will be incremental in nature with the watershed subdivided into manageable burn units and not burned all within one season. Burning in increments will insure enhanced habitat conditions are available for an extended period of time and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire by creating a mosaic of burned and unburned fuels. The occurrence of wildfire could, depending upon timing, have negative impacts on this bird (Reice 2001). Benefits from prescribed fire are ephemeral and rarely persist on site for more than a few years which further emphasizes the importance of prescribed fire in adjacent watersheds and their contributions of suitable habitat to supplement the burns proposed here.

Herbicide Application

The following herbicide active ingredients have been proposed for site preparation, release, silvicultural timber stand improvement, pre-commercial thinning, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and control of non-native invasive species: glyphosate, imazapyr and triclopyr. Since no risk assessment studies have been conducted specific to Bachman’s Sparrow, Northern Bobwhite, which has similar natural history, habitat use and habitat needs, was chosen as the closest analog. Specific information on all herbicides proposed for use in the project area is available from Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. ( www.sera-inc.com/ ).

Summary of LD50 Values for Each Proposed Herbicide Active Ingredient

Active Toxicity Risk to Bobwhite LD 50 * Risk Assessment Ingredient and or Mallard Glyphosate >2000mg/kg of body U.S. EPA/OPP (1993) classifies Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, weight glyphosate as no more than Inc. 2011 slightly toxic to birds Imazapyr >2150mg/kg of body All acute exposure studies in birds Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, weight show that metsulfuron methyl has Inc. 2011 very low toxicity Triclopyr 849mg/kg to 2055 mg/kg U.S. EPA/OPP (1998b) has Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, of body weight classified triclopyr as being Inc. 2011 slightly toxic to birds

LD 50 *- lethal dose for 50% of population tested LC 50 ** - lethal concentration for 50% of population tested

Acute oral and dietary studies of the listed chemicals exhibit a range in analysis toxicity from practically nontoxic to slight toxicity to birds. These determinations were based on concentrations of herbicides in quail diets that would in all cases far exceed concentrations in field treatment applications.

2012 23 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Direct effects : Direct effects of herbicide application on nests with eggs or nestlings are not likely to occur because the primary target of the majority of applications will be hardwood brush located in dense forest stands typically beyond the useful condition for this bird. Neither hardwood brush nor dense stands are preferred nesting habitat for this bird due to a lack of grass and herbaceous plants important for nest construction and concealment. Adults and fledglings are highly mobile and will not be directly impacted.

Indirect effects : Herbicide application has the potential to temporarily negatively impact foraging and nesting opportunities in small, specific treatment areas by reducing the availability of seeds from woody plants and broadleaf herbaceous species contacted by herbicide. Treatment of individual targeted plants will reduce the potential impact to non-target, beneficial vegetation. Some but not all of these herbicides affect grasses. The alternative of this without using herbicide is that we could have a monoculture of a species that is not beneficial to wildlife.

Cumulative effects : This bird will benefit from enhanced nesting and foraging habitat opportunities in treated areas throughout the Project Area. Herbicides will extend the life of treatments by inhibiting re-growth and canopy closure of treated species while providing open habitat conditions conducive for native grass and herbaceous plant growth. Future entry cycles may also utilize herbicides that will provide similar results, but these events will be separated in time and most likely by space as treatments occur in stands different from those treated this cycle.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Temporary roads, permanent road construction, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning)

Direct effects : There will be no direct effect on this bird, eggs or nestlings if road and fireline activities occur outside the nesting period. If old roads provide nesting habitat and are occupied by birds when re-opened and utilized during project implementation, eggs and nestlings may be destroyed but highly mobile adults will not be impacted.

Indirect effects : When roads are closed upon completion of management activities and re-vegetated, they may offer ephemeral nesting and foraging habitat. Similarly, if fireline is located adjacent to early forest stage cover habitat it may enhance use by providing disturbed soil and growth opportunities for herbaceous and grassy cover during fireline re-vegetation.

Cumulative effects : Insignificant because of the small acreage involved in road corridors and fireline construction. In particular with regard to fireline construction, it typically, but not always, occurs as a very narrow band adjacent to larger expanses of unsuitable nesting habitat conditions. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed as existing fireline to reduce the disturbance of soils and potential for erosion in the Project Area. Closed roads and constructed fireline may be used again during future entries.

Diana fritillary butterfly-Sensitive

This butterfly is considered a forest species by most researchers. Female adults are often found in moist, wooded ravines and valleys while adult males range widely in search of females. This butterfly is single- brooded with eggs laid singly and haphazardly near various species of violets in late summer and hatching in fall. This wide dispersal of offspring may maximize survival in fire dependent ecosystems. Caterpillars overwinter without feeding until the following spring when they feed at night on newly leafed-out violets and complete their development (Carlton and Nobles 1996, Opler and Malikul 1998, Glassberg 2002, Spencer 2006). At least five of the eight species of violets in the state occur within the Ouachita Mountains and are found in a variety of moist to xeric habitats (Hunter 2001). This species is attracted to sources of high quality nectar producing plants that typically occur in more open habitat conditions. Habitat conditions considered

2012 24 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______beneficial to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Bachman’s Sparrow, and Northern Bobwhite will also benefit this species. Floral pollinators, including this butterfly, are considered vital for maintaining plant diversity in forests (Campbell et al . 2007a).

Diana fritillary butterfly – Environmental baseline

This butterfly has undergone a range-wide decline and no longer occurs over a substantial portion of its historic distribution. Past and current population levels in the Project Area and on Forest in general are unknown. Recent studies have begun to shed light on the occurrence and habitat preferences in managed forests of the Ouachita Mountains. This butterfly has been detected in a variety of habitat conditions ranging from even-aged pine plantations, recently thinned stands, to more aggressively managed pine-bluestem habitat where significant reductions in mid-story vegetation have resulted in enhanced conditions for the growth of nectar producing plants. In pine-bluestem restoration sites for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on the Ouachita National Forest and elsewhere, this species (and others) were significantly more abundant in stands receiving treatments that reduced basal area (thinnings and prescribed fire) than in control (untreated) stands (Thill et al . 2004, Baltosser 2007, Campbell et al. 2007b, Pickens and Root 2008). Carlton and Nobles (1996) considered this butterfly to be widely distributed in the Interior Highlands but at risk due to small numbers and isolation of populations. It has been suggested this species may have declined in the Interior Highlands, and other species elsewhere, due to alteration of the natural fire regime (fire suppression) and resulting habitat loss/alteration and subsequent loss of nectar resources and host-plants (Rudolph and Ely 2000, Rudolph et al . 2006a,b, Campbell et al. 2007a,b, Millar 2008, Pickens and Root 2008).

A lack of early forest stage cover and associated nectar producing plants and open, pine, forested conditions are identifiable threats/limiting factors for this species. These deficiencies in available, suitable habitat can be remedied, to a major degree, through management activities (timber harvest, silvicultural/wildlife treatments, and the application of prescribed fire) that may prevent further population declines and the potential for this butterfly to become a Federally listed species. Connectivity between suitable habitats may be a limiting factor if separated by great distances. In most cases connectivity between harvest areas will be provided by roadways where herbaceous roadside vegetation may provide nectaring sites along the way. Unfortunately in some instances native species are being replaced along roads by invasive plants that may or may not offer food resources (Von der Lippe and Kowarik 2007, Tepedino et al. 2008) and whose control may also result in immediate loss of nectaring plants (Miller 2003, Evans et al. 2006) with potential long-term implications for local biodiversity and ecosystem stability (Westbrook 1998). An additional potential threat to this species and sources of nectar may come from herbivory by species such as white-tailed deer whose populations are increasing in Arkansas (Neff et al. 2007, Deer Spotlight Survey Information, annual, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission).

The overall viability risk for this species is low (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). The Global Status for this butterfly is G3G4 and State Status S2S3. These ratings imply this species is thought to be secure but still vulnerable to extirpation and extinction (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

Diana fritillary butterfly - Survey Information

There have been no intensive, site specific surveys for this species within the Project Area. Males, easily recognized by their color pattern, have on occasion been observed at locations within and adjacent to the Project Area during routine fieldwork activities (Saugey, Personal Observations). Published records by Carlton and Nobles (1996) and Moran and Baldridge (2002) resulted in the documentation of this species from 22 counties that included vast areas of the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, including the Project Area.

No additional surveys for this species were deemed necessary to analyze and disclose effects, or to provide additional protection adequate for maintaining viability of the species in the Project Area. The project is

2012 25 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______expected to have “beneficial impacts” to butterfly habitat without impacts to individuals that need to be mitigated.

Diana fritillary butterfly - Effects Analysis

Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities :

Direct effects : There will be no direct effects to this species unless felled trees and equipment impact larvae and eggs on the ground. Adults are highly mobile.

Indirect effects : Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities and creation and maintenance of permanent openings will reduce basal areas and the shading effect of trees and allow for herbaceous plant growth that may include high quality nectar producers for food and violets for egg deposition and forage plants for larvae. Early forest stage habitat found in seedtree and clearcut harvest areas and beneath older timber stands of low basal area will quickly succeed to scrub and a closed canopy condition resulting in unsuitable butterfly habitat if not maintained by fire or other means (Weber et al. 2008).

Cumulative effects : Existing habitat conditions resulting from past management activities afford few opportunities for growth of nectar producing plants except along non-shaded roadsides and in other small openings. Significant habitat opportunities will occur where early forest stage vegetation has resulted from setting back successional development. Whether or not this habitat is utilized may well depend upon connectivity (spatial distance) to suitable habitat conditions that currently harbor butterfly populations. The cumulative effect of this Proposed Action and the future application of similar activities on nearby and adjacent public and private lands are key to maintaining well distributed, connected habitats and viable populations.

Prescribed fire :

Direct effects : Females lay eggs haphazardly on the landscape in late summer hatching in early fall. Eggs are not likely to be present during the application of winter prescribed fire based on typical burning activities on the Ouachita. Overwintering caterpillars are more likely to occur in the lower levels of leaf litter near the upper soil layer than in the upper portions of litter typically consumed by dormant season fire. Spring, growing season, burns may impact larvae (Huebschman and Bragg 2000). Caterpillars are not known to occur in groups, and large numbers of animals are unlikely to be impacted at any given time or by any particular burn. The occurrence of prescribed fire, when considered on a landscape level, occurs in small, discrete, locations when compared to vast areas not burned.

Indirect effects : The killing of small diameter woody stems that produce shade and the resulting release of nutrients into the soil from the combustion of woody debris, leaf litter and dead herbaceous materials will enhance herbaceous plant growth. Benefiting species may include nectar producing plants used by adult butterflies and violets used by larvae and caterpillars.

Cumulative effects : The periodic use of fire has been shown to be a beneficial tool in maintaining fritillary and Monarch habitat and is perhaps the most consistent means of producing and maintaining optimal habitat (Rudolph and Ely 2000, Baltosser 2007). This species appears to be fire dependent (Rudolph et al . 2006a, b). Where fire follows timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities the beneficial impacts to butterfly habitat will be additive, especially where early forest stage cover conditions have previously been created, maintained or enhanced. Similar beneficial impacts of fire to plant/pollinator communities have been documented elsewhere (Potts et al . 2003, Campbell et a l. 2007a,b). The effects of prescribed fire will occur over most of the Project Area during this 10-15 year planning period. Burns will be incremental in nature with the area subdivided into manageable burn units not all burned within one season. Burning in increments will insure enhanced habitat conditions are available for an extended period of time. These benefits will be ephemeral and persist for approximately 5 years or less. A 5-7 year return period has been proposed for the application of fire in these

2012 26 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______terrestrial communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a), however the fire application interval may be longer due to natural and man-imposed constraints. When applied in increments over time portions of the watershed receiving multiple burns may take on desirable characteristics of the pine-bluestem community that offers habitat conditions readily utilized by this butterfly due to the variety of nectar producing plants normally present.

Herbicide Application The following herbicide active ingredients have been proposed for site preparation, release, silvicultural timber stand improvement, pre-commercial thinning, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and control of non-native invasive species: Given the great diversity of species of terrestrial invertebrates, the use of data from a single species (Bee - Apis mollifera ) for the risk characterization obviously leads to uncertainty in the risk assessment. However, given the preponderance of scientific studies available this information is applicable and represents the best science resource to date.

Summary of LD 50 Values for Each Proposed Herbicide Active Ingredient

Toxicity Risk to Active Ingredient LD 50 * Risk Assessment Bee - Apis mollifera Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Glyphosate >100 µg/bee Relatively Nontoxic Inc. 2011 Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Imazapyr >100 µg/bee Relatively Nontoxic Inc. 2011 Triclopyr No LD50 stated No toxicity risk stated >72 µg/bee (indefinite) Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Should read USFWS not consulted Honeybees not sensitive to Inc. 2011 (5-21-12 MLM) about change since it is triclopyr a sensitive species

LD 50 *- lethal dose for 50% of population tested

Bioassay studies of the listed chemicals proposed for use in the Project Area all exhibit very low toxicity to invertebrate species (bees). These determinations were based on concentrations of herbicides applied to bees that would far exceed concentrations applied in field treatment applications. Direct effects : Given the low risk of toxicity exhibited in invertebrate testing no direct impact to Diana fritillary is anticipated. Indirect effects : Indirect effect of herbicide application would most likely come in the temporary loss of some woody shrubs, and annual and perennial broadleaf herbaceous plant species that provide shelter and food sources (nectar) for this butterfly species. While some butterfly habitats may be impacted by the treatment activities, maintaining or expanding suitable habitat would be “beneficial” in the long-term. Cumulative effects : No long-term cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the limited scope of treatments in both space and time, and minimal direct and indirect effects. Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Road construction, temporary roads, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning). Direct effects : Roads and firelines may be constructed at any time during the year. Road and fireline construction will have no direct effect on mobile, adult butterflies but may impact eggs or larva due to their immobility. Indirect effects : Roadbeds, ditch-lines, and constructed firelines, when closed and re-vegetated, may provide habitat for plant species utilized by this butterfly.

2012 27 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Cumulative effects : Insignificant. The number and density of roads utilized during project implementation will be kept to a minimum in an effort to move open road density toward the Desired Future Condition of the various Management Areas. Fireline construction involving soil disturbance occupies a relatively small area on the landscape and will be established in small increments as different portions of the Project Area are burned in different years. The number of eggs/caterpillars impacted will be insignificant when compared to the potential beneficial impacts fire will have to butterfly habitat, especially where conditions are suitable for herbaceous growth. Future firelines may occur in the same locations as in previous years with the construction of ground disturbing firelines in new locations not a certainty. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce the disturbance of soils. Finally, the incremental opening of roads will be balanced by the incremental closing of roads no longer needed for access or product removal. Beneficial effects of roads used/closed during resource management activities are minimal because they occupy an insignificant acreage on the landscape. Future road activities will most likely follow a similar pattern with no overall gain in road density through time.

Ozark chinquapin-Sensitive

Historically this tree commonly grew to a height of 65 feet, had a diameter often reaching 2-3 feet, and was a reliable and important source of abundant hard mast crops. Historical accounts describe mast crops so abundant that nuts were loaded onto wagons using shovels and destined to be used as food by humans and livestock and sold commercially. The wood was highly prized because it is rot resistant and made excellent railroad ties and fence posts. Early logging practices and later the Chestnut Blight wiped out the Ozark Chinquapin with trees beginning to die from the blight in 1950’s. Sprouts emerge from stumps and on occasion produce nuts but within 4-6 years the blight again strikes killing the sprouts and starting the blight cycle all over again (Bost 2009). The chinquapin is listed as a Sensitive species because throughout its natural range this tree is threatened with destruction by the chestnut blight. Despite its status, this fire-dependent tree is abundant and widespread in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas where it is found in successional and old growth vegetation types and typically occurs in dry deciduous and mixed hardwood-pine communities on rocky dry slopes and ridge tops. As described, this habitat condition will most likely be exposed to the effects of prescribed fire but rarely to timber, silvicultural/wildlife practices. Historically, this tree was commonly found in thin woods, edges of woods and mid-successional woods. On the Ouachita National Forest and elsewhere it occurs largely as stump sprouts and has been observed to reach its fastest growth rate where abundant sunlight reaches the forest floor. Fruiting trees and large individuals are rare (Hunter 1995, ANPS 1998, USDA-Forest Service 2005a, ANHC Website, accessed 2011).

Ozark chinquapin – Environmental Baseline

The chestnut blight is a fungal disease that has and continues to severely impact this tree throughout its range and the single most important natural threat/limiting factor affecting viability. Uprooting during activities such as fireline construction, pond excavation and road building are the only man-caused identified threats associated with the Proposed Project. Individual trees are easily identified by appearance and avoided in areas where management activities will occur. Prescribed fire and typical vegetative management activities associated with forest health are not considered adverse threats to this tree but necessary to maintain suitable habitat conditions and encourage sprouting (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011). This species is known to occur in areas with past fire history (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a).

The overall viability risk for this species is considered very high range-wide, primarily due to the blight for which there is no known treatment (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) although there are experimental breeding programs whose mission is to produce blight resistant individuals and assist recovery (Bost 2009). The Global Status for this species was last reviewed in 1996 and last changed in 1990. At present, the Global Status for this tree is G5T3 with Arkansas Status S3S4 (ANHC Database and NatureServe Explorer Database, both accessed 2011). G5T3 indicates the species is demonstrably widespread and involves a sub-specific designation (T). The

2012 28 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______S3S4 rating implies this tree is vulnerable to extirpation or extinction but apparently secure in Arkansas at this time.

Ozark chinquapin – Survey Information

This tree is widespread in the Interior Highland Natural Division and has been documented from at least 34 counties in Arkansas. Range wide it is found in similar habitat in Missouri, Oklahoma and possibly Alabama but is less common and widespread in those areas (Tucker 1975, ANPS 1998, ANHC Website, accessed 2011). According to district timber markers, silvicultural and wildlife staff, this species is rarely encountered during resource management activities on lands suitable for timber harvest and related silvicultural/wildlife activities. The presence of multiple trunks and an abundance of dead branches and stems killed due to effects of the chestnut blight and leaf morphology render this tree easily recognizable where it does occur. No additional surveys for this species are deemed necessary to analyze and disclose effects, or to provide additional protection adequate for maintaining viability of the species in the Project Area (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

Ozark chinquapin - Effects Analysis

Because this species is immobile, an effects analysis will occur for pond construction.

Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities :

Direct effects : During timber harvest and related activities individual chinquapins may be physically impacted by felled timber and subsequent removal of forest products (tires, logs being removed) however, the likelihood of detrimentally affecting viability is low because this tree readily sprouts and is rarely encountered on operable timberlands.

Indirect effects : Timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities will reduce basal areas and the shading effect of overstory/midstory trees potentially enhancing growth opportunities, especially when combined with prescribed fire treatments that further reduce competition from small woody stems for nutrients, space and water. Where this tree is known to occur and where similar management activities have occurred in the past, habitat conditions appear to have been improved (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). Timber harvests without ground disturbing site preparation activities, such as ripping or roller chopping, are considered viable management methods to enhance sprouting, flowering, and seed production without damaging rootstock (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

Cumulative effects : Positive cumulative effects will occur due to additive, habitat enhancements that will begin with timber harvest and related follow-up silvicultural/wildlife activities. Activities similar to those proposed in this Proposed Project have occurred in the past and will most likely occur in the future.

Prescribed fire :

Direct effects : Prescribed fire may cause bole injury to this species depending on the tree’s location, intensity of fire, and season of burn. In the event of injury this tree will readily sprout from a well-developed root system. This species is known to occur in areas with past fire history (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

Indirect effects : The release of nutrients into the soil from the reduction of woody debris, leaf litter and dead herbaceous materials may enhance growth and vigor. The potential removal of competing small diameter stems and the associated reduction in shade will benefit this tree (NatureServe Explorer Database, accessed 2011).

Cumulative effects : Positive. The application of prescribed fire following timber harvest and related silvicultural/wildlife activities will further reduce competition for water, nutrients and light enhancing habitat conditions. Benefits from prescribed fire are ephemeral and rarely persist for more than a few years.

2012 29 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Descriptions of occupied habitat as being “thin woods” and “rocky ridge tops” are more than likely found in areas where fire (natural and prescribed) has been a regular, repetitive component of the ecosystem that has reduced competition and allowed this species to persist.

Herbicide application

Direct effects: Direct effects to this tree are unlikely due to its rare occurrence in managed timber stands where most applications of herbicide will occur. This tree’s physical form is easily recognized allowing avoidance in hardwood stands where mid-story reduction activities will occur and in locations planned for Non-Native Invasive Species control. Furthermore, the Forest Plan states under Objective TE008 that “Herbicides will not be applied to Ozark chinquapin, and stems of this species will be individually flagged or otherwise marked in the field by qualified personnel prior to herbicide application within the stand. Use of soil active, mobile herbicides should not be applied where they might move to the root system of this species (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pg. 77). A buffer of 30 feet would be required if trees are found and flagged in an application area if foliar application is used.

Indirect effects : This tree responds well to an increased level of light and a reduction in competition for water, space and nutrients when adjacent vegetation is reduced during herbicide or other treatments resulting in similar indirect effects. Use of soil active, mobile herbicides should not be applied where they might move to the root system of this species (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pg. 77).

Cumulative effects : Negative cumulative effects are not expected due to the rarity of the species on the landscape, unlikely occurrence within proposed treatment areas, and its positive response to management activities.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Road construction, temporary roads, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning).

Direct effects : Construction of roads and firelines has the potential to uproot individual trees. Existing roadbeds are highly unlikely to harbor this tree with reconstruction and maintenance to have no direct effects.

Indirect effects : Transportations systems and firelines constructed near this species may create openings in the canopy resulting in the availability of additional sunlight.

Cumulative effects : Insignificant. Roads (temporary and permanent) do not occupy a large area on the landscape and the likelihood of damage to individuals will be remote due to their rare occurrence in timberlands suitable for harvest where road construction is most likely to occur. Also, the footprint of fireline on the landscape is small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. The construction of ground disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established in the best possible locations there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied because those locations will be used again. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce disturbance of soils and impacts to this tree.

Pond Construction:

Direct effects: Pond construction is a ground disturbing activity that has the potential to uproot individual trees; however, each pond site is ground checked for the presence of the Chinquapin oak or any other PETS species. A lot of Chinquapin oak sites on the Fourche occur on rocky outcroppings, which are not potential pond building locations. If Ozark chinquapin is found within a proposed pond site, then the pond site would be moved to an area where no Ozark chinquapins occur.

2012 30 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Indirect effects: So little canopy is removed in the construction of a wildlife pond, that little sunlight will be increased to the forest floor that might assist this species.

Cumulative effects: Insignificant effects. The footprint of a 1/8 to ¼ acres pond on the landscape is small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. All pond locations are ground checked in advance for potential PETS.

Sensitive Aquatic Species-Vertebrates and Invertebrates

While each aquatic species will be given a baseline and natural history section, a consolidated effects analysis will be done for the following two vertebrates: Kiamichi shiner, longnose darter and five invertebrates: Louisiana fatmucket, Ouachita creekshell, purple Lilliput, sandbank pocketbook and southern hickorynut.

Vertebrates-Stream Fishes

Kiamichi Shiner and Longnose darter

The Kiamichi shiner is a small, slim, silvery shiner that occupies small to moderate sized clear upland streams of moderate gradient and is endemic to the Ouachita Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Typical habitat includes pools over gravel, rubble or boulder –strewn substrates. This fish was originally described in 1927 with an amplified description in 1929 with little additional information published until 1988 by Robison and Buchannan (Robison 2001, 2005, USDA- Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C).

The longnose darter is a slender darter with a long head and an extremely long, pointed snout and is endemic to the Ouachita Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma. It inhabits clear, silt-free upland streams. Large streams and small rivers with cobble and gravel bottoms are preferred. The longnose darter is found in the upper White River, the upper Little Red River and a few tributary streams of the western half of the Arkansas River (Robison 1992; Robison and Buchanan 1988, NatureServe, 2011).

Kiamichi shiner and Longnose darter- Environmental Baseline

Range-wide, private land-use conversion to industrial forests, poultry farms and cattle pastures where streamside buffers have not been maintained, have degraded water quality by increasing sediment and nutrient non-point pollution. In addition, impoundments, water diversion, gravel mining and fish barrier crossings can impact these rare species. A moderate proportion of secure populations and habitats are found within and significantly depend on National Forest units. The overall viability risk for these species is considered low and viability concerns are solely because of its restricted range and distribution on Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). Both species have a Global and State status of G3and S2, meaning these species are considered vulnerable to extirpation or extinction and considered imperiled (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

Kiamichi shiner and Longnose darter - Survey information

The Kiamichi shiner has been documented as occurring on both the Fourche and South Fourche Rivers (Robison 2001, 2005). The longnose darter has been documented from the South Fork of the Fourche La Fave River (Robison 1992) and near Lake Nimrod by Buchanan in 1984. The former district biologist and current forest stream ecologist performed site specific surveys in July of 2010 and none were found present. However, for this BE presence will be assumed due to its occurrence in the above rivers. The need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETS species for this project was assessed using direction in Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2.

2012 31 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Kiamichi shiner and Longnose darter-Effects Analysis

Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities :

Direct effects : There will be no direct effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Indirect effects : There will be no indirect effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative effects : There will be no cumulative effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Prescribed fire :

Direct effects : There will be no direct effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed prescribed fire activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Indirect effects : There will be no indirect effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed prescribed fire activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative effects : There will be no cumulative effects anticipated for the Kiamichi Shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed prescribed fire activities. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Herbicide application

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects: Refer to scaleshell mussel for herbicide effects.

2012 32 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Transportation System and Fireline Construction : (Road construction, temporary roads, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning).

Direct effects : The only possible direct effect to the Kiamichi shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed fireline construction would occur if equipment crosses ephemeral streams. When this occurs, there is a small possibility, if either fish species were present in the ephemeral stream, that an individual would be run over. Equipment will not be moving soil within the streamside zone; this situation will only occur if equipment needs to drive across an ephemeral stream. Handline is required for firelines on either side from 30-100 feet. Also, there will be no work done near either the Fourche or South Fourche LaFave Rivers because these rivers occur on CORPS or private lands. It is a rare chance that either species would go upstream to these small ephemeral streams and is considered insignificant. Other proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Indirect effects : Fourteen miles of roads are selected to be decommissioned in this proposed action which after they are seeded and gated will minimize siltation and erosion in this watershed. There will be no indirect effects anticipated for the Kiamichi shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed transportation system or constructed fireline. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative effects : There will be no cumulative effects anticipated for the Kiamichi shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed transportation system and fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA- Forest Service 2005a).

Louisiana fatmucket mussel, Ouachita creekshell, purple lilliput mussel, sandbank pocketbook, southern hickorynut mussel

The Louisiana fatmucket has a moderately, elongate shell with color ranging from yellow to tan or brown and inhabits a broad regional range with several healthy populations in Texas, Louisiana and southern Arkansas. This species may be found in rivers, streams and reservoirs and has been taken in mud and mud/sand in low- flow situations and is one of several mussel species found in both standing and flowing water. Within the Project Area, and elsewhere in the Ouachita Mountains, this species is found in high gradient streams. It is important to note that there are some questions regarding the exact taxonomy of this species across its range (Harris et al . 2009, NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

The Ouachita creekshell mussel has a small, thin shell colored yellowish, greenish, or brownish and is endemic to Arkansas and Oklahoma. This endemic species is sexually dimorphic and is associated with small-to-medium sized streams in the Ouachita Mountains. It is a little-known species, not so much from its rarity as form the lack of surveys of streams that it inhabits. This species is generally associated with riffles but may be found in some pool situations (Robison and Allen 1995, NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

The purple lilliput mussel has a small, elongate to quadrate shell with brown to black external color. It inhabits small creeks to medium size rivers throughout the central and eastern United States, though it is listed as imperiled or critically imperiled in many of the states it occurs in. It generally occurs in clean, swiftly moving

2012 33 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______water throughout its range. It is most sensitive to habitat degradation and to the potential loss of glochidial host fish (NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

The sandbank pocketbook is found in drainages in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. It is listed as imperiled in Arkansas and Louisiana and as critically imperiled in Texas. In Arkansas, it is found in river drainages south of the Arkansas River in areas with a gravel, gravel-sand, or sand substrate and in areas with moderate flow (Harris and Gordon 1988, NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

The southern hickorynut has a wide historic range, though it is rare in many places throughout this range. In Arkansas, however, the southern hickorynut mussel is not uncommon and there are multiple drainages that support viable populations. The southern hickorynut is generally found in medium to large rivers with a gravel substrate and low to moderate flow (Harris and Gordon 1988, NatureServe Explorer, accessed 2011).

Mussels – Environmental baseline

The overall abundance and diversity of freshwater mussels have declined for the past several decades to the point where The Nature Conservancy has recognized 55% of North American freshwater mussels as extinct or imperiled, including species and populations that inhabit waterways in Arkansas and adjacent states (Harris et al. 1997, 2009, Vaughn 1997, 1999, Davidson and Gosse 2003, Strayer et al. 2004, Jones et al. 2005, Noguchi et al. 2007, Galbraith et al . 2008). Hydrologic modifications such as impoundments or diversions, gravel mining, poor land-use practices, and improperly designed and placed stream crossings may act as fish barriers and restrict movement of fish species acting as hosts for glochidia (parasitic larval mussels). Restricting movement of host fish is a limiting factor that may impact numerous mussel species (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). The majority of upland stream areas of Barnhart, Brogan and Wildcat creeks and their tributaries above Roads 795, 796 and State Hwy 27 do not provide suitable mussel habitat. Additionally, the lower reaches of these water bodies, where water is likely to occur throughout the year, offer limited, spotty suitable habitat. Within the Project Area where Roads 795 and 796 intersect lower reaches of streams, concrete slab stream crossings probably constitute passage barriers for host and non-host fish attempting to move upstream for breeding purposes during spring. Likewise, the tributary to Brogan Creek that flows through the culvert beneath State Hwy 27 has a considerable drop-off that most fish could not negotiate. New stream crossings and repairs to existing structures will follow guidance in the Revised Forest Plan. Although not within the Project Area, Nimrod Dam has restricted upstream movement of aquatic species since its construction in 1942 and has likely impacted populations of host fish species and others by limiting genetic exchange between above and below dam populations.

Mussels – Survey information

A number of site-specific surveys have been conducted in the main stem of the Fourche LaFave River, two of its primary downstream tributaries, and the South Fourche LaFave River and as a result numerous mussel species have been documented (Harris 1992, 2001, Stoeckel and Moles 2002). These studies concentrated effort in larger streams more likely to harbor a diverse mussel fauna with small upland streams not examined. The former District Biologist checked internal Project Area stream segments for relics during site specific fieldwork and only Louisiana fatmucket relicts were extracted from gravel bars along Barnhart and Wildcat Creeks where permanent pools and gravel/cobble substrates existed. These two streams, in addition to Brogan Creek, were examined for mussel resources from the forest boundary up into headwater areas. For most of their lengths these primary Project Area drainages are intermittent much of the year and do not provide suitable habitat conditions for mussels. Only when stream segments reach an elevation of 300-400 feet AMSL do they lie within terrain where extensive and more permanent pools may form upstream from their confluence with the main- stem Fourche LaFave River. All three streams are very flashy and turbulent during wet periods of the year. Pooled areas may constitute flow refuges with more environmental stability during high flow periods and are maintained during the dry season by periodic rain events.

2012 34 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______For this BE, presence of all aquatic PETS species with historical record occurring in the South Fourche LaFave or Fourche LaFave were considered present and evaluated. Therefore, no additional surveys are deemed necessary to analyze and disclose effects or to provide additional protection adequate for maintaining viability of mussels in the Project Area. Relicts collected by former District Biologist were identified by Dr. John Harris, former and now retired Ecologist, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, Arkansas.

Mussel - Effects Analysis

Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities

Direct effects : No effects because individuals in the aquatic environment are not generally susceptible to individual mortality from timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities. Timber/silvicultural/wildlife activities will not occur in streams nor will harvested timber be felled into streams.

Indirect effects : Insignificant effects because Management Area 9 Standards provide for conservation of riparian areas and protection of water quality.

Cumulative effects : Insignificant effects because of no direct or indirect effects.

Prescribed fire

Direct effects : No effects because individuals in the aquatic environment are not generally susceptible to individual mortality from prescribed fire activities.

Indirect effects : Low intensity prescribed fire rarely kill or significantly alter streamside vegetation and as a result do not affect water temperature, bank stability and other factors relating to the aquatic systems they buffer. Minimal effects would occur because Management Area 9 Standards provide for conservation of riparian areas and protection of water quality from erosion and resulting sedimentation. Introduction of nutrients released from burned materials will periodically find their way to the aquatic environment following rainfall events. These nutrients will be diluted and quickly dispersed and not act as a highly concentrated pollutant. Nutrients available for movement into the aquatic system will constantly be reduced through uptake actions of terrestrial plants.

Cumulative effects : Insignificant effects because of no direct and minimal indirect effects.

Herbicide application

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects: Refer to scaleshell mussel for herbicide effects.

Fireline Construction and Transportation System: (Road construction, temporary roads, reconstruction of existing roads, maintenance, decommissioning).

Direct effects : No direct effects should occur on these mussel species because individuals in the aquatic environment are not generally susceptible to individual mortality from transportation/fireline development activities. Mussels would not generally occur in these small ephemeral streams inside the watershed so the chance of them being crushed by equipment crossing is insignificant.

Indirect effects : The potential for erosion and subsequent siltation always exists when soils are disturbed. Indirect effects will be insignificant because Management Area 9 Standards provide for establishment and conservation of riparian areas and protection of water quality through well-established erosion control practices and Best Management Practices. Fourteen miles of roads are selected to be decommissioned in this Proposed

2012 35 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Action. These roads will be blocked/gated and reseeded. This will help eliminate erosion and siltation in the future.

Cumulative effects : Insignificant effects because of highly unlikely direct or indirect effects.

Determination of Effects

The rationale for each of the following determinations was set forth in the individual and species accounts.

Harperella: When considering the proposed actions, effects would be insignificant or completely beneficial; therefore the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect harperella or its habitat.

Scaleshell mussel: When considering the proposed actions, effects would be insignificant; therefore the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the scaleshell mussel or its habitat.

Bachman’s Sparrow : The Proposed Project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this bird.

Diana fritillary butterfly: The Proposed Project may impact individuals (eggs or larvae), but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this insect.

Ozark chinquapin: The Proposed Project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this tree.

Kiamichi shiner: The Proposed Project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this shiner.

Longnose darter: The Proposed Project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this darter.

Louisiana fatmucket mussel: The Proposed Project may impact individual mussels but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability .

Ouachita creekshell mussel: The Proposed Project may impact individual mussels but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability .

Purple lilliput mussel: The Proposed Project may impact individual mussels but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability .

Sandbank pocketbook: The Proposed Project may impact individual mussels but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability .

Southern hickorynut mussel: The Proposed Project may impact individual mussels but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability .

/s/ Mary Lynn Mentz Date: 10 April 2012 Mary Lynn Mentz

/s/ Sarah Grace Thompson Date: 10 April 2012 Sarah Grace Thompson

2012 36 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______LITERATURE and DATABASES CITED and/or REVIEWED

Allen, C.R., R.S. Lutz, and S. Demarais. 1995. Red imported fire ant impacts on Northern bobwhite populations. Ecological Applications 5(3):632-638. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Website. 2011. www.agfc.state.ar.us Arkansas Native Plant Society. 1998. Rare plant conference. Hot Springs, Arkansas. August. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2007 . Database. Plant and animal EORS (element of occurrence records) within Ouachita National Forest Administrative Boundary, Arkansas portion of the forest. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission Website Database. 2011. Rare species Search for Scott and Yell counties; natural history information and county distribution records for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species. www.naturalheritage.com Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds. Yale University Press, New Haven Connecticut. 320 p. Askins, R.A. 2001. Sustaining biological diversity in early successional communities: the challenge of managing unpopular habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 407-412. Baltosser, W. 2007 . Flitting with disaster. Arkansas Wildlife Magazine. Little Rock, AR. September-October. Bates, V. 1992a . Jessieville Ranger District sensitive plant species survey. Volume II. A report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock; and USDA-Forest Service, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Bates, V. 1992b . Winona Ranger District sensitive plant species survey. Volume II. A report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock; and USDA-Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Bates, V. 1992c. Fourche Ranger District sensitive plant species survey. Volume II. A report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock; and USDA-Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Bates, V. 1993 . An endangered species status report: Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias, in Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock. Bates, V. 2000 . Additional surveys for the endangered species harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias) in the Ouachita Mountain region. A report submitted to the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. Beasley, R.S., E.L. Miller, and E.R. Lawson. 1987. Chemical properties of soils and streams in natural and disturbed forest ecosystems in the Ouachita Mountains. Publication No.132. Technical Completion Report Research Project G-1212-02. Arkansas Water Resources Research Center. 93p. Blair, R.M. and D.P. Feduccia. 1977 . Midstory hardwoods inhibit deer forage in loblolly pine plantations. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(4):677-684. Bost, S. 2009 . The Ozark Chinquapin Foundation: working to save an Arkansas treasure. Pages 8-9, In Claytonia , Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society. Spring-Summer, Volume 29 (1). Brown, A.V. and K.B. Brown. 1989. Stream inventory of Lampsilis powelli populations on National Forest lands. Final Report to USDA-Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 70 p. Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007a. Effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the blue ridge province in North Carolina. Biological Conservation 134: 393-404.

2012 37 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007b . Observations of Speyeria diana (Diana Fritillary) utilizing forested areas in North Carolina that have been mechanically thinned and burned. Southeastern Naturalist 6(1):179-182. Carlton, C.E. and L. Spencer Nobles. 1996. Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on conservation. Entomological News 107(4): 213-219. Conner, R.N., C.E. Shackelford, R.R. Schaefer, and D. Saenz. 2005 . The effects of fire suppression on Bachman’s Sparrow in upland pine forests of Eastern Texas. Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society 38(1):6-11. Cox, J. and C. Jones. 2008 . Bachman’s Sparrow and the order of the Phoenix. Birding Magazine (May/June), American Birding Association. P 38-45. Cox, J. and B. Widener. 2008 . Lightning-season burning: friend or foe of breeding birds? Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy, Tallahassee, FL. 15 p. Davidson, C.L. and D. Gosse. 2003. Status and distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionacea) inhabiting the Saline River/Holly Creek Bottoms area, Saline County, Arkansas. 57:187-192. DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991 . Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook No. 668. 625 p. Dunning, J.B. 2006 . Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis ). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Accessed February 2009). Eddleman, W.R., R.L. Clawson, and J. Eberly. 2007 . Birds of shortleaf pine forests in Missouri: an historical and contemporary perspective. Pp 168-175, In Kabrick, J.M., D.C. Dey, and D. Gwaze, eds. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium; November 7-9, 2006; Springfield, MO. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Evans, C.W., D.J. Moorehead, C.T. Bargeron, and G.K. Douce. 2006. Invasive plant responses to silvicultural practices in the South. The University of Georgia, Bugwood Network, BW-2006-03, December. Fenwood, J.D., D.F. Urbston, and R.F. Harlow. 1984. Determining deer habitat capability in Ouachita National Forest pine stands. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 38:13-22. Fitzgerald, J.A. and D.N. Pashley. 2000 . Partners in Flight bird conservation plan for the Ozark/Ouachita, Physiographic Area 19. Partners in Flight. Midwest Region. Brentwood, MO. 81 p. Gainer, A.F. 1921 . Nesting of Bachman’s Sparrow. The Wilson Bulletin 33(1):2-4. Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008 . Status of rare and endangered mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 53(1):45-50. Glassberg, J. 2002 . Butterflies of North America. Michael Friedman Publishing Group, Inc. New York. 202 p. Haggerty, T.M. 1986. Reproductive ecology of Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis ) in central Arkansas. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 173 p. Haggerty, T.M. 1988. Aspects of the breeding biology and productivity of Bachman’s Sparrow in central Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 100(2):247-255. Haggerty, T.M. 1995. Nest-site selection, nest design, and nest-entrance orientation in Bachman’s Sparrow. The Southwestern Naturalist 40(1):62-67. Haggerty, T.M. 1998. Vegetation structure of Bachman’s Sparrow breeding habitat and its relationship to home range. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(1):45-50.

2012 38 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Haggerty, T.M. 2000. A geographic study of the vegetation structure of Bachman’s Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis ) breeding habitat. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 71(3):120-129. Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 p. Hardcastle, E.L. and D.X. Williams. 2001. A status report on harperella, Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias, in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 55:177-178. Hardin, K.I., T.S. Baskett, and K.E. Evans. 1982 . Habitat of Bachman’s Sparrows breeding on Missouri glades. The Wilson Bulletin 94(2):208-212. Harris, J.L. 1992 . Survey of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the South Fourche La Fave River and major tributaries. Final Report to the USDA-Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Harris, J.L. 2001 . Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater bivalves (Unionacea) in sections of the Fourche LaFave River and Petit Jean River, Arkansas. Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1988 . Status survey of Lampsilis powelli (Lea, 1852). Final Report to Office of Endangered Species, USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS.

Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997 . Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 51:66-89. Harris, J.L., W.R. Posey, C.L. Davidson, J.L. Farris, S.R. Oetker, J.N. Stoeckel, B.G. Crump, M.S. Barnett, H.C. Martin, M.W. Matthews, J.H. Seagraves, N.J. Wentz, R. Winterringer, C. Osborne, and A.D. Christian. 2009. Unionoida (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas, Third Status Review. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 63:50-86. Harveson, L.A., F.S. Guthrie, and E.C. Hellgren. 2004 . Invertebrate consumption by breeding Northern bobwhites and its relation to production. The Southwestern Naturalist 49(4):472-477. Hayes, R., S. Riffell, R. Minnis, and B. Holder. 2009 . Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 8(3):411-426. Hedrick, L.D., G.A. Bukenhofer, W.G. Montague, W.F. Pell, and J.M. Guildin. 2007 . Shortleaf pine- bluestem restoration in the Ouachita National Forest. Pp. 206-213 In , Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium (J.M. Kabrick, D.C. Dey, D. Gwaze, eds.). General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newton Square, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 215 p. Henderson, D. and L.D. Hedrick. 1991 . Restoration of old growth forests in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Conference, Winrock International, Morrilton, AR. September 19-20, 1990. 190 p. Heyer, W.R., M.A. Donnelly, R.W. McDiarmid, L.C. Hayek, and M.S. Foster. 1994 . Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. 364 p. Huebschman, J.J. and T.B. Bragg. 2000 . Response of Regal fritillary ( Speyeria idalia Drury) to spring burning in an eastern Nebraska tallgrass prairie, USA. Natural Areas Journal 20(4):386-388. Hunter, C.G. 1995. Trees, shrubs and vines of Arkansas. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, AR. 207 p. Hunter, C.G. 2001. Wildflowers of Arkansas. Sixth Edition. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, AR. 296 p.

2012 39 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):440-455. Ilhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and B.J. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pp 23-42 In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. (E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff, eds). Lewis Publishers, Washington DC. 402 p. James, D.A. and J. C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas birds: Their distribution and abundance. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 402 p. Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005 . The freshwater mussels (Mollusca:Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 4(1):77-92. Klaus, N.A., S.A. Rush, T.S. Keyes, J. Petrick, and R.J. Cooper. 2010 . Short-term effects of fire on breeding birds in Southern Appalachian upland forests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(3):518-531. Kulhavy, D. L. and R. N. Conner (eds). 1986. Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management challenge. Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, Texas. 416 p. La Sorte, F.A., F.R. Thompson, III, M.K. Trani, and T.J. Mersmann. 2007 . Population trends and habitat occurrence of forest birds on Southern National Forests, 1992-2004. General Technical Report NRS-9. Newtown Sqaure, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 260 p. Litvaitis, J.A. 2001. Importance of early successional habitats to mammals in eastern forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):466-473. Lorimer, C.G. 2001. Historical and ecological roles of disturbance in eastern North American forests: 9,000 years of change. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2): 425-439. Masters, R. and J. Waymire. 2000 . The effects of timber harvest and fire frequency on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Ouachita Mountains (Oklahoma). Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 43 p. Masters, R.E., C.W. Wilson, G.A. Bukenhofer, and M.E. Payton. 1996 . Effects of pine-grassland restoration for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers on white-tailed deer forage production. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1):77-84. Millar, H. 2008 . Restoring rare beauties. National Wildlife Magazine. National Wildlife Federation 46(4), June-July, 9 p. Miller, J.H. 2003 . Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification and control. General Technical Report SRS-62. Asheville, NC: USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 93 p. Moran, M. D. and C. D. Baldridge. 2002. Distribution of the Diana fritillary, Speyeria diana (Nymphalidae) in Arkansas, with notes on nectar plant and habitat preference. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society 56(3):162-165. Mueller, J.M., C.B. Dabbert, S. Demarais, and A.R. Forbes. 1999 . Northern bobwhite chick mortality caused by red imported fire ants. Journal of Wildlife management 63(4):1291-1298. National Audubon Society Website. Accessed 2011. Bachman’s Sparrow . http://birds.audubon.org/species/bacspa NatureServe Explorer Database. 2011 . An online encyclopedia of life. www.natureserve.org/explorer . Neff, P.K.K., S.M. Fettig, and D.R. Van Overbeke. 2007 . Variable response of butterflies and vegetation to elk herbivory: an exclosure experiment in Ponderosa pine and Aspen-mixed conifer forests. The Southwestern Naturalist 52(1):1-14. Noguchi, G., T. Augspurger, and J. Dwyer. 2007 . Clearing the water for mussels. Endangered Species Bulletin. March. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), U.S. Committee. 2010 . The State of the Birds, 2010 Report on climate change, United States of America, U.S. Department of Interior: Washington DC. 31 p. www.nabci-us.org

2012 40 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Nowacki, G.J. and M.D. Abrams. 2008 . The demise of fire and “Mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. BioScience 58(2):123-138. Opler, P.A. and V. Malikul. 1998. Genus Speyeria . Page 236, In Eastern butterflies. Peterson Field Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Pashley, D.N., C.J. Beardmore, J.A. Fitzgerald, R.P. Ford, W.C. Hunter, M.S. Morrison, and K.V. Rosenberg. 2000 . Partners in flight: Conservation of the land birds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. 92 p. Pickens, B.A. and K.V. Root. 2008 . Factors affecting host-plant quality and nectar use for the Karner Blue butterfly: implications for oak savanna restoration. Natural Areas Journal 28(3):210-217. Potts, S.G., B. Vulliamy, A. Dafni, G. Ne’eman, C. O’Toole, S Roberts, and P. Willmer. 2003 . Response of plant-pollinator communities to fire: changes in diversity, abundance, and floral reward structure. Oikos 101:103- 112. Reice, S.R. 2001 . The silver lining: the benefits of natural disasters. Princeton University Press. 218 p. Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, T.C. Will. 2004 . Partners in Flight, North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Robertson, F.D. 2004 . The History of New Perspectives and Ecosystem Management. Pp. 3-7, In , Ouachita and Ozark Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem Management Research, Hot Springs, Arkansas, October 26-28, 1999. J.M. Guildin, Technical Compiler. General Technical Report SRS-74. Asheville, NC., USDA-Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 321 p. Robison, H.W. 1992 . Distribution and status of the Ouachita River form of the longnose darter in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Final Report to Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 57 p. Robison, H.W. 2001 . Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. November. Robison, H.W. 2005 . Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 59:137-147. Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995 . Only in Arkansas: a study of the endemic plants and animals of the State. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 121 p. Robison, H.W. and T.M. Buchanan. 1988 . Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 536 p. Rosenberg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, R.S. Hames, J.D. Lowe, and A.A. Dhondt. 1999 . A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest interior birds. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 23 p. Rudolph, D.C. and C.A. Ely. 2000 . The influence of fire on Lepidopteran abundance and community structure in forested habitats of eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52(4) Supplement:127-138. Rudolph, D.C., C.A. Ely, R.B. Schaeffer, J.H. Williamson, and R.E. Thill. 2006a . The Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana ) and great spangled ( S. Cybele ): dependence on fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepodopterists’ Society 60(4):218-226. Rudolph, D.C., C.A. Ely, R.B. Schaeffer, J.H. Williamson, and R.E. Thill. 2006b . Monarch ( Danaus plexippus L. Nymphalidae) migration, nectar resources, and fire regimes in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepodopterists’ Society 60(3):165-170. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2005. Version 6.2.2006, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

2012 41 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Shriver, W.G. and P.D. Vickery. 2001 . Response of breeding Florida grasshopper and Bachman’s Sparrows to winter prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):470-475. Smith, K.L. 1986. Sawmill. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 246 p. Spencer, L.A. 2006 . Arkansas butterflies and moths. Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock. 314 p. Stoeckel, J. and K. Moles. 2002. Status survey for the scaleshell mussel, Leptodea leptodon , with a summary of baseline data on other freshwater mussel species of the South Fourche La Fave River, Arkansas. Final Report prepared for the Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902, 26 p. Strayer, D.L., J.A. Downing, W.R. Haag, T.L. King, J.B. Layzer, T.J. Newton, and S.J. Nichols. 2004 . Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s most imperiled animals. BioScience 54(5):429439. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011a. Glyphosate. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report submitted by Patrick Durkin to Paul Mistretta, COR, USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree RD, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Available at: (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Glyphosate_SERA_TR-052-22-03b.pdf ) Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011b. Imazapyr. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report submitted by Patrick Durkin to Paul Mistretta, COR, USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree RD, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Available at: (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a.pdf ). Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011c. Triclopyr. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment. Final Report submitted by Patrick Durkin to Paul Mistretta, COR, USDA/Forest Service, Southern Region, 1720 Peachtree RD, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Available at: (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/052-25-03aTriclopyr.pdf ) Tepedino, V.J., B.A. Bradley, and T.L. Griswold. 2008 . Might flowers of invasive plants increase native bee carrying capacity? Intimations from Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Natural Areas Journal 28(1): 44-50 Thill, R.A., R.D. Craig, and N.E. Koerth. 2004 . Shortleaf pine-bluestem restoration for Red-cockaded Woodpeckers in the Ouachita Mountains: implications for other taxa. Pp. 657-671, In Costa, R. and S.J. Daniels, eds. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: road to recovery. Blaine WA. Hancock House Publishers. Trani, M.K., R.T. Brooks, T.L. Schmidt, V.A. Rudis, and C.M. Gabbard. 2001 . Patterns and trends of early successional forests in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):413-424. Tucker, G.E. 1975 . Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe) Tucker, comb. nov. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 29:67-69. Tucker, J.W., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2004 . Influence of fire on Bachman’s Sparrow, an endemic North American songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1114-1123. Tucker, J.W., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2006 . Breeding productivity of Bachman’s Sparrow in fire- managed longleaf pine forests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118(2):131-137. Tucker, J.W., G.R. Schrott, and R. Bowman. 2010 . Fire ants, cattle grazing, and the endangered Florida grasshopper Sparrow. Southeastern Naturalist 9(2):237-250. USDA-Forest Service. 1990 . Amended Land and Resource Management Plan Ouachita National Forest, Forest Service, Southern Region, Arkansas-Oklahoma, Volume I. (P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902). Also available at: www.fs.fed.us/oonf/design_planning.html USDA-Forest Service. 2005a . Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Ouachita National Forest, Forest Service, Southern Region, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Management Bulletin R8-MB-124-A. P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Also available at: www.aokforests.com.

2012 42 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______USDA-Forest Service. 2005b . Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R8-MB 124-B. P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Also available at: www.aokforests.com USDA-Forest Service. 2005c . Biological Assessment for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Ouachita National Forest. Available from sources listed above. USDA-Forest Service. 2007a . Official Correspondence File Code 2670: Addition of the Bald Eagle to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, effective 8 August 2007. Regional Forester Chuck Myers, 17 July 2007, Signed by Janet Anderson (for). Amends the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List. USDA-Forest Service. 2007b . Official Correspondence File Codes 1920/1950 regarding Advice on documenting “Best Available Science.” May 2, 2007. Richard J. Cook, Acting Director, Ecosystem management Coordination. USDA-Forest Service. 2008. A summary and analysis of data pertaining to Management Indicator Species for the Ouachita National Forest. 24 November . (Available from USFS, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902; electronic version a http://www.fs.fed.us/oonf . USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum ) Recovery Plan. (D. Maddox and R. Bartgis, authors). Region 5, Newton Corner, MA 02158. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998 . Consultation handbook: procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Letter of concurrence with the USFS Biological Assessment determining that on-going land management activities on the Ouachita National Forest are not likely to adversely affect Harparella or its habitat (27 January). Arkansas Field Office, Conway. Margaret Harney, Acting Field Supervisor. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Federal Register. Final Rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered status for the scaleshell mussel. October 9. Volume 66, No. 195, Rules and Regulations, Pages 51322–51339. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a . Concurrence letter pertaining to the Programmatic Biological Assessment of the Ouachita National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan as related to eight Federally endangered species: Leopard darter ( Percina pantherina ) and critical habitat, harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum ), Arkansas fat mucket mussel ( Lampsilis powellii ), Scaleshell mussel ( Leptodea leptodon ), Ouachita rock-pocketbook ( Arkansia wheeleri ), Red-cockaded Woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ), Bald eagle ( Haliaeetus lecocephalus ) and Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ). Margaret Harney, Acting Field Supervisor. Arkansas Field Office, 1500 Museum Road, Suite 105, Conway, 72032. 17 August 2005. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b . Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma and the potential effects on the American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus). Arkansas Field Office, 1500 Museum Road, Suite 105, Conway. Allan J. Mueller, Field Supervisor. 22 September 2005. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal Register. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Final Rule. Volume 72, Number 130, Monday, July 9, 2007. Pp. 37346-37372. USDA-Forest Service. 2010. Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan for Ouachita and Ozark-St Francis National Forests, April 2010. 76 pgs. (Available from USFS, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a . Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the 2005 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LMP) of the Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas and Oklahoma and Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests. Arkansas Field Office, 1500 Museum Road, Suite 105, Conway. Allan J. Mueller, Field Supervisor. 3 May 2010.

2012 43 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010b . Letter of concurrence with findings of the draft Biological Evaluation regarding the Federally Endangered plant harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum ) and proposed activities in the Wildcat Watershed Project Area. 8 September. Vaughn, C.C. 1997 . Catastrophic decline of the mussel fauna of the Blue River, Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 42(3):333-336. Vaughn, C.C. 1999 . Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 – present. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium. Pages 225-232. Vaughn, C.C., C.M. Taylor, and K.J. Eberhard. 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of timed searches verses quadrat sampling in mussel surveys. Pp. 157-162 In Conservation and management of freshwater mussels II: Initiatives for the future. Proceedings of the Upper Mississippi Conservation Committee Symposium (K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds). October 16-18, 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 293 p. Von der Lippe, M. and I. Kowarik. 2007 . Long-distance dispersal of plants by vehicles as a driver of plant invasions. Conservation Biology 21(4): 986-996. Weber, P.G., S. Preston, M.J. Dlugos, and A.P. Nelson. 2008 . The effects of field mowing on adult butterfly assemblages in central New York state. Natural Areas Journal 28(2):130-143. Westbrook, R. 1998 . Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW). Washington, D.C. 109 p. Wilcox, J.T. and D.H. Van Vuren. 2009 . Wild pigs as predators in oak woodlands of California. Journal of Mammalogy 90(1):114-118. Wilson, D.E., F.R. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M.S. Foster (eds). 1996 . Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC. 409 p. Witsell, C.T. 2004 . Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. E-mail communication regarding the discovery of new locations for the Federally endangered plant harperella and other Sensitive species in and adjacent to the South Fourche La Fave River. 2 and 4 August. Witsell, C.T. 2005 . Final report on Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias (Harperella): Survey work in Arkansas, 2004. Report prepared by Theo Witsell, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (Little Rock) submitted to the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. Grant E-21. 53 p. Witsell, C.T. 2007a . Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR. E-mail regarding the occurrence of Amorpha ouachitensis in natural channel scar wetlands in the vicinity of Lake Winona Dam. 26 September. Witsell. C.T. 2007b . The vascular flora of Saline County. Master’s Thesis. University of Arkansas at Little Rock. December. 267 p. (Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission). Wood, D.R., L.W. Burger Jr., J.L. Bowman, and C.L. Hardy. 2004 . Avian community response to pine- grassland restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):819-829.

2012 44 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Checklist for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive (PETS) Species

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) FEDERALLY ENDANGERED and THREATENED SPECIES Range does not include JWF District 1 American alligator Alligator mississippiensis TSA No (AGFC Website).

Occurrence is not expected. Project Area American burying lies outside designated American Burying 2 Nicrophorus americanus E No beetle Beetle Area (Carlton and Rothwein 1998, USDI-FWS 2005b). Does not occur in the Fourche La Fave Arkansas fatmucket System (Harris et al . 2009, ANHC 3 Lampsilis powellii T No NatureServe database 2011). Arkansas mussel endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008). Not documented from Project Area but has been documented from main stem Fourche La Fave River in Yell County west of the Project Area and in the South Fourche La Fave River to the east (Bates 1993, 2000, Saugey 2006, Witsell 2004, 4 Harperella (plant) Ptilimnium nodosum E Yes 2005ab). Wildcat internal streams were examined during bloom period with no plants located. Streams are narrow, intermittent, and appear unsuitable (Witsell and Saugey, Field Survey, 19 July 2010). No records for the Arkansas portion of the forest and occurrence is unlikely (ANHC 5 Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E No 2007, Kurta and Kennedy eds. 2002, Sealander and Heidt 1990, Southern Research Station datafiles).

Nest on sandbars of large rivers (James 6 Least tern (bird) Sterna antillarum E No and Neal 1986). Suitable habitat not available within Project Area. Does not occur in JWF District streams 7 Leopard darter (fish) Percina pantherina T No (ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Robison and Buchanan 1988). Known only from shale glades on the 8 Missouri bladderpod (plant) Physaria (Lesquerella) filiformis T No Jessieville Unit of District (Witsell 2006, 2008).

Ouachita rock-pocketbook Does not occur in the Fourche La Fave 9 Arkansia wheeleri E No System (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe mussel database 2011, Harris et al. 2009).

Nests on sandbars with most records from the Miss. Alluv. Plain. One record from the 10 Piping plover (bird) Charadrius melodus E No Ouachita Mountains in 1938 (James and Neal 1986). Suitable habitat is not available within Project Area.

2012 1 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No)

No historic record in Project Area (Neal and Montague 1991). Nearest active 11 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E No sites well west in Scott County (Personal communication, Warren Montague, Forest RCW Specialist, 10 Feb 2010). Historic occurrence within Winona Unit of District, Perry County, in the South Fork Fourche La Fave River only . Confluence of main stem Fourche and South Fourche River is a straight-line distance 12 Scaleshell mussel Leptodea leptodon E Yes of approximately 20 miles from Project Area with Lake Nimrod impoundment between (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Harris 1992, Harris et al. 2009, Stoeckel and Moles 2002, USDI-FWS 2001). Range does not include the Arkansas 13 Winged maple-leaf mussel Quadrula fragosa E No portion of the Ouachita National Forest (Harris et al. 2009). Does not occur in Project Area 14 Spectaclecase mussel Cumberlandia monodonta E No (Natureserve 2012). FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES -PLANTS Unlikely to occur in Project Area. May 15 American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum S No occur casually in migration - does not nest here (James and Neal 1986). Requires open pine forest, early forest stage cover for nesting habitat (Haggerty 1986, 1995, 2000, Shriver and Vickery 16 Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis S Yes 2001, Tucker et al . 2004, 2006, Wood et al . 2004 ). Project may benefit this species. May frequent main stem Fourche LaFave River and Lake Nimrod adjacent to Project Area. Internal streams small, no known nests. USDI-FWS (2007a) Guidelines 17 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S No apply. De-listed from Federally Threatened status and placed on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA- FS 2007, USDI-FWS 2007b). Range does not include the JWF District. Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al. 2008) restricted to the upper Ouachita, Caddo River and 18 Caddo madtom (fish) Noturus taylori S No Little Missouri River of the Ouachita River drainage (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range does not include JWF District (ANHC 2007, Trauth and Wilhide 1999, 19 Caddo Mtn. salamander Plethodon caddoensis S No Trauth et al . 2004). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008). Range does not include JWF District (Robison 2000). Arkansas endemic 20 Crayfish (no common name) Fallicambarus strawni S No (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008).

2012 2 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) Range does not include JWF District 21 Crayfish (no common name) Orconectes menae S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Robison 2000, 2008). Range does not include JWF District (Robison 2000). Arkansas endemic 22 Crayfish (no common name) Procambarus reimeri S No (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008). Range does not include JWF District 23 Crayfish (no common name) Procambarus tenuis S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Robison 2000, 2008). Range does not include JWF District 24 Crystal darter (fish) Crystallaria asprella S No (ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Robison and Buchanan 1988). Early seral plant species in gaps or open forests (Baltosser 2007, Campbell et al . 2007, Carlton and Nobles 1996, Rudolph 25 Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana S Yes and Ely 2000a,b, Rudolph et al. 2006, Spencer 2006). Project may benefit this species. Range does not include JWF District. (ANHC NatureServe database 2011, 26 Fourche Mtn. salamander Plethodon fourchensis S No Trauth and Wilhide 1999, Trauth et al . 2004). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008 ). Known from Yell County but not from Project Area (ANHC 2007). Restricted to 27 Isopod (no common name) Lirceus bicuspidatus S No streams, springs and seeps. Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al. 2008). Documented from main stem Fourche La Fave River west of the Project Area and from South Fork Fourche La Fave River east of the Project Area (Robison 2001a, 28 Kiamichi shiner (fish) Notropis ortenburgeri S Yes Robison 2005). Likely to occur in main stem bordering Project Area. Not documented during site specific, internal stream fish surveys 16 July 2010 with Ouachita NF Stream Ecologist). Range does not include JWF District 29 Kiamichi slimy salamander Plethodon kiamichi S No (Trauth and Wilhide 1999, Trauth et al . 2004).

Loggerhead Shrike (bird, Hayfields, maintained pastures etc. not 30 Lanius ludovicianus S No migrant) forests (Burnside and Shepherd 1985).

The Longnose darter has been documented from the South Fork Fourche La Fave River (Robison 1992) and one specimen was collected from Lake Nimrod Longnose darter and by Buchanan in 1984 (Robison and 31 Percina nasuta/Percina spp. S YES Buchanan 1988). This species may occur Ouachita River form (fish) in the main stem Fourche LaFave River above the impoundment. Not documented during site specific, internal stream fish surveys (16 July 2010) with Ouachita NF Stream Ecologist).

2012 3 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) Occurs in the Fourche La Fave River System (Harris 1992, 2001, Harris et al. 2009, Stoeckel and Moles 2002,). Louisiana fatmucket Documented from pooled, lower portions 32 Lampsilis hydiana S Yes mussel of Barnhart and Wildcat Creeks (Saugey 2010, Relic IDs by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock). Range does not include JWF District nor 33 Ohio River pigtoe mussel Pleurobema cordatum S No the Arkansas portion of the Ouachita National Forest (Harris et al. 2009). Occurs in the Fourche La Fave River System (Harris 1992, 2001, Harris et al . 2009, Stoeckel and Moles 2002, Ouachita creekshell Arkansas Endemic (Robison and Allen 34 Villosa arkansasensis S Yes 1995, Robison et al. 2008). Not mussel documented from relicts collected from internal streams – IDs by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock). Ouachita River drainage only, Arkansas endemic (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Bowman 35 Ouachita madtom (fish) Noturus lachneri S No 1990, Gagen et al . 1998, Rickett 1986, Robison and Allen 1995, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Robison et al. 2008, , Tatum and Nelson 1989). Range does not include JWF District. Ouachita Mountain shiner Confined to the upper Mountain Fork and 36 Lythrurus snelsoni S No (fish) Cossatot Rivers (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range does not include JWF District. Occurs in Caddo River System (Robison 37 Paleback darter (fish) Etheostoma pallididorsum S No and Buchanan 1988, Robison 2004). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008). Occurs in the Ouachita River System 38 Peppered shiner (fish) Notropis perpallidus S No (Robison 2001b, 2006). Occurs in South Fork Fourche La Fave River (Harris 1992, Stoeckel and Moles 2002). Not documented from relicts 39 Purple lilliput pearlymussel Toxolasma lividus S Yes collected from internal streams – IDs by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock). Does not occur in the Fourche LaFave River system (Harris et al . 2009, Stoeckel 40 Pyramid pigtoe mussel Pleurobema rubrum S No and Moles 2002). Occurs in Little Missouri, Ouachita and Saline Rivers (NatureServe 2011). Does not occur in the Fourche LaFave 41 Rabbit's foot mussel Quadrula c. cylindrica S No River system (Harris et al . 2009, Stoeckel and Moles 2002). Ouachita has relicts. Range does not include JWF District (Trauth and Wilhide 1999, Trauth et al . 42 Rich Mtn. salamander Plethodon ouachitae S No 2004). Endemic to Rich Mt. Polk county in AR and two counties in OK. Range does not include JWF District 43 Rich Mtn. slit-mouth snail Stenotrema pilsbryi S No (Robison and Allen 1995). Endemic to Polk County in AR and LaFlore in OK.

2012 4 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) Occurs in South Fork Fourche La Fave River (Harris 1992, Stoeckel and Moles Sandbank pocketbook 2002). Not documented from relicts 44 Lampsilis satura S Yes mussel collected from internal streams – IDs by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock). Range does not include JWF District 45 Sequoyah slimy salamander Plethodon sequoyah S No (Trauth et al . 2004). Endemic to McCurtain County, OK. Current range does not include JWF District (Anabat Survey 2009, Britzke 2003, Saugey et al . 1993, SBDN Bat Blitz 2003, 2005, Sealander and Heidt 1990, Southern Research Station datafiles, 46 Southeastern myotis (bat) Myotis austroriparius S No Tumlison et al . 2002). Records of the SE Myotis from abandoned mines in Garland and Montgomery counties (Davis et al. 1955, Saugey et al. 1993, Winter Cave and Mine Survey 2010). Occurs in the Fourche La Fave River System (Harris 1992, 2001,Harris et al . 2009, Stoeckel and Moles 2002). Not 47 Southern hickorynut mussel Obovaria jacksoniana S Yes documented from relicts collected from internal streams – IDs by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock). Suitable habitat, in the form of large exposed bluff lines and extensive talus or rock rivers, does not occur in or near the Project Area. Nearest record from Mena (Saugey et al . 1993). Not captured during 48 Small-footed myotis (bat) Myotis leibii S No SBDN Bat Blitzes (2003, 2005) and not documented by extensive bat study on Winona Unit by Southern Research Station. Anabat calls recorded in Montgomery and Yell counties (Anabat Survey 2009, 2010). Does not occur in the Fourche La Fave River System (Harris et al. 2009). Occurs in 49 Western fanshell mussel Cyprogenia aberti S No counties not associated with JWF District or its influence (NatureServe 2011). FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES - PLANTS Unknown from Yell County or Project Area 50 Arkansas meadow-rue Thalictrum arkansanum S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Documented from Yell County far east of this Project Area along the Petit Jean 51 Arkansas (Browne's) waterleaf Hydrophyllum brownei S No River (FTN Associates 2001, Marsico 2003). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al. 2008). Does not occur on JWF District (USDA -FS 52 Bush's poppymallow Callirhoe bushii S No 2005a, Appendix C; ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Does not occur on JWF District (USDA -FS 53 Butternut (tree) Juglans cinerea S No 2005a, Appendix C; ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project Area 54 Carolina crownbeard Verbesina walteri S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011).

2012 5 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) Unknown from Yell County or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe 55 Cossatot Leafcup Polymnia cossatotensis S No database 2011). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al. 2008). Unknown from Yell County or Project 56 Cumberland sandreed Calamovilfa arcuata S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 57 Glade larkspur Delphinium treleasei S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 58 Golden-glade cress Leavenworthia aurea S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 59 Grave's hybrid spleenwort Asplenium X gravesii S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 60 Gulf pipewort Eriocaulon kornickianum S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe 61 Maple-leaved oak Quercus acerifolia S No database 2011). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al. 2008). Unknown from Yell County or Project 62 Narrowleaf ironweed Vernonia lettermannii S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe 63 Moore’s Delphinium Delphinium newtonianum S No database 2011). (Hardcastle 2003). Arkansas endemic (Robison and Allen 1995, Robison et al . 2008). Predominantly associated with open shale glades. Unknown from Yell County 64 Nuttall's cornsalad Valerianella nuttalli S No or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011, Wilkes 1999). Found on one site in Yell County. Not 65 Open ground draba Draba aprica S No found in Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 66 Ouachita false indigo Amorpha ouachitensis S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Known from Mt. Nebo State Park in Yell County far east of the Project Area 67 Ouachita Mtn. Goldenrod Solidago ouachitensis S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). (McElderry and Gentry 2006b). Documented in the vicinity of Allen Peak and Yell County (ANHC 2007, Tucker 68 Ozark chinquapin Castanea pumila ozarkensis S Yes 1975). Habitat suitable within Project Area (Field visit with Theo Witsell, Botanist, ANHC, 19 July 2010). Unknown from Yell County or Project 69 Ozark least trillium Trillium pusillum ozarkanum S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). FTN Associates 2007).

2012 6 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

Potentially No. Common Name Scientific Name Status Affected Notes and Comments (Yes/No) Unknown from Yell County or Project 70 Ozark spiderwort Tradescantia ozarkana S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). One location on Jessieville Unit associated with shale glades. Unknown 71 Palmer's cornsalad Valerianella palmeri S No from Yell County or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project 72 Panicled false indigo Amorpha paniculata S No Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Unknown from Yell County or Project Area 73 Pineoak jewelflower Streptanthus squamiformis S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). 1 location near Steve, AR on private land 74 Sand grape Vitis rupestris S No outside area of project influence. (ANHC 2007). Unknown from Yell County or Project Area 75 Scott's spleenwort Asplenium X ebenoides S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe database 2011). Helianthus occidentalis Unknown from Yell County or Project Area 76 Shinners’ sunflower S No (ANHC 2007, ANHC NatureServe plantagineus database 2011, Marsh and Golden 1996). Not documented from Yell County or Project Area (ANHC 2007, ANHC 77 Small's woodfern Dryopteris X australis S No NatureServe database 2011). Requires "wet", shaded woodlands (Lellinger 1985). Documented from Yell County but unknown from Project Area (ANHC 2007). 78 Southern lady-slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense S No Extensive site specific ground search, May – July 2010, of best potential habitat in Project Area was negative for this plant. Known from Garland County on District 79 Threadleaf bladderpod Lesquerella angustifolia S No (Witsell 2008). Known from southern Yell County but outside Project Area. Outcrop habitat occurs and was surveyed but plant was 80 Waterfall's sedge Carex latebracteata S No not documented (Field Survey with Theo Witsell, ANHC, 19 July 2010; (McElderry and Gentry 2006a, ANHC NatureServe database 2011)

Status: P = proposed for federal listing as endangered E = federal endangered species T = federal threatened species S = Amended Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List ( 2007) TSA = Threatened by Similarity of Appearance to the American crocodile.

2012 7 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______

PETS CHECKLIST LITERATURE and DATABASES CITED and/or REVIEWED

Anabat Survey Routes. 2009 . Ouachita National Forest. Caddo-Womble, Mena-Oden, Poteau-Cold Springs, Jessieville-Winona-Fourche and Oklahoma Ranger Districts. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2007 . Database. Plant and animal Element of Occurrence Records within the Ouachita National Forest Service Administrative Boundary. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission/NatureServe database. Accessed 2010 and 2011. www.naturalheritage.com Baltosser, W. 2007 . Flitting with disaster. Arkansas Wildlife Magazine 38(5):6-11. Bates, V. 1993 . An endangered species status report: Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias, in Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock. Bates, V. 2000 . Additional surveys for the endangered species Harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias) in the Ouachita Mountains Region. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. Bowman, D.W. 1990 . Operation Mountain Storm: a fish collecting expedition in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Trip Report to Dr. Jim Johnson, Unit Leader, Arkansas Cooperative Research Unit, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Britzke, E. 2003 . Acoustic (bat) survey on Jessieville-Winona Units of the JWF District of the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Report submitted to Jessieville-Winona Units, Jessieville, AR. December. 11 p. Burnside, F.L., and W.H. Shepherd. 1985 . Population trends of the loggerhead shrike ( Lanius ludovicianus ) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 39:25-28. Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007 . Observations of Speyeria diana (Diana fritillary) utilizing forested areas in North Carolina that have been mechanically thinned and burned. Southeastern Naturalist 6(1):179-182. Carlton, C.E. and L. Nobles. 1996 . Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on conservation. Entomological News 107(4):213-219. Carlton, C.E. and F. Rothwein. 1998 . The endangered American burying beetle, Nicrophorus americanus Oliver, at the edge of its range in Arkansas (Coleoptera: Silphidae). The Coleopteran Bulletin 52(2):179-185. Davis, W.H., W.Z. Lidicker, and J.A. Sealander. 1955 . Myotis austroriparius in Arkansas. Journal of Mammalogy 36:288. FTN Associates. 2001 . Species status survey: Hydrophyllum brownie Kral and Bates. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Field Office, Conway. FTN Associates. 2007 . Conservation assessment for Trillium pusillum Michx. Var. ozarkanum (Palmer and Steyermark) Steyermark, Ozark National Forest. Report prepared for the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, Russellville, AR. Little Rock, AR 72211. Gagen, C.J., R.W. Standage, and J.N. Stoeckel. 1998 . Ouachita madtom ( Noturus lachneri ) Metapopulation dynamics in intermittent Ouachita Mountain streams. Copeia 1998(4):874-882. Haggerty, T.M. 1986 . Reproductive ecology of Bachman’ sparrow ( Aimophila aestivalis ) in central Arkansas. PhD dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 173 p. Haggerty, T.M. 1995 . Nest-site selection, nest design and nest entrance orientation in Bachman's sparrow. Southwestern Association of Naturalists 40(1):62-67.

2012 8 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Haggerty, T.M. 2000 . A geographic study of the vegetation structure of Bachman’s sparrow ( Aimophila aestivalis ) breeding habitat. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 71(3):120129. Hardcastle, E.L. 2003 . Ecology and conservation genetics of Delphinium newtonianum (Moore’s Delphinium) Ranunculaceae, A rare endemic of the Interior Highlands. PhD Dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 123 p. Harris, J.L. 1992 . Survey of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the South Fourche LaFave River and major tributaries. Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, AR. Harris, J.L. 2001 . Distribution and relative abundance of freshwater bivalves (Unionacea) in sections of the Fourche La Fave River and Petit Jean River, Arkansas. Final Report (October 1) to the U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1988 . Status survey of Lampsilis powelli (Lea, 1852). Final Report to Office of Endangered Species, USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS. Harris, J.L., W.R. Posey, C.L. Davidson, J.L. Farris, S.R. Oetker, J.N. Stoeckel, B.G. Crump, M.S. Barnett, H.C. Martin, M.W. Matthews, J.H. Seagraves, N.J. Wentz, R. Winterringer, C. Osborne, and A.D. Christian. 2009. Unionoida (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas, Third Status Review. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 63:50-86. Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997 . Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 51:66-89. James, D.A. and J.C. Neal. 1986 . Arkansas birds: Their distribution and abundance. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 402 p. Kurta, A., and J. Kennedy, eds. 2002 . The Indiana bat: biology and management of an endangered species. Bat Conservation International, Austin, Texas. Lellinger, D.B. 1985. A field manual of the ferns and fern allies of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Inst. Press. Washington D.C. 389 p. Marsh, D.L., and T.A. Golden. 1996 . Plantain sunflower ( Helianthus occidentalis subsp. plantagineus ) in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 50:131-132. Marsico, T. D. 2003. On the rare endemic Hydrophyllum brownie Kral and Bates (Browne’s Waterleaf): New population information and a recommendation for change of status. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 57:100-110. Marsico, T. D. 2006. Life history and environmental factors influence population density and stage structure in Hydrophyllum brownie . American Midland Naturalist 156:178-188. McElderry, R.M. and J.L. Gentry. 2006a. Sensitive plant species survey: Carex latebracteata Waterfall (Waterfall’s sedge), Cyperaceae: an endemic sedge of the Ouachita Mountains. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR. University of Arkansas Herbarium, Fayetteville, AR 72701. 10p plus Appendix. McElderry, R.M. and J.L. Gentry. 2006b. Sensitive plant species survey: Solidago ouachitensis C. & J. Taylor (Ouachita goldenrod), Asteraceae: a rare endemic of the Ouachita Mountains. Final Report to the U.S. Forest Service, Hot Springs, AR. University of Arkansas Herbarium, Fayetteville, AR 72701. 9 p plus Appendix. Neal, J.C. and W.G. Montague. 1991 . Past and present distribution of the red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides borealis , in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 45:71-75. Rickett, J. 1986 . Status and distribution of the Ouachita madtom (Noturus lachneri ). A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR. 19 December.

2012 9 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Robison, H.W. 1992 . Distribution and status of the Ouachita River form of the longnose darter in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Final Report to Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 57 p. Robison, H.W. 2000 . Crayfishes of the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Final Report to USDA-Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. 115 p. Robison, H.W. 2001a . Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Final report to USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. Robison, H.W. 2001b . Status survey of the peppered shiner, Notropis perpallidus Hubbs and Black, in Arkansas. Final report to USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. Robison, H.W. 2004 . A survey of the paleback darter, Etheostoma pallididorsum Distler and Metcalf, an upper Ouachita River System endemic. Final Report (November 1) to the U.S. Forest Service, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 37 p. Robison, H.W. 2005 . Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 59:137-147. Robison, H.W. 2006 . Status survey of the Peppered shiner, Notropis perpallidus , Hubbs and Black, in Arkansas and Oklahoma. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 60:010-107. Robison, H.W. 2008 . Distribution, life history aspects, and conservation status of three Ouachita Mountain crayfishes: Procambarus tenuis , P. reimeri , and Orconectes menae . Final Report to the USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. 11 July. Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995 . Only in Arkansas: A study of the endemic plants and animals of the state. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 121 p. Robison, H.W. and T.M. Buchanan. 1988 . Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 536 p. Robison, H.W., C. McAllister, C. Carlton, and G. Tucker. 2008 . The Arkansas endemic biota: an update with additions and deletions. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 62:84-96. Rudolph, D.C., and C.A. Ely. 2000a . The influence of fire on lepidopteran abundance and community structure in forested habitats of eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52(4) Supplement: 127-138. Rudolph, D.C. and C.A. Ely. 2000b . Lepidoptera (Butterflies and Skippers) surveys of the Ouachita National Forest (with particular attention to the Caddo Ranger District) in relation to habitat. Interim Report to the Caddo Ranger District (912 Smokey Bear Lane, Glenwood, AR 71943). Rudolph, D.C., C.A. Ely, R.R. Schaefer, J.H. Williamson, and R.E. Thill. 2006 . The Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana ) and Great spangled fritillary ( S. cybele ): dependence on fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society 60(4):218-226. Saugey, D.A. 2006 . Documented occurrence of the federally endangered plant, harperella ( Ptilimnium nodosum ), in the South Fourche La Fave River. Location provided to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Saugey, D.A. 2010 . Documented occurrence of the undescribed Arkansas River form of the Louisiana fatmucket mussel, Lampsilis sp. cf hydiana in Barnhart and Wildcat creeks, Wildcat Project Area, Fourche Unit, JWF District. Identification by Dr. John Harris, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR. Relicts discovered 28 January, 16, 19 July 2010 during site specific field examination. Locations reported to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Saugey, D.A., V.R. McDaniel, D.R. England, M.C. Rowe, L.R. Chandler-Mozisek, and B.G. Cochran. 1993 . Arkansas range extensions of the Eastern small-footed bat ( Myotis leibii ), Northern long-eared bat ( Myotis septentrionalis ), and additional county records for the Silver-haired bat ( Lasionycteris noctivagans ), Hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus ), Southeastern bat ( Myotis austroriparius ), and Rafinesque's big-eared bat ( Plecotus rafinesquii ). Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 47:102-106.

2012 10 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Sealander, J.A. and G.A Heidt. 1990 . Arkansas Mammals: Their natural history, classification, and distribution. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 p. Shriver, W.G. and P.D. Vickery. 2001 . Response of breeding Florida grasshopper and Bachman’s sparrows to winter prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):470-475. Southeastern Diversity Bat Blitzes. 2003, 2005 . Caddo and Womble Ranger Districts (2003) and Fourche and Cold Springs Ranger Districts (2005). Bat Blitzes are three-day, intense, surveys performed in specific geographic areas by teams of bat biologists. Spencer, L.A. 2006 . Arkansas butterflies and moths. Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock. 314 p. Stoeckel, J. and K. Moles. 2002 . Status survey for the scaleshell mussel, Leptodea leptodon , with a summary of baseline data on freshwater mussel species of the South Fourche LaFave River, Arkansas. Report prepared for the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 26 p. Tatum, B.L. and T.A. Nelson. 1989 . Survey of the Ouachita madtom in a three-mile stretch of Cypress Creek, Upper Saline River, Perry County, Arkansas. Final Report submitted to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. 30 November. Trauth, S.E., H.W. Robison, and M.V. Plummer. 2004. The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 421 p. Trauth, S.E. and J.D. Wilhide. 1999 . Status of three plethodontid salamanders (Genus Plethodon ) from the Ouachita National Forest of southwestern Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 53:125-137. Tucker, G.E. 1975. Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis (Ashe) Tucker, comb. nov. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 29:67-69. Tucker, J.W. Jr., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2004. Influence of fire on Bachman’s sparrow, an endemic North American songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1114-1123. Tucker, J.W. Jr., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2006 . Breeding productivity of Bachman’s sparrows in fire-managed longleaf pine forests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118(2):131-137. Tumlison, R., T. Fulmer, T. Finley and D. Saugey. 2002. Bats of the Jessieville Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science. 56:206-211. USDA-Forest Service. 2005a . Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Ouachita National Forest, Forest Service, Southern Region, Arkansas-Oklahoma. Management Bulletin R8-MB-124-A. P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902. Also available at: www.aokforests.com . USDA-Forest Service. 2005b . Biological Assessment for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Ouachita National Forest. Available from sources listed above. USDA-Forest Service. 2007 . Official Correspondence File Code 2670: Addition of the Bald eagle to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, amended effective 8 August 2007. Regional Forester Chuck Myers, 17 July 2007, Signed by Janet Anderson (for). USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 . Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered status for the scaleshell mussel. Final rule. Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 195, Tuesday, October 9, 2001. Pages 51322 – 51339. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a . Concurrence letter pertaining to the “Programmatic biological assessment of the Ouachita National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan as related to eight species of federally listed species with a finding of “not likely to adversely affect.” These species are the Leopard darter ( Percina pantherina ) and Leopard darter critical habitat, harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum ), Arkansas fatmucket mussel ( Lampsilis powellii ), Scaleshell mussel ( Leptodea leptodon ), Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri ), Red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ), Bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ), and

2012 11 Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest ______Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ). Margaret Harney, Acting Field Supervisor. Arkansas Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, 72032. 17 August 2005. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b . Programmatic Biological Opinion on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and the potential impacts to the federally endangered American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ). Allan J. Mueller, Field Supervisor, Arkansas Field Office, 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300, Conway, 72032. 22 September 2005. USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. National bald eagle management guidelines. (May). USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Bald eagle in the Lower 48 States from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Final Rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register, Volume 72, Number 130, Monday July 9, 2007. Pages 37346-37372. Wilkes, S. 1999 . Report describing location and habitat type for Valerianella nuttallii (T.&G.) Walp, in Arkansas. Report prepared for Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 9 p. Winter Cave and Mine Survey. 2010 . Abandoned mines and Bear Den Cave on the Ouachita National Forest checked for hibernating bats and White Nose Syndrome. Witsell, C.T. 2004. E-mails regarding the discovery of harperella and other sensitive plant species along the South Fourche LaFave River. (2 and 4 August). Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Witsell, C.T. 2005a . Fax document regarding rare plant occurrences (supporting Witsell 2004, above) along the South Fourche LaFave River and the proposal for establishment of a Botanical Area. June 21. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. Witsell, C.T. 2005b . Final report on Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias (Harperella): survey work in Arkansas, 2004. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Grant E-21). Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock, AR 53p. Witsell, C.T. 2006 . E-mails and shape files providing documented locations of the Federally threatened Missouri bladderpod ( Lesquerella filiformis ) on the Jessieville Unit of the JWF District. 1 May. Witsell, C.T. 2008 . Management plan for Missouri bladderpod ( Physaria filiformis ) in Arkansas and recently discovered new populations in Arkansas. Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission cooperative agreement #30181- 6-J204 with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 18p. Wood, D.R., L.W. Burger, Jr., J.L. Bowman, and C.L. Hardy. 2004 . Avian community response to pine- grassland restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):819-829.

Prepared by: /s/ Mary Lynn Mentz, MS Date: 10 April 2012

/s/ Sarah Thompson, MS Date: 10 April 2012

Wildlife Biologists, Mary Mentz and Sarah Thompson Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest USDA, Forest Service [email protected] 479-495-2844 (voice) 479-495-7231 (fax)

2012 12