United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 110 South Amity Road, Suite 300 Conway, Arkansas 72032 IN REPLY REFER TO: Tel.: 501/513-4470 Fax: 501/513-4480
December 19, 2013
Liz Agpaoa, Regional Forester USDA Forest Service – Southern Region 1720 Peachtree Road NW Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Ms. Agpaoa:
This document transmits the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) biological and conference opinions (BO/CO) based on our review of: 1) the USDA Forest Service – Ouachita National Forest (ONF) proposal regarding designation, operation, and maintenance of the Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex; 2) its effects to the Arkansas fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii), spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), freshwater mussels, and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis); and 3) its effects to proposed critical habitat for rabbitsfoot. This BO has been prepared pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §402).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires federal agencies to consult with the Service to ensure any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species nor destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This BO/CO is based on the best available scientific and commercial data including meetings, electronic mail and telephone correspondence with ONF officials, Service files, pertinent scientific literature, discussions with recognized species authorities, and other scientific sources. A complete administrative record is on file at the Arkansas Ecological Services Field Office.
Consultation History
In a letter dated February 21, 2008, ONF requested comments on the Travel Management Project. In a letter dated March 20, 2008, the Service’s Oklahoma Field Office provided general and species specific comments related to the Travel Management Project. The Service’s Arkansas Field Office provided comments in April, 2008.
At a meeting on November 6, 2008, ONF presented a proposal to designate a system of roads and trails for public use of motorized vehicles, including off-highway vehicles. Service staff discussed threatened and endangered species concerns related to the Travel Management Project during the meeting. Service and ONF met again on August 5, 2009,
and discussed Travel Management Project revisions. On August 20, 2009, ONF and Service conducted a site visit to Wolf Pen Gap (WPG) Trail Complex.
On September 10, 2009, the Service received ONF’s Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife for the Motor Vehicle Use Map (Travel Management Project). In a letter dated October 28, 2009, the Service concurred with ONF’s finding for federally listed species, except Arkansas fatmucket, affected by the proposed Travel Management Project (TMP) and associated Motor Vehicle Use Maps (MVUM).
On November 30, 2009, the Service received ONF’s amendment to the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation – Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife for the Motor Vehicle Use Map. In a letter dated December 4, 2009, the Service concurred with ONF’s finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Arkansas fatmucket for the proposed TMP and MVUM.
On April 28, 2010, ONF informed Service WPG trail complex will be excluded from larger MVUM consultation and verbally requested to reinitiate consultation on WPG project. On May 19, 2010, the ONF, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and Service met to discuss issues related to WPG project. On May 20 – 22, 2010, ONF conducted a site visit to WPG Trail Complex with the Service and public. In a letter dated June 22, 2010, the Service provided comments to the ONF on their development of short-term and long- term plans for WPG.
On September 16 and 30 and October 7, 2010, the ONF hosted public meetings in Mena, Arkansas. ONF and Service staff discussed ESA basics, including consultation process, freshwater mussel biology, effects of sediment to aquatic biota, and potential adverse effects to mussels and fishes from an unsustainable WPG Trail Complex at the first meeting. At the second meeting, ONF presented their interim management plan (IMP) and announced short- and long-term proposed actions, including future planning steps, for the WPG project. At the third meeting, the ONF discussed community issues related to WPG project. Service staff was in attendance for all public meetings. In a letter dated October 13, 2010, the Service provided comments to ONF regarding WPG IMP and associated adverse effects to Arkansas fatmucket.
On December 10, 2010, ONF and Service staff met to discuss issues related to WPG project. On July 19, 2011, ONF hosted a public meeting to present WPG project updates and overview of Trails Unlimited report. Service staff was in attendance.
On August 26, 2011, ONF conducted a site visit to WPG Trail Complex to view best management practice (BMP) work. Service, TNC, congressional delegation representatives, and public were in attendance. On September 23, 2011, ONF presented and discussed preliminary water quality data with the Service.
At a meeting on April 5, 2012, ONF briefed the Service on preliminary alternatives. In a letter dated July 30, 2012, ONF invited informal public interaction on eight preliminary
2
alternatives for WPG project. ONF contacted the Service via telephone on July 31, 2012, to summarize ONF time lines for completing NEPA and ESA consultation. In a letter dated November 5, 2012, ONF provided an update on review of 78 public responses to their July 30, 2012, letter and new issues identified for preliminary alternatives.
ONF met with the Service and TNC on December 19, 2012, January 22 and March 26, 2013, to discuss sediment monitoring and progress with the WPG project. During a site visit to the WPG Trail Complex on June 12, 2013, ONF, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), TNC, and Service staff discussed wet weather management and turbidity monitoring.
At a meeting on June 24, 2013, the ONF delivered their draft environmental assessment for the WPG project and discussed alternatives with the Service. On July 1, 2013, ONF, USGS, TNC, and Service staff discussed sediment monitoring for the WPG project. At a meeting on July 24, 2013, ONF and Service staff discussed biological data presented in Clingenpeel (2012a). ONF disclosed an internal review of the report and subsequently provided via email data from their Basin Area Stream Surveys and sediment models for individual trails in WPG trail complex.
On August 9, 2013, the Service received the ONF’s biological assessment for the WPG project and accompanying letter initiating formal consultation. In a letter dated August 9, 2013, the Service concurred with the ONF’s determination that the proposed WPG project is likely to adversely affect the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot. The formal consultation began August 9, 2013, the date the Service concurred with ONF’s adverse effect determination.
In November, 2013, the ONF and Service agreed to include the proposed endangered northern long-eared bat as species potentially affected by the proposed activities in the WPG Trail Complex.
On November 20, 2013, the Service provided to the ONF a copy of the draft BO for its review and comment. The Service met with ONF staff on December 5, 2013, to address their comments on the draft BO. The Service issued its final BO on December, 19, 2013, concluding formal consultation.
BIOLOGICAL AND CONFERENCE OPINION
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
As defined in the Service’s section 7 regulations (50 CFR 402.02), “action” means “all activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies in the United States or upon the high seas.” The “action area” is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action.” The direct and indirect effects of the actions and activities must be considered in conjunction with the effects of other past and present Federal, State, or private activities, as well as the cumulative effects of State or
3
private activities within the action reasonably certain to occur in the foreseeable future and which would not trigger a separate section 7 consultation.
The 2005 U.S. Department of Agriculture final rule for Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use requires designation of roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use (70 Federal Register 68290). The Ouachita National Forest (ONF) proposes changes to the existing system of roads and motorized trails for public use, including off-highway vehicles (OHV), in Wolf Pen Gap (WPG). The proposed changes to WPG Trail Complex also include changes to motorized use designations, route closures and obliteration, route relocations, and new route construction.
The proposed action, also known as Alternative I or modified OHV season of use, includes the following actions:
1. User created trails and old route footprints (resulting from proposed closures or relocations) will be obliterated and the forest floor restored to a natural condition.
2. Stabilize shale pit and watershed by reshaping to redirect and disperse channeled surface water flow, install natural erosion barriers and rock on user- created trails, and prepare beds for planting shortleaf pine, black locust, and native grasses.
3. Install 269 stream crossing improvement structures, including 263 culverts, cement planks or arch culverts, three trail bridges, and three road bridges.
4. Install four administrative and 11 wet weather management gates.
5. Construct foot trail to Hawk’s Gap Overlook.
6. Equip two vistas with picnic tables.
7. Build pavilion with two picnic tables at North Trailhead.
8. Obliterate and relocate “warm-up” trail located at West Trailhead parking lot.
9. Retain old footprint of Forest Service Road 243 for administrative use (maintenance level one).
10. Install and maintain site-specific best management practices (BMP) developed for WPG (Poff 2012). ONF will monitor BMP effectiveness and appropriateness a minimum of three times per year. Time frame for monitoring will be determined by the District Ranger, but typically will occur within a month after the peak season of use (late May or June); after the main summer season concludes (September); and after the system in closed for much of the winter (January or February). Additional BMP compliance
4
monitoring will be documented for individual trail and road segments during the course of routine patrols and maintenance trips throughout the year.
a. If less than 80 percent of cross-drain structures are functioning, they will be fixed within 30 days. If prompt corrections (within 30 days) cannot be made, an action plan will be submitted to the Forest Supervisor for approval within this timeframe.
b. With every maintenance entry, berms and ruts caused by use of the trail will be treated to reduce or prevent accelerated erosion and potential sedimentation.
11. Place barriers at crossings where monitoring indicates a need to prevent OHV access into the stream channel.
12. Large woody debris (LWD) will be removed from crossing structures in conjunction with maintenance activities when the LWD is detrimentally affecting proper function of the structure. If possible, LWD will be placed downstream of the crossing or outside the 100-year floodplain.
13. Gravel/sediment will be removed only from stream or river channels with fisheries biologist or hydrologist approval and appropriate State and Federal permits, and will not be used for road and trail maintenance (will not be placed on roads or trails). This criterion will be applied only when the stream crossing structure is improperly functioning or the crossing structure is threatened or compromised based on a field review by a fisheries biologist and/or hydrologist.
14. Stream surveys comparing WPG Trail Complex streams to reference streams (Caney and Brushy creeks) will continue using the historical sample protocol (Clingenpeel J. A., 2012; Clingenpeel and Cochran 1992). The current frequency of sample is every five years; the next sample year is 2016.
15. Maintain soil health and stability within the watershed.
16. Implement measures to mitigate user created trails and remedy damage caused by new user created trails.
17. Curtail trail use during and after rainfall events to avoid excessive soil erosion and trail degradation (see Appendix B - Wet Weather Management Plan).
18. Reconstruct trail segments with insufficient drainage structures and other necessary components to minimize erosion and trail degradation.
5
19. Re-route trail segments located in areas of potential or existing soil instability, severe erosion, or connectivity with stream channels to more suitable sites.
20. Trails and drainage structures will be located and designed to include the following considerations: minimize hydrologic connectivity; avoid sensitive areas such as riparian areas, hydric soils, wetlands, bogs, and unstable landforms; avoid capture, diversion, and/or concentration of runoff from slopes adjacent to OHV trails; remove storm runoff from trail surface before it concentrates enough to initiate rilling; dissipate intercepted water by rolling grades; where trails cannot be effectively drained by rolling grades or using reverse grades, provide trail drainage using OHV rolling dips; incorporate sediment basins at OHV rolling dip outlets instead of lead off ditches; provide energy dissipaters at OHV rolling dip outlets where sediment basins cannot be installed; incorporate design elements discouraging off-route use (e.g., taking shortcuts, cutting new lines); and extend drainage outlets beyond the toe of fill or side-cast.
21. Where trails are re-constructed or constructed, soil moisture content in the trail surface will be sufficient to enhance compaction for optimum soil strength.
22. Seed and cover with hay or mulch areas with bare erodible soils to stabilize soils, prevent erosion, and discourage OHV use off the trail.
23. Armor exposed approaches to watercourse crossings with rock or some other sediment mitigation measure to minimize erosion from up-slope water and splashing water from OHV tires.
24. Minimize OHV operation in or near natural drainages, springs, seeps, areas subject to frequent flooding, or near open bodies of water.
25. Conduct motor vehicle use counts to determine use levels.
26. Conduct trail condition surveys according to Trail Condition Assessment Survey Matrix.
27. Monitor sediment basin effectiveness (see Appendix C – TNC Monitoring Protocol).
28. Restrict OHV noise to 96 decibels.
Any changes to designations of existing routes not proposed for closure or relocation will be implemented immediately upon publication of an updated Motor Vehicle Use Map. The ONF expects route closure and obliteration, route relocation, and new route construction to occur in phases during a five year period (refer to Appendix A for map of WPG Trail Complex).
6
Except for Trail 1 and Forest Service Road 95, which will remain open to all motorized vehicle use year round, the following apply (refer to Table 1 for WPG designated road and trail use):
1. WPG Trail Complex will be closed to OHV use for the following situations:
a. One hour after sunset until one hour before sunrise.
b. Seasonal periods to manage adverse effects from OHV use to the environment.
2. Parts or all of the WPG road and trail complex will be closed to all public motorized vehicle use during the following situations:
a. During scheduled maintenance.
b. During and after precipitation events (≥ 0.4 inch) that may cause damage to the trail system when combined with use (Refer to Appendix B – Wet Weather Management Plan).
Table 1. WPG Designated Road and Trail Use
Change from Proposed Action Designated Road Use Current Condition Estimated Miles (Miles) Highway and OHV – year round 5.6 -14.6 Highway only – year round 3.2 None Highway year round – WPG Seasonal OHV 7.6 +7.6 Road Total 16.4 -7.0 Change from Proposed Action Designated Trail Use Current Condition Estimated Miles (Miles) OHV – year round None -18.3 WPG Seasonal OHV 23.2 +23.2 Trail Total 23.2 +4.9 Total WPG Routes 39.6 -2.1 Highway and OHV – year round: Roads open to all vehicles, January 1 – December 31. Highway only – year round: Roads open to highway legal vehicles only, January 1 – December 31. Highway year round – WPG Seasonal OHV: Roads open to highway legal vehicles, January 1 – December 31, and OHVs, seasonally (2nd Friday of March – October 31; 3 days before Thanksgiving – 2 days after Thanksgiving; December 25 – January 2). WPG Seasonal OHV: Trails open to OHVs seasonally as defined above.
ONF also plans to implement specific monitoring in WPG to include, but not necessarily limited to:
7
1. Document location of trail erosion.
2. Document BMP effectiveness (i.e., are appropriate BMPs in place on the trail system and are they functioning properly);.
3. Measure concentration of suspended sediment in Gap and Board Camp Creeks (total of three U.S. Geological Survey continuous monitoring stations).
4. Model (WEPP or other comparable model) delivery of sediment from trails and roads.
5. Evaluate and track changes in stream stability (i.e., monitor rate of stream bank erosion at TNC established monitoring stations) and sediment deposition (i.e., is sediment deposition in pools and riffles decreasing) in Gap and Board Camp Creeks.
The goal of this monitoring is to establish long-term trends in sediment delivery and loading and its effects on aquatic biota, hydrology, and stream geomorphology. The U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station is conducting research to assess whether and how detrimental effects to streams may be occurring in the WPG Trail Complex from a geomorphic perspective, focusing on geomorphological effects on streams and sediment production resulting from OHV trails and use. ONF monitoring will enable managers to identify sediment sources and take corrective actions to minimize and mitigate detrimental effects.
ACTION AREA
The Service has described the action area to include the WPG Trail Complex, Board Camp Creek downstream of the ONF boundary, and Ouachita River from the Board Camp Creek confluence to Lake Ouachita. WPG is located approximately seven miles southeast of Mena, Arkansas in the western portion of Polk County. The WPG Trail Complex comprises 16,618 acres (Appendix A; 13,477 ONF acres and 3,141 private acres). The area is noted for its rugged topography in the Ouachita Mountain ecoregion and motorized recreational opportunities.
The Ouachita River begins in western Arkansas and flows freely through the Ouachita Mountains of Polk and Montgomery counties into Lake Ouachita near Mt. Ida. Although there is a large presence of ONF property in the watershed, most of the ONF property occurs in the upland portions of the watershed, leaving the majority of the main stem Ouachita River riparian area and its largest tributaries privately owned.
The Ouachita River headwaters, upstream of Lake Ouachita, comprise approximately 329,975 acres. ONF ownership in this area comprises 172,668 acres (52 percent). The Board Camp Creek subwatershed is approximately 21,399 acres comprised of 10,280 acres of ONF ownership (48 percent). ONF ownership is concentrated in the headwaters
8
where the majority of OHV use occurs. Two perennial streams, Gap and Board Camp Creeks, occupy the ONF portion of the Board Camp Creek subwatershed. During the formation of these creeks, the east-west mountain ridge was eroded through or captured forming gaps in three places creating a unique trellis drainage pattern, which in conjunction with steep slopes can generate flashy runoff (USFS 2013a).
The soils in the WPG Trail Complex are very diverse. Soil characteristics range from depths less than 10 to greater than 60 inches, somewhat excessively drained to somewhat poorly drained, slowly permeable to moderately rapidly permeable. Soil textures range from sandy loams to clays with rock fragments comprising less than 10 to greater than 50 percent of soil volume (USFS 2013a).
Landforms in the WPG Trail Complex vary from nearly level to gently sloping floodplains and stream terraces, gently sloping to moderately sloping ridge tops, foot and toe slopes, and steep to very steep hill and mountain slopes in the Ouachita Mountain ecoregion. Slope gradient ranges from three to greater than 60 percent (USFS 2013a).
STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
Arkansas Fatmucket (Lampsilis powellii)
Arkansas fatmucket was listed as threatened under the Act on April 5, 1990 (55 Federal Register 12797). No critical habitat has been designated for Arkansas fatmucket. The recovery plan for the species was published February 10, 1992 (Service 1992). A five year status review was initiated September 8, 2006 (71 Federal Register 53127). A range wide programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for Arkansas fatmucket is currently being reviewed by the Service.
The Arkansas fatmucket was described as Unio powelli by Lea in 1852 from the Saline River, Arkansas (Johnson 1980), and placed in the genus Lampsilis by Simpson (1914). Hoeh and Breton (2012) examined mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genomic divergences between Arkansas fatmucket and the closely related fatmucket (Lampsilis siliquoidea). Their findings were consistent with the hypothesis that Arkansas fatmucket is a valid species currently experiencing mtDNA introgression due to limited interspecific hybridization with fatmucket.
The Arkansas fatmucket is a medium size freshwater mussel (occasionally exceeds 4 inches). The shell is elliptical to long obovate with sub-inflated valves. The shell surface is smooth with a shiny olive brown to tawny periostracum and lacks rays. There are tiny pits running down the shell that sometimes appear to be rays (Harris and Gordon 1990). There is sexual dimorphism in shell shape (Johnson 1980).
Status and distribution
Arkansas fatmucket is endemic to the Ouachita Mountains region of the Ouachita River basin in Arkansas. The current known range is restricted to the Caddo River from the
9
confluence of Collier Creek (between Norman and Caddo Gap, Arkansas) to Arkansas Highway 84 (near Amity, Arkansas; 24.3 river miles (rm)); Ouachita River from near the confluence of Chances Creek to the confluence of Polk Creek (16.2 rm); Ouachita River from near the confluence of Snake Creek to Hole In The Ground Creek (7.8 rm), Arkansas Highway 379 to U. S. Highway 270 (12.5 rm), and Interstate 30 to Arkansas Highway 222 (15 rm); South Fork Ouachita River from Montgomery County Road 17 to the inundation pool of Lake Ouachita (14.3 rm); Middle Fork Saline River from Arkansas Highway 7 to its confluence with the Alum Fork Saline River (30.2 rm); Alum Fork Saline River from Love Creek to the inundation pool of Lake Winona (5.6 rm), Lake Winona Dam downstream to the Middle Fork Saline River confluence (28.0 rm), and extending upstream approximately 6.0 rm from the North Fork Saline River confluence; North Fork Saline River from Arkansas Highway 9 to Arkansas Highway 5 (21.7 rm); Saline River from its formation downstream to U.S. Highway 270 (43.6 rm). Extant Arkansas fatmucket populations have been presumably extirpated from approximately 87 rm range-wide since listing, representing a 28 percent reduction in occupied stream reaches (C. Davidson, pers. comm. 2013; Figures 1 – 3).
Harris et al. (2009) summarize the status and distribution of Arkansas fatmucket. Scott (2004) and Christian et al. (2006) surveyed 30 Arkansas fatmucket sites from Harris and Gordon (1988) and three additional sites not previously explored. A total of 137 Arkansas fatmucket specimens were collected from 19 of 33 surveyed sites. Arkansas fatmucket numbers were significantly reduced across 29 sites compared to the numbers collected by Harris and Gordon (1988). These surveys provided the first statistical documentation of a range wide decline of Arkansas fatmucket since federal listing in 1990.
Scott (2004) and Christian et al. (2006) focused their survey effort on previously documented Arkansas fatmucket sites. In 2006 and 2007, the Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and ONF conducted a range wide status assessment focused on determining current distribution and abundance. Results from this survey yielded 15 new sites, including one in the Ouachita River, not documented in previous surveys.
Life history Biological information specific to this species is sparse, but general information known about other freshwater mussels applies to this taxon. Mussels in streams occur chiefly in “flow refuges” (relatively stable areas that displayed little movement of substrate particles during flood events) (Strayer 1999a). Mussel location and density are greatest in areas where shear stress (stream’s ability to entrain and transport bed material created by the flow acting on the bed material) is low and sediments remain generally stable during flooding (Layzer and Madison 1995; Strayer 1999a; Hastie et al. 2001). These “flow refuges” conceivably allow relatively immobile mussels to remain in the same general location throughout their life span. However, flow refuges are not created equally and other habitat variables are important, but poorly understood (Roberts 2008, pers. comm.).
10
11
Food habits – Freshwater mussels siphon water into their shells and across four gills specialized for respiration and food collection. Food items include algae, bacteria, detritus (disintegrated organic debris), and microscopic animals (Strayer et al. 2004). It also has been surmised dissolved organic matter may be a significant source of nutrition (Strayer et al. 2004). Adults are filter feeders and generally orient themselves on or near the substrate surface to take in food and oxygen from the water column. Juveniles typically burrow completely beneath the substrate surface and are pedal (foot) feeders (bringing food particles inside the shell for ingestion that adhere to the foot while it is extended outside the shell) until the structures for filter feeding are more fully developed (Yeager et al. 1994; Gatenby et al. 1996).
Growth and longevity – Growth rates for mussels are highly variable among individual species, but overall, mussels tend to grow relatively rapidly for the first few years (Scruggs 1960; Negus 1966) then slow appreciably (Bruenderman and Neves 1993; Hove and Neves 1994). This reduction in growth rate is correlated to sexual maturity, probably as a result of energy being diverted from growth to gamete production (Baird 2000). No quantitative information on the longevity of Arkansas fatmucket is available.
Reproductive biology – Sex ratios in mussels generally do not differ significantly from 1:1. Data collected by Scott (2004), Christian et al. (2006) and Service (C. Davidson, pers. comm., 2013) indicate similar sex ratios for Arkansas fatmucket. Age at sexual maturity for the Arkansas fatmucket is unknown.
Males release sperm into the water column, which are drawn in by females through their siphons during feeding and respiration. Fertilization takes place inside the shell, and success is apparently influenced by mussel density and water flow conditions (Downing
12
et al. 1993). The eggs are retained in the female gills until they develop into mature larvae called glochidia. The glochidia of Arkansas fatmucket have a parasitic stage during which they must attach to the gills of a fish to transform into a juvenile mussel. Arkansas fatmucket females release glochidia separately. The duration of the parasitic stage varies by mussel species, water temperature, and perhaps host fish species.
From parasitic glochidia to free-living juveniles – Arkansas fatmucket glochidia are an obligate parasite on sunfish (Centrarchidae), primarily largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) and spotted bass (Micropterus punctatus) (Scott 2004; Christian et al. 2006). The Arkansas fatmucket is gravid March through October (Scott 2004; Christian et al. 2006). Glochidia generally spend from two to six weeks parisitizing the host fish, the duration of encystment being dependent on the mussel species and water temperature (Zimmerman and Neves 2002). Newly- metamorphosed juveniles drop off to begin a free-living existence on the stream bottom. Arkansas fatmucket is generally associated with pools and backwater areas in sand, sand- gravel, sand-cobble, or sand-rock with sufficient flow to periodically remove organic detritus and other debris. It is frequently found adjacent to water willow (Justicia americana).
Recovery and Management
The recovery objective of the Arkansas Fatmucket Mussel (Lampsilis powellii) Recovery Plan is to delist the species (Service 1992). Recovery criteria for achieving the objective include:
1. Viable populations in the Ouachita, South Fork Ouachita, Saline, Alum Fork Saline, North Fork Saline, and Middle Fork Saline Rivers (the recovery plan defines a viable population as a population with the reproductive capability to sustain itself without immigration of individuals from another population),
2. Habitat for these population is fully protected, and
3. Viable population levels are maintained for a period of at least 20 years.
In an effort to protect and restore habitat of the Arkansas fatmucket in the Ouachita, Caddo, and Saline River headwaters, The Nature Conservancy along with state and federal agencies decided to undertake the development and implementation of a programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement. The development and implementation of this agreement, when approved by the Service, will facilitate (i.e., provides assurances and incentives) private landowner cooperation, not otherwise provided by the recovery plan, in implementing habitat conservation practices to protect and restore Arkansas fatmucket populations and habitat. Additionally, the agreement ensures a collaborative approach to restore and conserve habitat in these watersheds, thus minimizing potential conflicting recommendations associated with recovery of the species. Implementation of the Safe Harbor Agreement is expected to begin in 2014, pending approval and permitting by the Service. 13
Previous Incidental Take Authorizations
Prior formal consultations involving Arkansas fatmucket include one BO for section 10(a)(1)(A) permits in the Service’s Southeast Region. The amount or extent of take anticipated for Arkansas fatmucket in this BO includes no more than 5 adult or subadult individuals per one hundred handled during authorized recovery actions under section 10(a)(1)(A). It also exempts mortality of glochidia and juveniles of up to 100 percent during temporary retention of gravid adults for propagation efforts.
In 2004, the Service issued a non-jeopardy BO for construction of the County Road 5 Bridge crossing the Saline River near Tull, Arkansas. The level of anticipated incidental take exempted included relocation of 20 Arkansas fatmucket individuals with a maximum of two individuals killed incidental to actions required for relocation. The Service also anticipated delayed mortality associated with translocation and some individuals would not be found in the affected area. This level of take was approximated by the discovery of two Arkansas fatmucket individuals or ten percent of the number of individuals collected and relocated, whichever was greater.
Rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica)
Rabbitsfoot was listed as threatened under the Act on September 17, 2013 (78 Federal Register 57076). The Service proposed to designate critical habitat for rabbitsfoot on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63440) and a final determination is pending. There is no recovery plan for rabbitsfoot at this time. The recovery outline was approved September 3, 2013 (Service 2013). A programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement for rabbitsfoot populations in the Ouachita, Saline, and Caddo River headwaters is currently being reviewed by the Service.
The rabbitsfoot was originally described as Unio cylindricus (Say, 1817). The type locality is the Wabash River (Parmalee and Bogan 1998), probably in the vicinity of New Harmony, Posey County, Indiana, and adjacent Illinois. Parmalee and Bogan (1998) summarize the synonomy of the rabbitsfoot. Davis and Fuller (1981) and Sproules et al. (2006) conducted taxonomic and genetic studies on the rough rabbitsfoot (Q. c. strigillata) and rabbitsfoot (Q. c. cylindrica). Although discussion continues over the taxonomic status of the rabbitsfoot, both subspecies are currently deemed valid by the Committee on Scientific and Vernacular Names of Mollusks of the Council of Systematic Malacologists and the American Malacological Union (Turgeon et al. 1998).
The rabbitsfoot is a medium to large mussel, elongate and rectangular, reaching 6 inches in length (Oesch 1984). Parmalee and Bogan (1998) describe the beaks as moderately elevated and raised only slightly above the hinge line. Beak sculpture consists of a few strong ridges or folds continuing onto the newer growth of the umbo (raised or domed part of the dorsal margin of the shell) as small tubercles (small, rounded projection on surface of the shell). Shell sculpture consists of a few large, rounded, low tubercles on the posterior slope, although some individuals will have numerous small, elongated
14
pustules (small raised spots) particularly on the anterior. The periostracum (external shell surface) is generally smooth and yellowish, greenish, or olive in color becoming darker and yellowish–brown with age and usually covered with dark green or nearly black chevrons and triangles pointed ventrally (Say 1817). These patterns are absent in some individuals. Aspects of the soft anatomy are described by Ortmann (1912), Utterback (1915), Davis and Fuller (1981), and Oesch (1984).
Critical Habitat
Proposed critical habitat Unit RF4a for the rabbitsfoot includes 13.6 river miles of the Ouachita River from Arkansas Highway 379 south of Oden downstream to Arkansas Highway 298 east of Pencil Bluff, Montgomery County, Arkansas. This unit is considered occupied at this time. Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the physical and biological features essential to rabbitsfoot conservation consist of five components:
1. Geomorphically stable river channels and banks (channels that maintain lateral dimensions, longitudinal profiles, and sinuosity patterns over time without an aggrading or degrading bed elevation) with habitats that support a diversity of freshwater mussel and native fish (such as stable riffles, sometimes with runs, and mid-channel island habitats that provide flow refuges consisting of gravel and sand substrates with low to moderate amounts of fine sediment and attached filamentous algae).
2. A hydrologic flow regime (the severity, frequency, duration, and seasonality of discharge over time) necessary to maintain benthic habitats where the species are found and to maintain connectivity of rivers with the floodplain, allowing the exchange of nutrients and sediment for maintenance of the mussel’s and fish host’s habitat, food availability, spawning habitat for native fishes, and the ability for newly transformed juveniles to settle and become established in their habitats.
3. Water and sediment quality (including, but not limited to, conductivity, hardness, turbidity, temperature, pH, ammonia, heavy metals, and chemical constituents) necessary to sustain natural physiological processes for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.
4. The presence and abundance (currently unknown) of fish hosts necessary for recruitment of the rabbitsfoot. The occurrence of natural fish assemblages, reflected by fish species richness, relative abundance, and community composition, for each inhabited river or creek will serve as an indication of appropriate presence and abundance of fish hosts until appropriate host fish can be identified.
15
5. Either no competitive or predaceous invasive species (nonnative), or such species in quantities low enough to have minimal effect on survival of freshwater mussels. Status and distribution
The rabbitsfoot was historically known from 140 streams within the lower Great Lakes Sub-basin and Mississippi River Basin. The historical range included 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Rabbitsfoot populations are considered to be extant in 51 streams in 13 states (Butler 2005; Boeckman 2008, pers. comm.), representing a 64 percent decline (51 extant streams of 140 historical populations). In streams where it remains extant, populations are highly fragmented and restricted to short reaches. Based upon existing habitat use (need for flowing vs. impounded habitats) and fish host (small minnow species with limited individual ranges) data, it is unlikely recruitment between populations or establishment of new populations could occur naturally.
Butler (2005) categorized the extant populations of rabbitsfoot into three groups based on population size, general distribution, evidence of recent recruitment, and assessment of current viability. Sizeable populations with evidence of recent recruitment were categorized as viable. Small populations, including the Ouachita River, were categorized based on limited levels of recent recruitment, generally highly restricted distribution, or doubtful or limited viability increasing its susceptibility to extirpation in the near future. Marginal populations were considered rare, with no evidence of recent recruitment, of doubtful viability, and possibly on the verge of extirpation in the immediate future. Many of the small and marginal populations are demonstrably (clearly evident) declining (78 Federal Register 57076).
Call (1895) considered the rabbitsfoot “abundant in the St. Francis, Saline, and Ouachita Rivers in Arkansas.” Wheeler (1918) observed rabbitsfoot in the Ouachita River and declared it “in nearly every mussel bed of the river.” Sporadic records (mostly since the 1980s) from approximately a dozen sites are known from the Ouachita River headwaters in Polk County, Arkansas, downstream to near its mouth in Morehouse-Union Parishes, Louisiana. Three reservoirs (Lakes Ouachita, Hamilton, and Catherine) separate the headwaters in the Ouachita Mountains from the Gulf Coastal Plain reaches in southern Arkansas and Louisiana.
Life History
Rabbitsfoot is primarily an inhabitant of small to medium sized streams and some larger rivers. It usually occurs in shallow water areas along the bank and adjacent runs and shoals with reduced water velocity. Specimens also may occupy deep water runs, having been reported in 9 to 12 feet of water. Bottom substrates generally include gravel and sand (Parmalee and Bogan 1998). This species seldom burrows but lies on its side (Watters 1988; Fobian 2007). This life history trait makes it more susceptible to
16
displacement into unsuitable habitat and makes flow refuges more important to rabbitsfoot.
Growth and longevity – See Arkansas fatmucket Growth and Longevity section above. No quantitative information on the longevity of the rabbitsfoot is available.
Reproductive biology – Sex ratios in mussels generally do not differ significantly from 1:1, although some Quadrula populations tend to be male-biased (Haag and Staton 2003). Rabbitsfoot populations west of the Mississippi River reach sexual maturity between the ages of 4 to 6 years (Fobian 2007). Rabbitsfoot exhibit seasonal movement towards shallower water during brooding periods, a strategy to increase host fish exposure but one that also leaves them more vulnerable to predation and fluctuating water levels, especially downstream of dams (Fobian 2007; Barnhart 2008, pers. comm.). It is a short– term brooder, with females brooding between May and late August (Fobian 2007). Similar to other species of Quadrula, the rabbitsfoot uses all four gills as a marsupium (pouch) for its glochidia (Fobian 2007). Female rabbitsfoot release glochidia as conglutinates, which mimic flatworms or similar fish prey. Fecundity (capacity of abundant production) in river basins west of the Mississippi River ranged from 46,000 to 169,000 larvae per female (Fobian 2007).
From parasitic glochidia to free-living juveniles –Female mussels of the genus Quadrula commonly release glochidia packaged in the form of conglutinates. The lanceolate (lance shaped) conglutinates of the rabbitsfoot, presumably depending on the development rates of their ova and encapsulated glochidia, are yellowish-brown or pale orange (Ortmann 1919). They may mimic flatworms or similar fish prey (Fobian 2007).
Suitable fish hosts for rabbitsfoot populations west of the Mississippi River include blacktail shiner (Cyprinella venusta) from the Black and Little River and cardinal shiner (Luxilus cardinalis), red shiner (C. lutrensis), spotfin shiner (C. spiloptera), and bluntface shiner (C. camura) from the Spring River, but host suitability information is lacking for the eastern range (Fobian 2007). In addition, rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus), striped shiner (L. chrysocephalus), rainbow darter (Etheostoma caerulium) and emerald shiner (N. atherinoides) served as hosts for rabbitsfoot, but not in all stream populations tested (Fobian 2007; Watters et al. 2009).
Recovery and Management
Numerous conservation and restoration activities have been undertaken by various stakeholders to benefit other mussel species that likely benefited rabbitsfoot as well (i.e., Upper Little Red River Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the Speckled Pocketbook, Yellowcheek Darter, and Rabbitsfoot and 19 Aquatic Species of Greatest Conservation Need). The proposed Safe Harbor Agreement referenced above for the Arkansas fatmucket also includes the rabbitsfoot, and similar benefits for rabbitsfoot are expected in the Ouachita River. More watershed-scale, community-based habitat enhancement and restoration projects will be essential in order to meet future rabbitsfoot recovery goals at the national
17
level.
Shute et al. (1997) outlined management and conservation considerations for imperiled mussels such as the rabbitsfoot, while incorporating ecosystem management into the equation. These broadly included:
1. Prioritizing aquatic ecosystems needing protection.
2. Identifying all potential agencies and organizations within a watershed.
3. Prioritizing ecosystem threats.
4. Identifying strategies to minimize or eliminate threats.
5. Educating stakeholders.
Obermeyer (2000) wrote a recovery plan for the rabbitsfoot (and three other imperiled mussels) in Kansas. He summarized various recovery criteria, recovery implementation tasks, and conservation programs to assist private landowners in habitat protection. Many of the activities covered would be beneficial to the species if implemented range wide. They are summarized below, but are not limited to:
1. Offer incentives to landowners to protect and/or restore habitat.
2. Reduce and/or minimize threats from a broad array of sources.
3. Develop partnerships.
4. Utilize existing legislation and regulations to protect species and their habitats.
5. Conduct population monitoring, life history studies, and fund research priorities directed at species recovery.
6. Promote outreach and education programs related to watershed stewardship and the importance of mussels.
The recovery outline for the rabbitsfoot outlines a preliminary course of action for recovery until approval of a comprehensive recovery plan (Service 2013). The recovery outline promotes four basic tenets:
1. Use, to the fullest extent practical, existing legislation, regulations and policies to protect rabbitsfoot populations and their habitat.
2. Develop and encourage a stream management strategy for occupied rabbitsfoot drainages that places high priority on protection of stable populations and on
18
conservation and restoration of declining populations.
3. Encourage voluntary stewardship through joint initiatives and individual actions as the only practical and economical means of minimizing adverse effects of private land use and activities within watersheds.
4. Continue to promote research efforts on threats, life history, contaminant toxicity, environment sensitivity, and requirements of rabbitsfoot and support facilities to maintain, study, and propagate them.
Previous Incidental Take Authorizations
For recovery permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) in the Service’s Southeast Region, see Previous Incidental Take Authorizations section for Arkansas fatmucket. The Service prepared a BO/CO for its approval and participation in the Memorandum of Agreement and its associated best management practices and Minimization and Mitigation Measures with Crestwood Arkansas Pipeline LLC. The purpose of the agreement is to provide recovery-focused conservation benefits for rabbitsfoot and two other listed aquatic species while minimizing right-of-way erosion, avoiding and minimizing alteration of natural stream hydrology and geomorphology characteristics, and minimizing transport of other contaminants from Crestwood pipeline right-of-ways in the Little Red River watershed. The level of take anticipated in this BO/CO is 1,280 acres of upland and riparian habitat and 875 stream crossings over a five year period extending from 2010 - 2014, with no more than 20 percent of this amount occurring in any calendar year. To date, no take has occurred in the Middle Fork Little Red River associated with this agreement.
Spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta)
The Service first identified the spectaclecase as a candidate for listing in the 2004 Review of Species that are Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened (69 FR 24875). The spectaclecase remained a candidate species until it was proposed for listing as endangered on January 19, 2011 (76 FR 3392). It was listed as endangered on March 13, 2012 (77 FR 14914). No critical habitat has been designated for spectaclecase.
The spectaclecase is a member of the mussel family Margaritiferidae and was originally described as Unio monodonta Say, 1829. Parmalee and Bogan (1998) summarized the synonymy of the spectaclecase. Spectaclecase is a large mussel that reaches at least 9.25 inches in length (Havlik 1994). The shape of the shell is greatly elongated, sometimes arcuate (curved), and moderately inflated, with the valves being solid and moderately thick, especially in older individuals. Both anterior and posterior ends of the shell are rounded with a shallow depression near the center of the shell. The periostracum is somewhat smooth, rayless, and light yellow, greenish-tan, or brown in young specimens, becoming rough and dark brown to black in old shells (Baird 2000; Parmalee and Bogan
19
1998). There are no differences between the sexes in the shells of this species (Baird 2000).
Status and distribution
The spectaclecase occurred historically in at least 44 streams in the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri River basins (Butler 2002; Heath 2008). Its distribution comprised portions of 14 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). Extant populations of the spectaclecase are known from 20 streams in 11 States (Butler 2002), including a sizeable population in the Ouachita River from near Malvern to Camden, Arkansas.
Life History
The spectaclecase generally inhabits large rivers, and is found in microhabitats sheltered from the main force of current. It occurs in substrates from mud and sand to gravel, cobble, and boulders in relatively shallow riffles and shoals with a slow to swift current (Baird 2000; Buchanan 1980; Parmalee and Bogan 1998). It is usually found between and under large rocks, but also may occur in submerged tree stumps, root masses, and beds of rooted vegetation (Oesch 1984). Similar to other margaritiferids, spectaclecase occurrences throughout much of its range tend to be aggregated (Gordon and Layzer 1989), particularly under slab boulders or bedrock shelves (Baird 2000; Buchanan 1980; Parmalee and Bogan 1998), where they are protected from the current.
Growth and longevity – See Arkansas fatmucket Growth and Longevity section above. No quantitative information on the longevity of the spectaclecase is available.
Reproductive biology – Little is known about the reproductive biology of spectaclecase. It is thought to release glochidia from early April to late May in the Meramac and Gasconade Rivers, Missouri (Baird 2000) and March to April in the Ouachita River when water temperatures reach the mid 50’s (Fahrenheit; B. Posey 2013, pers. comm.). Age at sexual maturity is five to seven years with sex ratios approximating 1:1 (Baird 2000).
From parasitic glochidia to free-living juveniles – Spectaclecase glochidia are released in conglutinates. Glochidia lack hooks and are the smallest glochidia known from any North American freshwater mussel (Baird 2000). Over 100,000 glochidia may occur in each conglutinate. Fecundity varies from approximately 1.9 to 9.5 million glochidia per female. Suitable fish hosts for spectaclecase is unknown.
Recovery and Management
The proposed Safe Harbor Agreement referenced above for Arkansas fatmucket also includes the spectaclecase, and similar benefits for spectaclecase are expected in the upper Ouachita River. More watershed-scale, community-based habitat enhancement and restoration projects will be essential in order to meet future spectaclecase recovery
20 goals at the national level.
Previous Incidental Take Authorizations
For recovery permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) in the Service’s Southeast Region, see Previous Incidental Take Authorizations section for Arkansas fatmucket. The Service has prepared one CO for a railroad bridge replacement in the Mississippi River, Des Moines County, Iowa, and Henderson County, Illinois. The Service’s exempted take for this project included 90 spectaclecase individuals due to harm and harassment, or direct mortality, but due to mussel relocation efforts and other conservation measures the actual take may have been as low as a few individuals.
Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) The northern long-eared bat was proposed for listing as endangered under the Act on October 2, 2013 (78 Federal Register 61045). At this time no critical habitat has been proposed for the northern long-eared bat.
The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) belongs to the order Chiroptera, suborder Microchiroptera, family Vespertilionidae, subfamily Vesperitilionae, genus Myotis, subgenus Myotis (Caceres and Barclay 2000). The northern long-eared bat was considered a subspecies of Keen’s long-eared Myotis (Myotis keenii) (Fitch and Schump 1979), but was recognized as a distinct species by van Zyll de Jong (1979) based on geographic separation and difference in morphology (in Caceres and Pybus 1997; Caceres and Barclay 2000; Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Whitaker and Hamilton 1998; Whitaker and Mumford 2009; Simmons 2005).
A medium sized bat species, the northern long-eared bat adult body weight averages five to eight grams (0.2 to 0.3 ounces), with females tending to be slightly larger than males (Caceres and Pybus 1997). Average body length ranges from 77 to 95 mm (3.0 to 3.7 in), tail length between 35 and 42 mm (1.3 to 1.6 in), forearm length between 34 and 38 mm (1.3 to 1.5 in), and wingspread between 228 and 258 mm (8.9 to 10.2 in) (Caceres and Barclay 2000; Barbour and Davis 1969). Pelage (fur) colors include medium to dark brown on its back, dark brown, but not black, ears and wing membranes, and tawny to pale-brown fur on the ventral side (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Whitaker and Mumford 2009). As indicated by its common name, the northern long-eared bat is distinguished from other Myotis species by its long ears (average 17 mm (0.7 in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009) that, when laid forward, extend beyond the nose but less than five mm (0.2 in) beyond the muzzle (Caceres and Barclay 2000). The tragus (projection of skin in front of the external ear) is long (average 9 mm (0.4 in); Whitaker and Mumford 2009), pointed, and symmetrical (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Whitaker and Mumford 2009).
Status and distribution
The northern long-eared bat ranges across much of the eastern and north central United States, and all Canadian provinces west to the southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Caceres and Pybus 1997; Environment).
21
In the United States, the species’ range reaches from Maine west to Montana, south to eastern Kansas, eastern Oklahoma, Arkansas, and east to the Florida panhandle (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998; Caceres and Barclay 2000; Amelon and Burhans 2006). The species’ range includes the following 38 States: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Historically, the species has been most frequently observed in the northeastern United States and in Canadian Provinces, Quebec and Ontario, with sightings increasing during swarming and hibernation (Caceres and Barclay 2000). However, throughout the majority of the species’ range it is patchily distributed, and historically was less common in the southern and western portions of the range than in the northern portion of the range (Amelon and Burhans 2006).
Although they are typically found in low numbers in inconspicuous roosts, most records of northern long-eared bats are from winter hibernacula surveys (Caceres and Pybus 1997) (for more information on use of hibernacula, see Biology below). They are typically found roosting in small crevices or cracks on cave or mine walls or ceilings (Griffin 1940; Barbour and Davis 1969; Caire et al. 1979; Van Zyll de Jong 1985; Caceres and Pybus 1997; Whitaker and Mumford 2009). Northern long-eared bat is known from 20 hibernacula in Arkansas, although they are typically found in very low numbers (Sasse 2012, pers. comm.). From 2000 – 2005, Perry and Thill (2007) tracked 17 males and 23 females to 43 and 49 day roosts, respectively, in the Ouachita Mountains. The northern long-eared bat is known to occur in seven counties along the eastern edge of Oklahoma (Stevenson 1986). The species has been recorded in 21 caves during the summer. The species has regularly been captured in summer mist-net surveys at cave entrances in Adair, Cherokee, Sequoyah, Delaware, and LeFlore counties, and is often one of the most common bats captured during mist-net surveys at cave entrances in the Ozarks of northeastern Oklahoma (Stark 2013, pers. comm.). Small numbers of northern long-eared bats (typical range of 1 – 17 individuals) also have been captured during mist-net surveys along creeks and riparian zones in eastern Oklahoma.
Life history
Winter habitat - Northern long-eared bat predominantly overwinters in hibernacula that include caves and abandoned mines. Hibernacula used by northern long-eared bat are typically large, with large passages and entrances (Raesly and Gates 1987), relatively constant, cooler temperatures (0 to 9 degrees C (32 to 48 degrees F)) (Raesly and Gates 1987; Caceres and Pybus 1997; Brack 2007), with high humidity and no air currents (Fitch and Shump 1979; Van Zyll de Jong 1985; Raesly and Gates 1987; Caceres and Pybus 1997). The sites favored by northern long-eared bat are often in very high humidity areas, to such a large degree that droplets of water are often observed on their fur (Hitchcock 1949; Barbour and Davis 1969). Northern long-eared bat is typically found roosting in small crevices or cracks in cave or mine walls or ceilings, often with
22
only the nose and ears visible (Griffin 1940; Barbour and Davis 1969; Caire et al. 1979; Van Zyll de Jong 1985; Caceres and Pybus 1997; Whitaker and Mumford 2009).
Caire et al. (1979) and Whitaker and Mumford (2009) commonly observed individuals exiting caves with mud and clay on their fur, suggesting the bats were roosting in tighter recesses of hibernacula. They are also found hanging in the open, although not as frequently as in cracks and crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969; Whitaker and Mumford 2009). In 1968, Whitaker and Mumford (2009) observed three northern long-eared bats roosting in the hollow core of stalactites in a small cave in Jennings County, Indiana. To a lesser extent, northern long-eared bat has been found overwintering in other types of habitat that resemble cave or mine hibernacula (e.g., abandoned railroad tunnels and storm sewer drains, wells, aqueducts, etc) (Goehring 1954; Kurta and Teramino 1994; French 2011, pers. comm.; Griffin 1945).
Summer habitat - During the summer, northern long-eared bat typically roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities or crevices of both live trees and snags (Sasse and Perkins 1996; Foster and Kurta 1999; Owen et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Perry and Thill 2007; Timpone et al. 2010). Male and non-reproductive female summer roost sites also may include cooler locations (e.g., caves and mines) (Barbour and Davis 1969; Amelon and Burhans 2006). Northern long-eared bat also has been observed roosting in colonies in human-made structures (e.g., buildings, barns, a park pavilion, sheds, cabins, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, and bat houses) (Mumford and Cope 1964; Barbour and Davis 1969; Cope and Humphrey 1972; Amelon and Burhans 2006; Whitaker and Mumford 2009; Timpone et al. 2010; Joe Kath 2013, pers. comm.).
The northern long-eared bat appears to be somewhat opportunistic in tree roost selection, selecting varying roost tree species and types of roosts throughout its range (e.g., black oak (Quercus velutina), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata)) (Mumford and Cope 1964; Clark et al. 1987; Sasse and Pekins 1996; Foster and Kurta 1999; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Owen et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Perry and Thill 2007; Timpone et al. 2010). Northern long- eared bat most likely is not dependent on a certain species of trees for roosts throughout their range; rather, certain tree species will form suitable cavities or retain bark suitable for their use (Foster and Kurta 1999). Carter and Felhamer (2005) speculated structural complexity of habitat or available roosting resources are more important factors than the actual tree species.
Many studies document the selection of live trees and snags by northern long-eared bat, with a range of 10 to 53 percent selection of live roosts (Sasse and Perkins 1996; Foster and Kurta 1999; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Menzel et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Perry and Thill 2007; Timpone et al. 2010). Foster and Kurta (1999) found 53 percent of roosts in Michigan were in living trees, whereas in New Hampshire, 34 percent of roosts were in snags (Sasse and Pekins 1996). The use of live trees versus
23
snags may reflect the availability of such structures in study areas (Perry and Thill 2007) and the flexibility in roost selection when there is a sympatric bat species present (e.g., Indiana bat) (Timpone et al. 2010). In tree roosts, northern long-eared bat is typically found beneath loose bark or within cavities and have been found to use both exfoliating bark and crevices to a similar degree for summer roosting habitat (Foster and Kurta 1999; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Menzel et al. 2002; Owen et al. 2002; Perry and Thill 2007; Timpone et al. 2010).
Canopy coverage at northern long-eared bat roosts has ranged from 56 percent in Missouri (Timone et al. 2010), 66 percent in Arkansas (Perry and Thill 2007), greater than 75 percent in New Hampshire (Sasse and Pekins 1996), to greater than 84 percent in Kentucky (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001). Canopy coverage around northern long- eared bat roosts is lower than in available stands (Sasse and Pekins 1996). Females tend to roost in more open areas than males, likely due to the increased solar radiation, which aids pup development (Perry and Thill 2007). Fewer trees surrounding maternity roosts also may benefit juvenile bats learning to fly (Perry and Thill 2007). However, in southern Illinois, northern long-eared bat was observed roosting in areas with greater canopy cover than in random plots (Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Roosts are also largely selected below the canopy, which could be due to the species’ ability to exploit roosts in cluttered environments due to gleaning behavior enabling them to easily maneuver around obstacles (Foster and Kurta 1999; Menzel et al. 2002).
Northern long-eared bat females typically roost in tall, large-diameter trees (Sasse and Pekins 1996). The diameter-at-breast height (dbh) and height of northern long-eared bat roost trees is greater than random trees (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Sasse and Pekins 1996; Owen et al. 2002). However, other studies have found roost tree mean dbh and height did not differ from random trees (Menzel et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001) found northern long-eared bat roosts are located more often on upper and middle slopes than lower slopes, which suggests a preference for higher elevations due to increased solar heating.
Biology
Hibernation - Northern long-eared bat hibernates during the winter months to conserve energy from increased thermoregulatory demands and reduced food resources. In general, northern long-eared bat arrives at hibernacula in August or September, enters hibernation in October and November, and leaves the hibernacula in March or April (Caire et al. 1979; Whitaker and Hamilton 1998; Amelon and Burhans 2006). Northern long-eared bats have shown a high degree of philopatry (using the same site multiple years) for a hibernaculum (Pearson 1962), although they may not return to the same hibernaculum in successive seasons (Caceres and Barclay 2000).
Typically, northern long-eared bat is not abundant and compose a small proportion of the total number of bats hibernating in a hibernaculum (Barbour and Davis 1969; Mills 1971; Caire et al. 1979; Caceres and Barclay 2000). Although usually found in small numbers, the species typically inhabits the same hibernacula with large numbers of other bat
24 species, and occasionally are found in clusters with these other bat species. Other species that commonly occupy the same habitat include: little brown bat, big brown bat, eastern small-footed bat, tri-colored bat, and Indiana bat (Swanson and Evans 1936; Griffin 1940; Hitchcock 1949; Stones and Fritz 1969; Fitch and Shump 1979). Whitaker and Mumford (2009), however, infrequently found northern long-eared bats hibernating beside little brown bats, Indiana bats, or tri-colored bats, since they found few hanging on side walls or ceilings of cave passages. Barbour and Davis (1969) found the species is rarely found in concentrations exceeding 100 individuals in a single hibernaculum.
Northern long-eared bat often moves between hibernacula throughout the winter, which may further decrease population estimates (Griffin 1940; Whitaker and Rissler 1992b; Caceres and Barclay 2000). Whitaker and Mumford (2009) found this species flies in and out of some of the mines and caves in southern Indiana throughout the winter. In particular, the bats were active at Copperhead Cave periodically all winter, with northern long-eared bat being more active than other species (such as little brown bat and tri- colored bat) hibernating in the cave. Though northern long-eared bat flies outside of the hibernacula during the winter, they do not feed; hence the function of this behavior is not well understood (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998). However, it has been suggested bat activity during winter could be due in part to disturbance by researchers (Whitaker and Mumford 2009).
Northern long-eared bat exhibits significant weight loss during hibernation. In southern Illinois, northern long-eared bats individuals weighed an average of 6.6 g (0.2 ounces) prior to 10 January compared to an average of 5.3 g (0.2 ounces) after this date (Pearson 1962). Whitaker and Hamilton (1998) report a weight loss of 41 – 43 percent over the hibernation period for northern long-eared bat in Indiana. In eastern Missouri, male northern long-eared bat losses an average of 3 g (0.1 ounces) during the hibernation period (late October through March), and females lose an average of 2.7 g (0.1 ounces) (Caire et al. 1979).
Migration and homing - While the northern long-eared bat is not considered a long- distance migratory species, short migratory movements (56 km (35 mi) to 89 km (55 mi)) occur between summer roost and winter hibernacula (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Griffith 1945). However, movements from hibernacula to summer colonies may range from eight to 270 km (5 to 168 mi) (Griffin 1945). Several studies show a strong homing ability of northern long-eared bat in terms of return rates to a specific hibernaculum, although bats may not return to the same hibernaculum in successive winters (Caceres and Barclay 2000). Banding studies in Ohio, Missouri, and Connecticut show return rates to hibernacula of 5.0 percent (Mills 1971), 4.6 percent (Caire et al. 1979), and 36 percent (Griffin 1940), respectively. An experiment with a (intentionally) blinded bat showed the individual returned to its home cave up to 32 km (20 mi) away after being removed 3 days prior (Stones and Branick 1969). Individuals have been known to travel between 56 and 97 km (35 and 60 mi) between caves during the spring (Caire et al. 1979; Griffin 1945).
25
Summer roosts - Northern long-eared bat switches roosts often (Sasse and Perkins 1996), typically every two – three days (Foster and Kurta 1999; Owen et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Timpone et al. 2010). In Missouri, the longest time spent roosting in one tree was three nights. However, a maximum of 11 nights spent roosting in a human- made structure has been documented (Timpone et al. 2010). Bats switch roosts for a variety of reasons, including, temperature, precipitation, predation, parasitism, and ephemeral roost sites (Carter and Feldhamer 2005). Ephemeral roost sites, with the need to proactively investigate new potential roost trees prior to their current roost tree becoming uninhabitable (e.g., tree falls over), may be the most likely scenario (Kurta et al. 2002; Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Timpone et al. 2010). In Missouri, Timpone et al. (2010) radio-tracked 13 northern long-eared bats to 39 roosts and found the mean distance between the location where captured and roost tree was 1.7 km (1.1 mi) (range 0.07–4.8 km (0.04–3.0 mi), and the mean distance traveled between roost trees was 0.67 km (0.42 mi) (range 0.05–3.9 km (0.03–2.4 mi)). In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, Perry and Thill (2007) found individuals moved among snags that were within a 2 ha (5 ac) area.
Some studies have found tree roost selection to differ slightly between males and females. Northern long-eared bat males have been found to more readily use smaller diameter trees for roosting than females, suggesting males are more flexible in roost selection than females (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Perry and Thill 2007). In the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, both sexes primarily roosted in snags, although females roosted in snags surrounded by fewer midstory trees than did males (Perry and Thill 2007). In northeastern Kentucky, males do not use colony roosting sites and are typically found occupying cavities in live hardwood trees, while females form colonies more often in both hardwood and softwood snags (Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001).
The northern long-eared bat is comparable to the Indiana bat in terms of summer roost selection, but appears to be more opportunistic (Carter and Feldhamer 2005; Timpone et al. 2010). In southern Michigan, northern long-eared bat used cavities within roost trees, living trees, and roosts with greater canopy cover more often than does the Indiana bat, which occurred in the same area (Foster and Kurta 1999). Similarly, in northeastern Missouri, Indiana bat typically roosted in snags with exfoliating bark and low canopy cover, whereas northern long-eared bat used the same habitat in addition to live trees, shorter trees, and trees with higher canopy cover (Timpone et al. 2010). Although northern long-eared bats are more opportunistic than Indiana bat, there may be a small amount of roost selection overlap between the two species (Foster and Kurta 1999; Timpone et al. 2010).
Reproduction - Breeding occurs from late July in northern regions to early October in southern regions and commences when males begin to swarm hibernacula and initiate copulation activity (Whitaker and Hamilton 1998; Whitaker and Mumford 2009; Caceres and Barclay 2000; Amelon and Burhans 2006). Copulation occasionally occurs again in the spring (Racey 1982). Hibernating females store sperm until spring, exhibiting a delayed fertilization strategy (Racey 1979; Caceres and Pybus 1997). Ovulation takes place at the time of emergence from the hibernaculum, followed by fertilization of a
26 single egg, resulting in a single embryo (Cope and Humphrey 1972; Caceres and Pybus 1997; Caceres and Barclay 2000); gestation is approximately 60 days (Kurta 1994). Males are reproductively inactive until late July, with testes descending in most males during August and September (Caire et al. 1979; Amelon and Burhans 2006).
Maternity colonies, consisting of females and young, are generally small, numbering from 30 to 60 individuals (Whitaker and Mumford 2009; Caceres and Barclay 2000). However, one group of 100 adult females was observed in Vermilion County, Indiana (Whitaker and Mumford 2009). In West Virginia, maternity colonies in two studies had a range of 7–88 individuals and 11–65 individuals, with a mean size of 31 (Owen et al. 2002; Menzel et al. 2002). Lacki and Schwierjohann (2001) found population size of colony roosts declined as summer progressed with pregnant females using the largest colonies (mean=26) and post-lactating females using the smallest colonies (mean=4), with the largest overall reported colony size of 65 bats. Other studies also found number of individuals within a maternity colony typically decreases from pregnancy to post- lactation (Foster and Kurta 1999; Lacki and Schwierjohann 2001; Garroway and Broders 2007; Perry and Thill 2007; Johnson et al. 2012). Female roost site selection, in terms of canopy cover and tree height, changes depending on reproductive stage; relative to pre- and post-lactation periods, lactating northern long-eared bat has been shown to roost higher in tall trees situated in areas of relatively less canopy cover and tree density (Garroway and Broders 2008).
Adult females give birth to a single pup (Barbour and Davis 1969). Birthing within the colony tends to be synchronous, with the majority of births occurring around the same time (Krochmal and Sparks 2007). Parturition (birth) likely occurs in late May or early June (Caire et al. 1979; Easterla 1968; Whitaker and Mumford 2009), but may occur as late as July (Whitaker and Mumford 2009). Broders et al. (2006) estimated a parturition date of July 20 in New Brunswick. Lactating and post-lactating females were observed in mid-June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979), July in New Hampshire and Indiana (Sasse and Pekins 1996; Whitaker and Mumford 2009), and August in Nebraska (Benedict 2004). Juvenile volancy (flight) occurs by 21 days after parturition (Krochmal and Sparks 2007; Kunz 1971) and as early as 18 days after parturition (Krochmal and Sparks 2007). Subadults were captured in late June in Missouri (Caire et al. 1979), early July in Iowa (Sasse and Pekins 1996), and early August in Ohio (Mills 1971). Adult longevity is estimated to be up to 19 years (Hall 1957; Kurta 1995). Most mortality for northern long-eared bat occurs during the juvenile stage (Caceres and Pybus 1997).
Foraging behavior and home range - The northern long-eared bat has a diverse diet including moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Brack and Whitaker 2001; Griffith and Gates 1985), with diet composition differing geographically and seasonally (Brack and Whitaker 2001). Feldhamer et al. (2009) noted close similarities of all Myotis diets in southern Illinois. Griffith and Gates (1985) found significant differences in the diets of northern long-eared bat and little brown bat. The most common insects found in the diets of northern long-eared bat are lepidopterans (moths) and coleopterans (beetles) (Feldhamer et al. 2009; Brack and Whitaker 2001) with arachnids (spiders) also being a common prey item (Feldhamer et al. 2009).
27
Foraging techniques include hawking and gleaning, in conjunction with passive acoustic cues (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993; Ratcliffe and Dawson 2003). Hawking is aerial foraging; catching insects in flight through the use of echolocation. Northern long-eared bat has the highest frequency call of any bat species in the Great Lakes area (Kurta 1995). Observations of northern long-eared bat foraging on arachnids (Feldhamer et al. 2009), presence of green plant material in their feces (Griffith and Gates 1985), and non-flying prey in their stomach contents (Brack and Whitaker 2001) suggest considerable gleaning behavior. Gleaning allows this species to gain a foraging advantage for preying upon moths because moths are less able to detect these high frequency echolocation calls (Faure et al. 1993). Emerging at dusk, most hunting occurs above the understory, 1 to 3 m (3 to 10 ft) above the ground, but under the canopy (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993) on forested hillsides and ridges, rather than along riparian areas (Brack and Whitaker 2001; LaVal et al. 1977). This coincides with data indicating mature forests are an important habitat type (Caceres and Pybus 1998). Occasional foraging also takes place over forest clearings and water and along roads (Van Zyll de Jong 1985). Foraging patterns indicate a peak activity period within five hours after sunset followed by a secondary peak within eight hours after sunset (Kunz 1973). Brack and Whitaker (2001) did not find significant differences in the overall diet between morning (3 a.m. to dawn) and evening (dusk to midnight) feedings. However there were some differences in the consumption of particular prey orders between morning and evening feedings. Additionally, no significant differences existed in dietary diversity values between age classes or sex groups (Brack and Whitaker 2001).
Female home range size may range from 19 to 172 ha (47–425 acres) (Lacki et al. 2009). Owen et al. (2003) estimated average maternal home range size to be 65 ha (161 ac). Home range size of northern long-eared bat in this study site was small relative to other bat species, but this may be due to the studies timing (during the maternity period) and the small body size of northern long-eared bat (Owen et al. 2003). The mean distance between roost trees and foraging areas of radio-tagged individuals in New Hampshire was 620 m (2034 ft) (Sasse and Pekins 1996).
Recovery and Management
The most important recovery action for the northern long-eared bat is to stop or slow the spread of white-nose syndrome (WNS). WNS is a disease responsible for unprecedented mortality in hibernating bats in the northeast, and continues to spread throughout the range of the northern long-eared bat. Although conservation efforts have been undertaken to help reduce the spread of the disease through human-aided transmission, these efforts have only been in place for a few years and it is too early to determine how effective they are in decreasing the rate of spread.
Previous Incidental Take Authorizations
In the Midwest, rapid wind development is a concern for bats (Baker 2011, pers. comm.; Kath 2012, pers. comm.). Due to the known adverse effects from wind energy development, the Service, State natural resource agencies, and wind energy industry
28
representatives are developing the Midwest Wind Energy Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The planning area includes the Midwest Region of the Service, which includes all or portions of the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The MSHCP would allow permit holders to proceed with wind energy development, which may result in "incidental" taking of a listed species under section 10 of the Act, through issuance of an incidental take permit (77 FR 25754). Currently, the northern long-eared bat is being considered for inclusion as covered species under the MSHCP. The MSHCP will address protection of covered species through avoidance, minimization of take, and mitigation to offset take (e.g., habitat preservation, habitat restoration, habitat enhancement) and help ameliorate the adverse effects of wind development (77 FR 52754). In some cases, the U.S. Forest Service has agreed to limit or restrict burning in the central hardwoods from mid- to late April through summer to avoid periods when bats are active in forests (Dickinson et al. 2010).
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
This section describes the species status and trend information within the action area. It also includes State, tribal, local, and private actions already affecting the species or that will occur contemporaneously with the proposed action, including Federal actions that have completed formal or informal consultation (50 CFR 402.02). The environmental baseline is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline provides the basis from which to judge the effects of the action.
For recovery permits issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) in the Service’s Southeast Region, see Previous Incidental Take Authorizations section for Arkansas fatmucket. No other formal consultations have occurred within the action area for these three mussels. Additionally, the Service completes numerous informal consultations on these three mussel species each year.
Status of the species within the action area
These three mussels, like many other southeastern mussel species, have undergone reductions in total range and population density. Information on the baseline status of Arkansas fatmucket was obtained from the Service’s draft 5-year review (C. Davidson, pers. comm. 2013). Information for spectaclecase and rabbitsfoot were obtained from the final listing rules, respectively (69 Federal Register 24875; 78 Federal Register 57076).
In the Ouachita River, Arkansas fatmucket populations were never believed to be large. However, the species was widely distributed upstream of Lake Ouachita at the time of federal listing. One live Arkansas fatmucket was collected during 2007 surveys (C. Davidson, pers. comm.). Two other sites upstream of Lake Ouachita are considered extant based on Scott (2004) and Christian et al. (2006). However, the three extant sites upstream of Lake Ouachita are represented collectively by six individuals (Figure 3).
29
Two of the extant sites occur downstream of Board Camp Creek, approximately 3.4 and 7.6 river miles. Land use activities and widespread gravel mining activities are speculated to be the primary sources of population declines in the upper Ouachita River.
A single relict shell (paired valves) of spectaclecase was found in the Ouachita River upstream of Lake Ouachita, Montgomery County, Arkansas, in 2000. Recent efforts in 2013 (at seven sites) to locate live spectaclecase in the Ouachita River from Arkansas Highway 298 to the inundation pool of Lake Ouachita failed to locate any live or dead specimens (J. Harris, pers. comm. 2013).
The rabbitsfoot is extant in a short reach (five sites) of the Ouachita River headwaters from Arkansas Highway 379 south of Oden, Montgomery County, Arkansas, to one mile downstream of Arkansas Highway 298 east of Pencil Bluff, Montgomery County, Arkansas (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) Mussel Database 2011; C. Davidson, Service, pers. comm. 2013). Four live rabbitsfoot individuals were collected from two sites surveyed in 1988 (AGFC Mussel Database 2011). During a 2007 survey, no live or dead rabbitsfoot were found at the 1988 sites. However, nine live rabbitsfoot individuals were collected and released at a newly discovered site, approximately 38 river miles downstream of the Board Camp Creek confluence, in this same reach, and two fresh dead individuals were found at two additional sites.
Northern long-eared bat is considered common in the Ouachita Mountains (Perry and Thill 2007). There is no population data for northern long-eared bat in the action area.
Factors affecting species environment within the action area
Arkansas Fatmucket, Spectaclecase, and Rabbitsfoot
The central reason for the decline of freshwater mussels is the modification and destruction of their habitat, especially from sedimentation, dams, and degraded water quality (Neves et al. 1997). Dams eliminate and alter river flow within impounded areas, trap silt leading to increased sediment deposition, alter water quality, change hydrology and channel geomorphology, decrease habitat heterogeneity, affect normal flood patterns, and block upstream and downstream movement of mussels and fish (Layzer et al. 1993; Neves et al. 1997; Watters 2000). Within impounded waters, decline of mussels has been attributed to direct loss of supporting habitat, sedimentation, decreased dissolved oxygen, temperature levels, and alteration in resident fish populations (Neves et al. 1997; Pringle et al. 2000; Watters 2000). Approximately 100 river miles of the main stem Ouachita River is inundated by Lakes Ouachita, Hamilton, and Catherine. Within the action area, the Service identified three broad categories of factors affecting the status and distribution of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot: 1) population fragmentation and isolation, 2) sedimentation, and 3) chemical contaminants.
Population Fragmentation and Isolation – Population fragmentation and isolation prohibit the natural interchange of genetic material between populations. Populations of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot in the Ouachita River upstream of
30
Lake Ouachita are small and geographically isolated, and, thus, are susceptible to genetic drift, inbreeding depression, and stochastic changes to the environment. Inbreeding depression can result in early mortality, decreased fertility, smaller body size, loss of vigor, reduced fitness, and various chromosome abnormalities (Smith 1990). Although changes in the environment may cause populations to fluctuate naturally, small and low- density populations are more likely to fluctuate below a minimum viable population size (the minimum or threshold number of individuals needed in a population to persist in a viable state for a given interval) (Shaffer 1981; Shaffer and Samson 1985; Gilpin and Soulé 1986). Furthermore, this level of isolation makes natural repopulation of any extirpated population unlikely without human intervention. Population isolation prohibits the natural interchange of genetic material between populations, and small population size reduces the reservoir of genetic diversity within populations, which can lead to inbreeding depression (Avise and Hambrick 1996).
The likelihood is high Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot populations in the Ouachita River upstream of Lake Ouachita are below the effective population size (EPS– the number of individuals in a population who contribute offspring to the next generation), based on restricted distribution and populations only represented by a few individuals, and achieving the EPS is necessary for a population to adapt to environmental change and maintain long-term viability. Isolated populations eventually are extirpated when population size drops below the EPS or threshold level of sustainability (Soulé 1980). Evidence of recruitment in these populations is scant, making recruitment reduction or outright failure suspect. These populations may be experiencing the bottleneck effect of not attaining the EPS. Without genetic interchange, small, isolated populations could be slowly expiring, a phenomenon termed the extinction debt (Tilman et al. 1994, pp. 65–66). Even given the absence of existing or new anthropogenic threats, disjunct populations may be lost as a result of current below- threshold effective population size. Additionally, evidence indicates that general habitat degradation continues to decrease habitat patch size, further contributing to the decline of these mussel populations.
Sedimentation – Excessive sediments may adversely affect riverine mussel populations requiring clean, stable streams (Ellis 1936; Brim Box and Mossa 1999). Adverse effects resulting from sediments have been noted for many components of aquatic communities. Potential sediment sources within a watershed include natural events and anthropogenic activities that disturb the land surface. Most localities occupied by these three mussels are currently being affected to varying degrees by sedimentation.
Sedimentation has been implicated in the decline of mussel populations nationwide, and remains a threat to mussels in the Ouachita River (Ellis 1936; Vannote and Minshall 1982; Dennis 1984; Brim Box and Mosa 1999; Fraley and Ahlstedt 2000; Poole and Downing 2004). Specific biological effects include reduced feeding and respiratory efficiency from clogged gills, disrupted metabolic processes, reduced growth rates, limited burrowing activity, physical smothering, and disrupted host fish attraction mechanisms (Ellis 1936; Marking and Bills 1979; Vannote and Minshall 1982; Waters 1995; Hartfield and Hartfield 1996). In addition, mussels may be indirectly affected if
31
high turbidity levels significantly reduce the amount of light available for photosynthesis, and thus, the production of certain food items (Kanehl and Lyons 1992).
Primary effects of excess sediment levels on mussels may be sublethal, with detrimental effects not immediately apparent (Brim Box and Mossa 1999). The physical effects of sediment on mussel habitat appear to be multifold, and include changes in suspended and bed material load; bed sediment composition associated with increased sediment production and runoff in the watershed; channel changes in form, position, and degree of stability; changes in depth or width and depth ratio that affects light penetration and flow regime; actively aggrading (filling) or degrading (scouring) channels; and changes in channel position. These effects to habitat may dislodge, transport downstream, or leave mussels stranded (Vannote and Minshall 1982; Kanehl and Lyons 1992; Brim Box and Mossa 1999). For example, many Arkansas streams (such as the Ouachita River) supporting mussels have become increasingly silted in over the past century (EPA 2013), reducing habitat for mussels.
Increased sedimentation and siltation may explain in part why mussel populations are experiencing recruitment failure in some streams. Interstitial spaces in the substrate provide crucial habitat (shelter and nutrient uptake) for juvenile mussel survival. When interstitial spaces are clogged, interstitial flow rates and spaces are reduced (Brim Box and Mossa 1999), and this decreases habitat for juvenile mussels. Furthermore, sediment may act as a vector for delivering contaminants, such as nutrients and pesticides, to streams, and juvenile mussels may ingest contaminants adsorbed to silt particles during normal feeding activities. Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot reproductive strategies depend on clear water (enables fish hosts to see mussel lures) during critical reproductive periods.
Agricultural activities also are responsible, in part, for sediment affecting rivers in the United States (Waters 1995). Grazing may reduce infiltration rates, decrease filtering capacity of pollutants (thereby increasing sedimentation run-off), and trampling and eventual elimination of woody vegetation reduces bank resistance to erosion and contributes to increased water temperatures (Armour et al., 1991; Trimble and Mendel, 1995; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999; Henley et al., 2000).
Erosion from silvicultural activities accounts for six percent of national sediment pollution (Henley et al., 2000). Sedimentation effects are more the result of logging roads than from the actual harvesting of timber (Waters, 1995; Brim Box and Mossa, 1999). Annual run-off and/or peak flow volumes increase with timber harvests, particularly during the wet season (Allan 1995). This is partially due to the construction of logging roads, and vegetation removal tends to compact soils, reduce infiltration rates, and increase soil erosion. Increased flows and improper harvesting within streamside management zones may result in stream channel changes (Brim Box and Mossa, 1999) that may ultimately affect mussel beds.
Roads and trails are active sources of sediment. Existing studies clearly demonstrate, while local and regional details vary, OHV trails result in accelerated erosion.
32
Detrimental effects from OHV activity on National Forest lands include severely eroded soils and degraded water quality due to trail generated sediment (Foltz 2006). Studies from six national forests found OHV use increases erosion and sediment loss in all cases (Foltz 2006). Welsh (2008) compared sediment delivery from forest roads and OHV trails and sediment production per unit of area was six times greater, on average, from the trails. Most sediment reaching stream channels from OHV trails occurs from steep hill slope trail sections near stream crossings (Ayala et al. 2005) and valley bottoms (Welsh 2008). OHV trails have substantial detrimental effects on water quality, sediment yield, and stream bed sedimentation and subsequently stream ecology (Riedel 2006).
Sediment Loading from Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex – 1990 to 2012 – Prior to 1992, WPG Trail Complex consisted of a series of old woods roads improved over time with low OHV use (Clingenpeel 2013). Circa 1992, a series of non-designed connector trails were constructed to connect these roads (ONF 2010, pers. comm.). ONF dedicated WPG Trail Complex in June, 1992. Estimated number of users increased to approximately 10,000 users by 1998 and peaked in 2010 at 13,655 users (USFS 2013a). Estimated sediment budgets from WPG roads and trails from 1990 – 2012 are shown in Figure 4 (ONF, unpublished WEPP dataset, 2013).
In December, 2000, the trail system was closed until March, 2002, due to ice storm damage. As a result, there was a subsequent modeled reduction in sediment yield to 547 tons per year (Figure 4; ONF, unpublished WEPP dataset, 2013). ONF began implementation of the Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex Interim Management Plan in September, 2010 (USFS 2010). This action resulted in closure of four trails that collectively were contributing approximately 25 percent of the total WPG road and trail sediment budget.
Estimated sediment yield from an undisturbed forest in the southeastern U.S. is approximately 0.02 – 0.1 ton per acre (Dougherty et al. 2009; USFS 2013a). In January 2010, WPG Trail Complex consisted of 23.4 and 18.3 miles of roads and trails, respectively. Average road and trail width is 14 and eight feet, respectively. Total surface area of roads and trails in WPG equals approximately 39.7 and 17.7 acres, respectively. An undisturbed 57.4 acre forest would yield 1.1 to 5.7 tons of sediment per year compared to 1,645 tons of sediment per year for the same road and trail area in WPG during 2010.
WPG Trail Complex has detrimentally affected the structure and habitat quality of pools in Gap and Board Camp Creeks. These detrimental effects are reflected in fine sediments in pools concurrent with a decrease in pool depth and volume compared to pools in a reference watershed unaffected by OHV activity (Chin et al. 2004; Clingenpeel 2013).
Watershed effects leading to increased sediment supply can overload stream sediment carrying capacity. Mass wasting of sediment may be accelerated by roads and/or alteration of slope hydrology. Stream channel adjustments due to sediment loading may lead to accelerated bank erosion and bar (gravel) deposition and a concurrent increase in the channel width/depth ratio (Rosgen 1996). Similar stream channel adjustments in
33
Board Camp Creek have been observed by ONF and Service staff. Measurements of pool surface area, volume, and maximum depth for Board Camp and Gap Creeks indicate declining trends (Clingenpeel 2013).
Clingenpeel (2013) estimated sediment loss from stream bank erosion in Board Camp and Gap Creek reaches located within the ONF. The total sediment load from bank erosion was 968.5 tons per year. No data is available for bank erosion downstream of ONF on private land. TNC is currently conducting a more comprehensive analysis of stream bank erosion using stream bank erosion risk rating (BEHI). While Clingenpeel (2013) estimates were taken from a small data set, it provides some insight into watershed-level sediment effects from the trail complex and potential sediment loading associated with accelerated bank erosion.
2000 1800 1600 year)
1400 per
1200 (tons 1000 800 Budget
600 400 Sediment 200 0 1990 1992 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2011 2012
Figure 4: Sediment budget for Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex, roads and trails combined, 1990 – 2012 (ONF, unpublished WEPP dataset, 2013).
In a recent unpublished study of the WPG Trail Complex, channel erosion and widening, deposition of large sediment plugs, increased mud coating on substrate surface, and changes in bed material size were evident in upstream versus downstream comparisons at 93 percent (13 of 14 sites) of unimproved stream crossings in the WPG Trail Complex. Only one site showed all these detrimental effects. Sediment sources on the trails are renewed over time. Where OHV use is currently allowed, downstream increases in mud coating and sediment deposition are more common. This suggests the occurrence of past OHV traffic is more important than the recentness of OHV use, at least with respect to detrimental stream effects and as opposed to degradation of trail surfaces (D. Marion, pers. comm. 2013).
Heavy OHV use can accelerate erosion, compact soils, and decrease infiltration, leading to changes in discharge magnitude and timing, stream channel structure, sediment routing through streams, and habitat degradation (in Chin et al. 2004). ONF has taken numerous steps to mitigate sediment loading in WPG since 2010. These efforts include, but may
34 not be limited to, 1) emergency trail closures, 2) trail design reconstruction (e.g., install arch culverts or concrete mats at stream crossings), and 3) installation and maintenance of trail BMPs (e.g., sediment basins, rolling dips).
Chemical Contaminants – Chemical contaminants are ubiquitous in the environment and are considered a major threat in the decline of mussel species (Richter et al. 1997; Strayer et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2007a; Cope et al. 2008). Chemicals enter the environment through point and nonpoint discharges including spills, industrial and municipal effluents, and residential and agricultural runoff. These sources contribute organic compounds, heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, and a wide variety of newly emerging contaminants such as pharmaceuticals to the aquatic environment. Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot are susceptible to chemical contaminants that degrade water and sediment quality and subsequently may result in adverse effects.
Cope et al. (2008) evaluated the pathways of exposure to environmental pollutants for all four freshwater mollusk life stages (free glochidia, encysted glochidia, juveniles, adults) and found that each life stage has both common and unique characteristics that contribute to observed differences in exposure and sensitivity. Almost nothing is known of the potential mechanisms and consequences of waterborne toxicants on sperm viability. In the female mollusk, the marsupial region of the gill is thought to be physiologically isolated from respiratory functions, and this isolation may provide some level of protection from contaminant interference with a female’s ability to achieve fertilization or brood glochidia (Cope et al. 2008). A major exception to this assertion is with chemicals that act directly on the neuroendocrine pathways controlling reproduction (see discussion below). Nutritional and ionic exchange is possible between a brooding female and her glochidia, providing a route for chemicals (accumulated or waterborne) to disrupt biochemical and physiological pathways (such as maternal calcium transport for construction of the glochidial shell). Glochidia can be exposed to waterborne contaminants for up to 36 hours until encystment occurs; between 2 and 36 hours, and then from fish host tissue burdens (for example, atrazine), that last from weeks to months and could affect transformation success of glochidia into juveniles (Ingersoll et al. 2007).
Juvenile mussels typically remain burrowed beneath the sediment surface for 2 to 4 years. Residence beneath the sediment surface necessitates deposit (pedal) feeding and a reliance on interstitial water for dissolved oxygen (Watters 2007, p. 56). The relative importance of exposure of juvenile mussels to contaminants in overlying surface water, interstitial water, whole sediment, or food has not been adequately assessed. Exposure to contaminants from each of these routes varies with certain periods and environmental conditions (Cope et al. 2008).
The primary routes of exposure to contaminants for adult mussels are surface water, sediment, interstitial (pore) water, and diet; adults can be exposed when either partially or completely burrowed in the substrate (Cope et al. 2008). Adult mussels have the ability to detect toxicants in the water and close their valves to avoid exposure (Van Hassel and Farris 2007). Adult mussel toxicity and relative sensitivity (exposure and uptake of toxicants) may be reduced at high rather than at low toxicant concentrations because
35
uptake is affected by the prolonged or periodic toxicant avoidance responses (when the avoidance behavior of keeping their valves closed can no longer be sustained for physiological reasons (respiration and ability to feed) (Cope et al. 2008). Toxicity results based on low–level exposure of adults are similar to estimates for glochidia and juveniles for some toxicants (for example, copper). The duration of any toxicant avoidance response by an adult mussel is likely to vary due to several variables, such as species, age, shell thickness and gape, properties of the toxicant, and water temperature. There is a lack of information on toxicant response(s) for Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase and rabbitsfoot, but results of tests using glochidia and juveniles may be valuable for protecting adults (Cope et al. 2008).
Agriculture, timber harvest, and lawn management practices utilize nutrients and pesticides. These are two broad categories of chemical contaminants that have the potential to adversely affect mussel species. Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, primarily occur in runoff from livestock farms, feedlots, heavily fertilized row crops and pastures (Peterjohn and Correll 1984, p. 1471), post timber management activities, and urban and suburban runoff, including leaking septic tanks, and residential lawns.
Studies have shown that excessive nitrogen concentrations can be lethal to the adult freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) and reduce the life span and size of other mussel species (Bauer 1988; Bauer 1992). Nutrient enrichment can result in an increase in primary productivity, and the associated algae respiration depletes dissolved oxygen levels. This may be particularly detrimental to juvenile mussels that inhabit the interstitial spaces in the substrate where lower dissolved oxygen concentrations are more likely than on the sediment surface where adults tend to live (Sparks and Strayer 1998).
Northern Long-eared Bat
The WPG Project is predominantly composed of pine hardwood forests. Land use in the action area is predominately forest and pasture land. Timber production and forest management activities are implemented across the action area. Northern long-eared bat has philopatric tendencies. Loss or alteration of forest habitat, particularly disturbance forcing females from roost trees, can stress females when returning to summer roost and foraging areas after hibernation (Hein 2012). Henderson et al. (2008) also found forest fragmentation effects on northern long-eared bat at different scales based on sex; females require a larger unfragmented area with a large number of suitable roost trees to support a colony, whereas males are able to use smaller areas (more fragmented). In Arkansas, Perry and Thill (2007) found northern long-eared bat males seem to prefer more dense stands for summer roosting, with 67 percent of male roosts occurring in unharvested sites versus 45 percent of female roosts. The greater tendency of females to roost in more open forested areas than males may be due to greater solar radiation experienced in these openings, which could speed growth of young in maternity colonies (Perry and Thill 2007).
White-nose syndrome (WNS) is an emerging infectious disease responsible for unprecedented mortality in hibernating insectivorous bats of the northeastern United
36
States (Blehert et al. 2009), and poses a considerable threat to several hibernating bat species throughout North America (Service 2010). Since its first documented appearance in New York in 2006, WNS has spread rapidly throughout the Northeast and is expanding through the Midwest. As of August 2013, WNS has been confirmed in 22 States (Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia) and 5 Canadian provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec). Three additional States (Arkansas, Iowa, and Oklahoma) are considered suspect for WNS based on the detection of the causative fungus on bats within those States, but with no associated disease to date.
Although WNS has not yet been detected in Arkansas, the fungus causing WNS was detected in two caves in northern Arkansas in 2012. The aggressive spread of WNS across North America, suggests the disease will continue to spread south into the action area. WNS is the primary threat to northern long-eared bat. If all habitat-related stressors were eliminated or minimized, the significant impacts of WNS on the northern long-eared bat would still be present.
EFFECTS OF THE ACTION
This section includes an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the species and/or critical habitat and its interrelated and interdependent activities.
The ONF’s implementation of the proposed action will result in two primary effects:
1. The destruction and/or degradation of 6 acres of upland and riparian forested habitat (e.g., Board Camp and Gap Creeks only), alteration of stream hydrology and geomorphology (e.g., Board Camp and Gap Creeks only), degradation of instream habitat via sediment transport and loading from Board Camp and Gap Creeks, and water quality degradation due to increased sediment transport (i.e., the detrimental effects), and
2. Conservation of these mussels in the Ouachita River headwaters (i.e., the positive effects).
The positive effects are intended to minimize and mitigate the detrimental effects of the existing WPG Trail Complex. These positive effects are expected to provide a variety of results including, but not necessarily limited to:
1. Reduce sediment transport into stream channels from OHV trails and roads,
2. Protect stream channels in the WPG Trail Complex by eliminating OHV contact within stream channels. The WPG Trail Complex currently has approximately 371 stream crossings and 239 of the crossings are unimproved fords, and
37
3. Restore 1.2 miles of OHV routes within 100 feet of a major stream to natural condition.
Detrimental effects associated with WPG Trail Complex include, but are not necessarily limited to:
1. Sediment transport from trails, roads, and stream banks,
2. Sediment transport during construction of structures to replace unimproved fords,
3. Sediment transport from bare, erodible soils during obliteration of roads and trails,
4. Altered hydrology due to increased overland flow in Gap and Board Camp Creeks, and
5. Stream channel adjustments due to sediment loading leading to accelerated bank erosion and bar (gravel) deposition and a concurrent increase in the channel width/depth ratio.
6. Potential loss of suitable northern long-eared bat habitat, including roost trees and foraging habitat.
While analyzing effects of the proposed action, the Service considered the following factors:
1. Proximity of the action – Known species locations in relation to the action area and proposed action.
2. Distribution –Where the proposed action will occur and the likely effects of the activities.
3. Timing –The likely effects in relation to sensitive periods of the species’ life cycle.
4. Nature of the effects –How the effects of the action may be manifested in elements of the species’ life cycle, population size or variability, or distribution, and how individual animals may be affected.
5. Duration –Whether the effects are short-term, long-term, or permanent.
6. Disturbance frequency –How the proposed action will be implemented in terms of the number of events per unit of time.
7. Disturbance intensity – The effect of the disturbance on a population or species.
38
8. Disturbance severity – How long we expect the adverse effects to persist and how long it would take a population to recover.
Proximity of the action: WPG Trail Complex is located in the headwater reach of Board Camp Creek, a tributary to the Ouachita River. ONF ownership in WPG Trail Complex is approximately six river miles upstream of the Board Camp Creek confluence. The Ouachita River upstream of Lake Ouachita contains one of eight extant Arkansas fatmucket populations dispersed across three major watersheds (upper Ouachita, Saline, and Caddo) in Arkansas; one of 20 extant spectaclecase populations dispersed across 11 states; and one of 51 extant rabbitsfoot populations dispersed across 13 states. Proposed critical habitat for rabbitsfoot includes the Ouachita River from Arkansas Highway 379 south of Oden, Arkansas, downstream to Arkansas Highway 298 east of Pencil Bluff, Arkansas (Unit RF4a; 13.6 river miles). This proposed critical habitat reach is located approximately 30 river miles downstream of the Board Camp Creek confluence. Northern long-eared bat is a forest species found throughout the ONF in areas with suitable habitat.
Distribution: The proposed action will occur in the Gap and Board Camp Creek watersheds (Appendix A). The WPG Trail Complex has approximately 371 stream crossings. Most of these streams are ephemeral or intermittent, with Gap and Board Camp Creeks being the only perennial streams in the WPG Trail Complex. Effects of the proposed action on Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot will occur in the Ouachita River downstream of the Board Camp Creek confluence.
Effects of the proposed action include increased sediment transport from erosion of trails and roads in upland and riparian areas, aggradation and/or degradation of stream beds, and lateral movement of channels into stream banks (i.e., stream bank erosion) leading to excessive sediment loading (i.e., sedimentation of mussel habitat in the Ouachita River). Altered watershed hydrology resulting from the OHV trail and road system further exacerbates sediment loading. Sediment loading consists of suspended (smaller particles transported in the water) and bed loads (larger particles on the stream bottom that move by sliding or rolling along the substrate surface). These two sediment loads respectively affect the flowing water and streambed substrate, the two major parts of the environment of freshwater mussels.
Destruction of upland forest habitat from the construction of new trails results in a loss of foraging and roosting habitat for northern long-eared bats.
Timing: Adverse effects related to the timing of the proposed action cannot be quantified due to external factors affecting sediment loading that cannot be predicted such as weather (i.e., rainfall or storm events) and length of time required for stream recovery from a disturbed to stable, healthy condition. There are several possible mechanisms for sediment effects on mussels. We expect detrimental effects will occur during all life stages (glochidia to adult), including sensitive periods such as brooding (see Status of Species section) and the temporary parasitic larval stage. Detrimental effects are expected to result in harm and/or harassment due to degradation of water quality and/or
39
habitat that may cause mortality of glochidia, juveniles, and adults, primarily as a result of increased suspended sediment loading, sedimentation (deposited sediment), and other habitat related effects.
Exposure of host fish to suspended sediment reduces attachment and metamorphosis success of glochidia (Beussink 2007). The increased radius of the gill tips, where a large proportion of glochidia normally attach, caused by fusion, clubbing, and loss of lamellae may provide a less suitable geometry for glochidia to grasp, thus reducing attachment success. Fish coughing induced by sediment may dislodge loosely attached glochidia before encapsulation. In addition to reduced attachment success, the proportion of glochidia successfully transformed is reduced following host exposure to suspended sediment. A likely mechanism involves the relationship between the keratocyte migration and encapsulation. Excessive sediments also can expose juvenile mussels to entrainment or predation and be detrimental to survival of juvenile mussels (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996). Detrimental effects of suspended sediment on mussel reproduction are most likely if high sediment loads coincide with mussel reproductive events.
Direct effects of the action to northern long-eared bat include potential loss of primary or secondary roost trees. Tree felling conducted outside of the maternity season will avoid direct take. However, because of unfavorable weather conditions and the reluctance to affect forest soils if undertaken during cold winter months, some activities might take place during the active season. Northern long-eared bat surveys prior to tree removal will also avoid the likelihood of direct take.
Nature of the effects: It is likely the proposed action will have a variety of effects on Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot individuals and populations. Physical and biological characteristics of a stream will change with the addition of large quantities of sediment (Waters 1995). Specific biological effects associated with sediment include, but may not be limited to:
1. Reduced feeding and respiratory efficiency from clogged gills.
2. Disrupted metabolic processes.
3. Reduced growth rates.
4. Limited burrowing activity.
5. Physical smothering.
6. Vector for delivering contaminants such as nutrients and pesticides.
7. Decrease food production due to reduced light availability for photosynthesis.
40
8. Affects sight-feeding fish that serve as host for mussels to complete their life cycle.
9. Gill trauma and the variety of associated physiological effects (e.g., hyperplasia and hypertrophy of gill cells and tissue, inflammatory responses including mucus secretion, increased hematocrit, erosion, branchial leasions and fusion of gill surfaces, and susceptibility to infection).
10. Reduced attachment and metamorphosis success of glochidia.
11. Detrimental effects not immediately apparent.
Specific physical effects associated with sediment include, but may not be limited to:
1. Altered suspended and bed material loads.
2. Clogged interstitial habitats.
3. Reduced interstitial flow rates and dissolved oxygen levels.
4. Changed channels in form, position, and degree of stability.
5. Altered depth or width/depth ratio that affects light penetration and flow regime.
6. Reduced channel capacity exacerbating downstream bank erosion.
7. Aggraded (filling) or degraded (scouring) channels.
8. Changed channel position that dewater habitats formerly inhabited by mussels/fish.
Loss of familiar roost trees and associated foraging habitat, while adverse in the short- term to northern long-eared bat, are not expected to have long-term consequences for a colony because of the remaining forested habitat within the known foraging range of the species (Sparks et al. 2005) and the propensity of the species to utilize alternative roost sites (Carter and Feldhammer 2005).
Duration: Detrimental effects may be temporary and/or permanent. Road and trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and obliteration near streams and at stream crossings will have temporary effects, opposed to OHV trails and roads that have permanent effects. The fate of sediments washed downstream and the length of time required for complete removal or assimilation are unknown and difficult to estimate since it may include many tributaries in the Board Camp Creek watershed removed from occupied habitat in the Ouachita River. Other variables that affect the duration include,
41
but may not be limited to, weather, time elapsed from disturbance(s) detection (e.g., sediment basin ≥ 50 percent capacity) and rectifying the problem (i.e., removing sediment from sediment basin), level of OHV use, and season (e.g., wet vs. dry).
Disturbance frequency: ONF proposes 269 stream crossing improvements in association with trail and road construction and reconstruction over a five year period. The proposed action, once fully implemented and assuming effective maintenance, will result in 892 tons of sediment per year delivered from the WPG Trail Complex (roads and trails only) to Board Camp Creek and its tributaries. This level of sediment loading is expected to continue annually thereafter. An additional 968.5 tons of sediment per year is estimated to enter Gap and Board Camp Creeks from stream bank erosion attributed to excessive sediment loading from the trail and road complex. We are unable to predict whether this rate of stream bank erosion will continue, decrease, or increase after the proposed action is fully implemented. Other variables discussed above under the Duration section apply to disturbance frequency. The disturbance frequency cannot be predicted with accuracy due to the nature of project-specific effects and uncertainty regarding whether stream stability and recovery in Board Camp Creek will occur.
Disturbance intensity: The intensity of the disturbance is difficult to estimate. We do not know how much habitat may be affected, how weather will influence the effects, and how far removed the effects will be from occupied habitat. The proposed action is expected to have greater effects on populations of Arkansas fatmucket located near the confluence of Board Camp Creek. The adverse effects associated with project-specific effects within the action area are expected to occur without significant reductions in the spectaclecase and rabbitsfoot population size and distribution since these species occur 30 or more river miles downstream of Board Camp Creek.
Disturbance severity: Temporary effects from trail construction, reconstruction, and obliteration are expected to occur sporadically over a five year time frame. We cannot predict tons of sediment associated with these activities or the severity of effects. Given that most, if not all, of these activities will occur during dry periods and with BMPs, we expect the severity to be minimal compared to other components of the proposed action discussed below.
We expect sediment loading from trails and roads will decrease from its current (modeled) level of approximately 1,645 tons of sediment per year gradually during a five year period to its predicted (modeled) level of 892 tons of sediment per year once trail construction, reconstruction, and obliteration is complete. Following this initial five year period, OHV use and ONF maintenance of the trail complex, assuming ONF maintains BMPs to maximize efficiency, is expected to contribute approximately 892 tons of sediment per year indefinitely. We expect this value to vary yearly due to factors such as number of users, weather and timeliness and ability of ONF to maintain BMPs to maximize efficiency.
Natural stream channel stability is achieved by allowing the river or creek to develop a stable dimension, pattern, and profile, such that, over time, channel features are
42
maintained and the river or creek system neither aggrades nor degrades. Channel instability occurs when the scouring (flushing) process leads to degradation or excessive sediment deposition results in aggradation. Stable rivers and creeks consistently transport their sediment load, both in size and type, associated with local deposition and scour (Rosgen 1996).
Geomorphic instability can result in the loss of interstitial habitats and juvenile mussels due to scouring or deposition (Hartfield 1993). Sediment loading from WPG trails and roads is responsible, in part, for extensive bank erosion leading to an additional 968.5 tons of sediment per year (Clingenpeel 2013). We are unable to predict the sediment load from WPG trails and roads necessary to facilitate recovery (geomorphic stability with a healthy aquatic fauna) in Gap and Board Camp Creeks. It has been suggested some recovery of the fish community in Gap and Board Camp Creeks occurs when sediment loading from WPG trails and roads is less than 568 tons of sediment per year (Clingenpeel 2012). Despite questions raised by Roghair and Dolloff (2013) and Crump (2012) related to Clingenpeel’s (2012) assumptions derived from a limited fish dataset and the need for additional fish community monitoring before making inference from the fish data that habitat degradation is occurring in WPG streams, Service policy is to err on the side of the species while using the best available scientific information. In this case, we determined 568 tons of sediment per year from WPG trails and roads to be the threshold for adverse effects to Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot. Therefore, we expect stream recovery may take a decade or longer since Gap and Board Camp Creeks are already overburdened with sediment. Population level effects will persist until stream geomorphology stabilizes.
Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot, similar to other mussels, are dependent on areas with flow refuges (see Status of Species section). These habitat conditions provide space, cover, shelter, and sites for breeding, reproduction, and growth of offspring for these mussels. These habitats are formed and maintained by water quantity, channel features (dimension, pattern, and profile), and sediment input to the system through periodic flooding, which maintains connectivity and interaction with the flood plain, and are dynamic. Changes in one or more of these parameters can result in channel degradation or aggradation, with serious effects to mussels.
Analyses for effects of the action
Beneficial Effects
Beneficial effects are those effects of an action that are wholly positive, without any adverse effect, on a listed species or designated critical habitat. The Service has determined the beneficial effects associated with the proposed action are limited to conservation measures designed to minimize effects of OHVs and sedimentation of streams.
43
Direct effects
Direct effects are the direct or immediate effects of the agency action on the species or its habitat. Direct effects include the effects of any interrelated or interdependent actions. Interrelated actions are part of the proposed action and depend on the proposed action for justification. Interdependent actions are those actions that have no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. Future federal actions that are not a direct effect of the action under consideration are not considered in this BO. The proposed action occurs on ONF lands in the Board Camp Creek headwaters and is approximately six river miles removed from the Ouachita River, where Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot populations occur. Therefore, the Service has determined there are no direct effects associated with the proposed action.
Surveys for northern long-eared bat prior to tree felling are designed to detect the likelihood of the species in the action area. However, an individual could avoid capture or detection. This could result in the removal of an occupied roost tree.
Indirect effects
Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. The Service has identified several likely indirect effects of the proposed action. These indirect effects are discussed in greater detail in the following sections and in previous sections.
Tree clearing as part of OHV and road construction scheduled during the hibernation period could result in the removal of roost trees, rendering them unavailable to pregnant bats that exhibit roosting area and/or roost tree fidelity following emergence from the hibernacula in the spring. However, decreases in the long-term reproductive success and viability of the colony in the area are unlikely because of the remaining habitat on the surrounding landscape.
Habitat Degradation – Adverse effects may degrade the quality of habitat in the action area. Altered hydrology in Gap and Board Camp Creeks, suspended and bed sediment loading and sedimentation may lead to a loss in the availability and quality of remaining habitat in the Ouachita River. Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot may be indirectly affected by permanent and temporary habitat degradation and/or loss through alteration to stream geomorphology characteristics, and may indirectly affect habitat quality until conditions stabilize and become suitable for recolonization. It is expected that over time degradation of habitat in the action area may increase as cumulative effects continue to occur.
Food Availability, Reproduction, and Metabolic Processes – Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot may be indirectly affected by limitation or reduction in available food, harassment during brooding or to infected host fish, or disruption of metabolic processes. Specific biological effects are discussed above under the eight factors analyzed for indirect effects.
44
Global Climate Change – Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The term “climate change” thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 2007). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
Mussels can be placed into thermal guilds, thermally sensitive and thermally tolerant species, according to their response to warm summer water temperatures greater than 35 °C (95 °F) (Spooner and Vaughn 2008). Although we do not have physiological data on Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot, closely related species, Lampsilis cardium and Quadrula pustulosa, are thermally sensitive (Spooner and Vaughn 2008). Data for the Kiamichi River in Oklahoma suggests that, over the past 17 years as water and air temperatures have increased, mussel beds once dominated by thermally sensitive species are now dominated by thermally tolerant species (Galbraith et al. 2010; Spooner and Vaughn 2008). As temperature increases due to climate change, these mussels may experience population declines as warmer rivers are more suitable for thermally tolerant species.
The unique natural history traits of bats and their susceptibility to local temperature, humidity, and precipitation patterns make them an early warning system for effects of climate change in regional ecosystems (Adams and Hayes 2008). The ability of successful reproductive effort in female insectivorous bats is related directly to roost temperatures and water availability (Adams and Hayes 2008). Climate change may result in warmer winters, which could lead to a reduced period of hibernation, increased winter activity, and reduced reliance on the relatively stable temperatures of underground hibernation sites (Jones et al. 2009). An earlier spring would presumably result in a shorter hibernation period and the earlier appearance of foraging bats (Jones et al. 2009). An earlier emergence from hibernation may have no detrimental effect on population size if sufficient food is available (Jones et al. 2009); however, predicting future insect population dynamics and distributions is complex (Bale et al. 2002). Alterations in precipitation, stream flow, and soil moisture could influence insect populations in such a way as to potentially alter food availability for bats (Rodenhouse et al. 2009).
Warmer winter temperatures may also disrupt bat reproductive physiology. Northern long-eared bats breed in the fall and spermatozoa are stored in the uterus of hibernating females until spring ovulation. If bats experience warm conditions they may arouse from hibernation prematurely, ovulate, and become pregnant (Jones et al. 2009). Given this dependence on external temperatures, climate change is likely to affect the timing of
45
reproductive cycles (Jones et al. 2009), but whether these effects would be to the detriment of the species is largely unknown.
The proposed action is likely to result (directly and/or indirectly) in the emission of greenhouse gases. While it is likely the observed increase in global average temperatures is due to the observed increase in human-induced greenhouse gas concentrations, the best scientific data available today does not allow us to draw a causal connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and effects posed to the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, or northern long-eared bat, nor is there sufficient data to establish that such effects are reasonably certain to occur.
At present, there is a lack of scientific or technical knowledge to determine a relationship between OHV activities and OHV trail and road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and obliteration in the action area and effects of these activities on global climate change. Furthermore, there is no traceable nexus between these vehicles and any particular effect to listed species or their habitats. Consequently, the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from activities in WPG Trail Complex do not constitute an indirect effect to the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat as a result of this proposed action.
Summary of Indirect Effects – The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbisfoot, and other freshwater mussels in general, make them extremely susceptible to environmental change. Unlike other aquatic organisms (e.g., aquatic insects and fish), mussels have limited refugia from stream disturbances (e.g., sedimentation). The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects. While these stressors may act in isolation, it is more probable that many stressors are acting simultaneously (or in combination) (Galbraith et al. 2010).
The indirect effects of the proposed action will be quantified based on sediment loading from trails and roads in the WPG Trail Complex and stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks located within the ONF boundary. Data is not available to estimate sediment loading from stream banks in Board Camp Creek downstream of the ONF boundary. In the absence of more comprehensive watershed analysis, we are unable to estimate sediment contributions associated with indirect effects from the WPG Trail Complex on private property (e.g., stream banks downstream of the ONF boundary).
We expect sediment loading from trails and roads will decrease from its current level of approximately 1,645 tons of sediment per year gradually during a five year period to its predicted level of 892 tons of sediment per year once trail construction, reconstruction, and obliteration is complete. Following this initial five year period, OHV use and ONF maintenance of the trail complex, assuming ONF maintains BMPs to maximize efficiency, is expected to contribute approximately 892 tons of sediment per year
46
indefinitely. We expect this value to vary yearly due to factors such as number of users, weather and timeliness and ability of ONF to maintain BMPs to maximize efficiency.
Sediment loading from WPG trails and roads is responsible, in part, for extensive bank erosion leading to an additional 968.5 tons of sediment per year (Clingenpeel 2013). We are unable to predict the sediment load from WPG trails and roads necessary to facilitate recovery (geomorphic stability with a healthy aquatic fauna) in Gap and Board Camp Creeks. It has been suggested some recovery of the fish community in Gap and Board Camp Creeks occurs when sediment loading from WPG trails and roads is less than 568 tons of sediment per year (Clingenpeel 2012). Despite questions raised by Roghair and Dolloff (2013) and Crump (2012) related to Clingenpeel’s (2012) assumptions and a limited fish dataset, additional fish community monitoring is required before making inference from the fish data that habitat degradation is occurring in WPG streams. Service policy is to err on the side of the species while using the best available scientific information. In this case, we determined 568 tons of sediment per year from WPG trails and roads to be the threshold for adverse effects to Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsoot. Therefore, we expect since Gap and Board Camp Creeks are already overburdened with sediment stream recovery may take a decade or longer. Population level effects will persist until stream geomorphology stabilizes.
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the combined effects of any non-Federal action (e.g., future State, local, or private actions) reasonably certain to occur within the action area covered in this BO/CO. Future Federal actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation under section 7 of the Act. In particular, many of the large-scale activities that could occur in the action area, such as highway development, storm water permits, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ 404 permits, would have a federal nexus that require an independent consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Numerous land use activities that affect the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat and that likely occur within the action area include: timber harvest, recreational use, and development associated with road, residential, industrial and agricultural development and related activities. These private actions are likely to occur within the action area, but the Service is unaware of any quantifiable information relating to the extent of private timber harvests and recreational use within the action area. Similarly, the Service does not have any information on the amount of residential, industrial, or agricultural development that has or will occur within the action area. The Service is unable to make any determinations or conduct any meaningful analysis of how these effects with no quantifiable information may or may not adversely and/or beneficially affect these species. We can say it is possible these activities, when they occur, may have cumulative effects on these species and their habitats in certain situations. In stating this, however, we can only speculate as to the extent or severity of those effects, if any.
47
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot and northern long-eared bat, the environmental baseline for the action area, effects of the proposed action, and cumulative effects of the proposed action, it is the Service’s BO/CO the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat and is not likely to adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for rabbitsfoot. No critical habitat has been designated for Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and northern long-eared bat.
Because of our analysis, we do not believe the proposed action “would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat (50 CFR 402).” In fact, we believe that neither survival nor recovery will be reduced appreciably for reasons summarized later in this section.
For the proposed action to “reduce appreciably” the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat recovery, the proposed action would have to impede or stop the process by which these species ecosystems are restored, and/or threats to these species removed, so that self-sustaining and self-regulating populations can be supported as persistent members of native biotic communities (Service and NMFS 1998, pages 4-35). We do not believe the proposed action impedes or stops the recovery process for the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat because:
1. We are reasonably certain the proposed action will result in incidental take of some individuals but the proposed action is not a significant threat to the species as a whole and, therefore, does not rise to the level of jeopardy.
2. No component of the proposed action is expected to result in harm, harassment, or mortality at a level that would appreciably reduce the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long- eared bat.
3. The adverse effects to Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, rabbitsfoot, and northern long-eared bat associated with the proposed action will have minor effects on these species. Additionally, as a result of the proposed action, these adverse effects will be minimized through Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Terms and Conditions that implement those RPMs.
4. The primary threats to the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot recovery are destruction and alteration of habitat at inhabited sites and at the watershed level (holistic effects on aquatic ecosystems). The proposed action does not directly affect individuals at inhabited sites nor are we reasonably certain
48
that watersheds will be degraded to the point at which they cannot sustain the species.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which included, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the ONF so they become binding conditions of any grant, contract, or permit issued to an applicant, contractor, or permittee, as proper, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Service has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this Incidental Take Statement. If the ONF (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require contractors or other parties conducting work on behalf of the ONF to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement through enforceable terms added to the permit, contract, or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the effect of incidental take, the ONF must monitor and report the progress of the action and its effects to the Service as specified in the Incidental Take Statement.
AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ANTICIPATED
Mussels
Incidental take of the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
1. The individuals are small and occupy aquatic habitats making them generally difficult to find,
2. Demographic and environmental randomness and variability,
49
3. Corpses are generally preyed upon by other fish, turtles, birds, and mammals or quickly rot,
4. Finding dead or injured specimens during or following project implementation is unlikely,
5. Implemented actions will not affect all available habitat within the project area or within the Ouachita River watershed, and
6. Most incidental take will be non-lethal.
However, the Service anticipates incidental take of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot is reasonably certain to occur because:
1. Biological effects associated with direct exposure to increases in suspended and bed sediment loading and sedimentation will result in decreased reproduction, growth, and survival,
2. Loss, modification, and/or alteration of suitable habitat associated with altered watershed hydrology, stream geomorphology, substrate composition, interstitial flow rates and dissolved oxygen levels, and sedimentation, will lead to decreased host availability for Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot and result in decreased recruitment.
The Service anticipates up to 1,077 tons of sediment per year (i.e., baseline condition of 1,645 tons of sediment minus adverse effect threshold of 568 tons of sediment per year) from WPG trails and roads and 968.5 tons of sediment per year from stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks may alter and/or degrade mussel habitat in the Ouachita River downstream of Board Camp Creek confluence as a result of the proposed action.
Because of the difficulty in determining a level of take based on the number of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot that likely will be adversely affected, the Service has decided that it is appropriate to quantify the level of authorized incidental take using tons of sediment per year. This value is derived from erosion of WPG trails and roads and stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks that will be affected by ONF’s proposed action. Therefore, the level of take anticipated in this BO/CO is 1,077 tons of sediment per year from WPG trails and roads and 968.5 tons of sediment per year from stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks, as defined above, over a five year period extending from January, 2014 – January, 2019. The Service will re-evaluate the level of incidental take anticipated beyond January 1, 2019 prior to January 1, 2019. The incidental take statement anticipates the taking of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot only from the actions associated with the proposed action.
50
Northern Long-eared Bat
The Service anticipates incidental take of northern long-eared bat is reasonably certain to occur in the form of harassment and harm through the potential effect of removing suitable and/or occupied roost trees. However, the Service anticipates incidental take of the northern long-eared bat will be difficult to detect for the following reasons:
1. The individuals are small and occupy summer habitats where they are difficult to find;
2. Northern long-eared bats form small, widely dispersed maternity colonies under loose bark or in the cavities of trees, and males and non-reproductive females may roost individually which makes finding the species or occupied habitats difficult;
3. Finding dead or injured specimens during or following project implementation is unlikely;
4. The extent and density of the species within its summer habitat in the action area is unknown;
5. Most incidental take that could occur is expected to be non-lethal and undetectable.
Because it is not practical to quantify take of northern long-eared bats in terms of individuals, and the anticipated take would result from removing trees for new trail construction in summer habitat for the species, the acreage of the affected habitat is an appropriate surrogate measure of incidental take. The ONF anticipates removing 6 acres of wooded areas of northern long-eared bat habitat within the new construction footprint of roads and trails in the WPG Trail Complex, which was determined to be six acres of northern long-eared bat habitat.
Although the prohibitions against taking species found in section 9 of the Act do not apply until the northern long-eared bat is listed, the Service advises the ONF to consider implementing the following reasonable and prudent measures for the northern long-eared bat. When the listing rule is published as final, the ONF may request the Service to adopt this conference opinion for the northern long-eared batas a biological opinion, and once adopted, these measures, with their implementing terms and conditions, will become non- discretionary. After listing and until a biological opinion authorizing incidental take is adopted, the ONF is not exempt from the prohibition against taking listed species.
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, ONF must implement the action as proposed. If ONF wishes to modify the action including conservation measures, we suggest ONF contacts the Service for further recommendations for reinitiation of this consultation (see the REINITIATION NOTICE in subsequent pages of this document).
51
EFFECT OF THE TAKE
In this BO/CO, the Service determined this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize effects of incidental take of the Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot associated with ONF’s proposed action:
1. The ONF will implement the proposed action as described above in this BO/CO and in accordance with the terms and conditions that implement RPMs 2 – 12.
2. The ONF will prioritize trail construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and obliteration based on sediment loading and number of stream crossings.
3. The ONF will install and maintain stable stream crossings and approaches to maximize sediment load reductions.
4. The ONF will install and maintain sediment basins in WPG Trail Complex to maximize sediment load reductions.
5. The ONF will install and maintain rolling dips, reverse and enhanced reverse grades, and drain dips to maximize sediment load reductions.
6. The ONF will install and maintain drainage features at seeps and other areas prone to poor drainage to maximize sediment load reductions.
7. The ONF will monitor sediment loading associated with WPG Trail Complex to assess efficacy of sediment load minimization measures.
8. The ONF will implement wet weather management and maintain documentation supporting adherence to management guidelines to maximize sediment load reductions.
9. The ONF will monitor OHV use to assess the efficacy of sediment load minimization measures relative to the level of OHV use.
10. The ONF will monitor the fish community and physical characteristics in Board Camp and Gap Creeks to assess the efficacy of sediment load minimization
52
measures.
11. The ONF will develop and provide educational materials to OHV users on responsible use of the WPG Trail Complex and importance of adhering to rules established to minimize and/or prevent loss of fish and wildlife.
12. The ONF will inform the Service of ongoing and planned activities in the WPG Trail Complex.
The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize effects of incidental take of the northern long-eared bat associated with ONF’s proposed action:
13. The ONF will minimize the accidental cutting of roost trees occupied by northern long-eared bat.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the ONF must comply with the following Terms and Conditions, which carry out the Reasonable and Prudent Measures described above and outline required reporting/monitoring requirements. These Terms and Conditions are non-discretionary.
Arkansas Fatmucket, Spectaclecase, and Rabbitsfoot
This Term and Condition is associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 1.
1. ONF will fully implement the proposed action by the end of calendar year 2018. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 2.
1. All ONF roads and trails in the WPG Trail Complex proposed for construction or reconstruction will be constructed to forest standards by the end of calendar year 2018.
2. By March 15, 2014, ONF will provide the Service with a list of trail and road construction and reconstruction prioritized, in the following order, by: (1) sediment load based on WEPP analysis (i.e., trails/roads with higher sediment loads will receive higher priority), and (2) number of stream crossings (i.e., trails/roads with more stream crossings will receive higher priority). An expected timeframe for initiation and completion of each task associated with road and trail construction or reconstruction will be included in the list.
53
3. ONF will implement trail and road construction or reconstruction based on the prioritized list specified in Number 2 above.
4. ONF will not implement new construction or reconstruction activities if the soil disturbance cannot be stabilized (i.e., installation of temporary and/or permanent BMPs) before rainfall is likely to occur.
5. ONF will harden (e.g., paver block hardening) highly erodible trail and road segments (i.e., trail and road segments that cannot be maintained with normal maintenance techniques and intervals) with a high potential for sediment delivery.
6. ONF will install temporary BMPs during project delays to minimize sediment delivery to streams.
7. ONF maintenance frequency for all trails and roads will be sufficient to ensure proper function of trail/road BMPs and will be completed within 30 days of identifying a dysfunctional BMP.
8. ONF will ensure all cross drain structures are functioning.
These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 3.
1. By March 15, 2014, ONF will provide the Service with a list containing specific locations of all stream crossings. This list, at minimum, will contain current type of stream crossings (e.g., culvert, plank, dirt, rock, bridge crossing, etc.), planned upgrades (e.g., dirt/gravel upgraded to bottom-less culvert crossing), expected completion date for upgrades, whether or not trail/road approaches are stabilized, supporting data documenting stability of trail/road approaches, expected completion date to complete trail/road approach stabilization, and anticipated maintenance requirements for each crossing and approach.
2. ONF will inspect all stream crossings for scour, debris in channel, sedimentation, tread wear at stream approaches, and condition of reverse grades and cut-off water breaks to assure functionality.
3. ONF will strive for zero sediment discharge during installation of new stream crossing structures.
4. ONF will harden approaches to stream crossings with hardened crossing approaches, mobile hardened aprons, or paver block hardening as specified in Technical Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control for OHV Trails in WPG (Poff 2012).
5. ONF will ensure stream crossings and approaches are functioning to design standards specified in Technical Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control
54
for OHV Trails in WPG (Poff 2012).
6. ONF will only install rocked watercourse crossings if no other alternatives exist. ONF will monitor rocked watercourse crossings for development of plunge pools and stream channel aggradation or degradation and will promptly address changes to channel geomorphology.
7. ONF will ensure cut-off water breaks are not connected to streams. ONF will minimize the length of trail between the cut-off water break and stream crossing.
8. ONF will maintain maintenance records for all stream crossings and approaches.
9. ONF will provide the Service annual reports documenting activities performed under Numbers 1 – 8 above. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 4.
1. By March 15, 2014, ONF will provide the Service with a list containing specific location of all sediment basins in the WPG Trail Complex, a unique identifier for each sediment basin, present capacity to capture sediment, condition (i.e., function and wear) of overflow outlet and energy dissipater, condition of secondary sediment basins located down slope of primary sediment basin (if any), presence/absence of untrapped sediment and distance down slope of sediment basin (including documentation of whether untrapped sediment reached a stream channel), and date of last inspection.
2. ONF will document field inspections and condition (i.e., capacity to capture sediment) of each sediment basin, document reason(s) for any corrective action(s) (e.g., design flaws with basin or trail, high trail use, heavy rains, etc), and document corrective action(s) taken and time lapse between identification of problem and implementation of remedy.
3. ONF will ensure sediment basin capacity to capture sediment is sufficient to capture sediment predicted before next scheduled maintenance.
a. ONF will place the appropriate number of markers in each sediment basin to measure and monitor the basin capacity to capture sediment. Type of marker and placement location will be subject to safety considerations.
b. If sediment basin requires emptying prior to next scheduled maintenance, ONF will ensure sediment basins are emptied within 30 days of identifying a dysfunctional sediment basin.
4. ONF will ensure overflow outlet, energy dissipater, and sediment traps for each sediment basin are functioning to design standards. Evidence of sediment plume on the forest floor will indicate improper function.
55
5. New and reconstructed sediment basins will be designed to capture a minimum of 1.5 times anticipated sediment collected between maintenance cycles.
6. ONF will provide the Service annual reports documenting activities performed under Numbers 1 – 5 above. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 5.
1. ONF will install and maintain rolling dips, reverse and enhanced reverse grades and drain dips as specified in Technical Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control for OHV Trails in WPG (Poff 2012), unless otherwise specified below.
Rolling Dips
1. ONF will locate rolling dips to (1) allow for proper installation of other erosion control structures (e.g., sediment basin) and (2) ensure trail/road runoff does not reach a stream channel.
2. ONF will space rolling dips 25 – 75 feet apart for slopes ≥ 5 percent. a. For slopes of 5 – 10 percent, install rolling dips 75 feet apart. b. For slopes of 11 – 20 percent, install rolling dips 50 feet apart. c. For slopes greater than 20 percent, install rolling dips 25 feet apart. d. Rolling dips may be placed at closer intervals than specified in Number 2a – 2c. e. Rolling dip spacing may exceed spacing requirements in Number 2a – 2c in areas where topography limitations exist.
3. ONF will harden rolling dips that cannot otherwise be maintained through normal maintenance activities. Reverse and Enhanced Reverse Grades
1. ONF will ensure reverse and enhanced reverse grades are supplemented with an energy dissipater, sediment trap, or sediment basin as necessary to maximize sediment load reductions.
2. ONF will install reverse grades with an effective outslope gradient to allow runoff to drain freely from the trail and with drain outlets capable of absorbing runoff on a low or flat gradient slopes adjacent to trail. Drain Dips
1. ONF will locate drain dips as a stop-gap treatment, not a long-term solution to trail/road drainage.
2. ONF will ensure outlets remain open.
56
This Term and Condition is associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 6.
1. ONF will install and maintain French and/or sheet drains to drain trail and road wet spots and seeps as specified in Technical Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control for OHV Trails in WPG (Poff 2012). These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 7.
1. ONF will fund USGS sediment monitoring at two stations in Board Camp Creek and one station in Gap Creek for a minimum of five years beginning in fiscal year 2014.
2. ONF will conduct a WEPP analysis, or comparable analysis, annually (2014 – 2018) for the entire WPG Trail Complex. This assessment will produce an estimate of sediment loads from trails and roads within the WPG Trail Complex. Results from the analysis will be provided to the Service by March 1 of each year beginning in 2015.
3. ONF will conduct an assessment of stream geomorphic stability and bank erosion in key representative reaches of Board Camp and Gap Creeks in Year 1 (2014) and Year 5 (2018). This assessment will produce an estimate of sediment loads from stream banks. The monitoring methods will support development of in- stream channel erosion rates by providing measured lateral erosion and vertical aggradation or degradation values.
4. ONF will conduct an assessment of sediment basin efficiency in Year 1 (2014) and Year 5 (2018).
5. ONF will identify and implement effective methods to monitor both the amount of sediment moving from the trail system into sediment basin and trap features as well as the timing and amount of sediment over topping basins and traps in relation to rainfall.
6. ONF will develop a sediment budget for the WPG Trail Complex consisting of erosion and soil loss from the OHV trails and roads, stream bank erosion, and in- channel sediment storage.
7. ONF will monitor sedimentation in a subset (consisting of, at minimum, the 14 stations assessed by USFS Southern Research Station) of small stream channels (less than 0.4 km2) at stream crossings in the WPG Trail Complex during Year 3 (2016) and Year 5 (2018). Specifically, ONF will measure channel erosion and widening, deposition of large sediment plugs, mud coating on substrate surface, and changes in bed material size at 14 sites (baseline) studied by the Southern Research Station.
8. ONF will conduct a “critical site assessment” in Year 1 (2014), Year 3 (2016), and Year 5 (2018). This assessment will include a trail-wide assessment
57
evaluating variables such as trail and road connectivity to streams, sediment delivery, and other site conditions necessary to continually improve and update prioritization sediment reduction measures throughout the WPG Trail Complex.
9. ONF will provide the Service a copy of all reports or data associated with Numbers 1 – 8 above. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 8.
1. ONF will monitor precipitation and maintain precipitation records for the WPG Trail Complex.
2. ONF will implement wet weather management protocols following all 0.4 inch rainfall events in a 24 hour period. A rainfall event will start with the first hour of measured rainfall and continue until there is no measured rainfall for a 4 hour period.
3. ONF will conduct wet weather management monitoring the same day for rainfall events ending between 12:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. For rainfall events ending between 10:01 a.m. and 11:59 p.m., ONF will conduct monitoring no later than the following day. All monitoring will be subject to safety considerations.
4. ONF will monitor and implement all aspects of wet weather management. Stream connectivity, trail drainage structure stability, and soil moisture monitoring will occur at a sufficient number of sites to be representative of the entire WPG Trail Complex.
5. If trail conditions are inadequate as defined in the wet weather management protocol, ONF will continue to document trail conditions until monitoring results show site conditions suitable for trail re-opening.
6. ONF will implement wet weather management and trail closures/reopening according to procedures specified in the Wet Weather Management Protocol (see Appendix B).
7. ONF will identify and record potential resource issues while in route to wet weather monitoring stations.
8. ONF will install all wet weather management gates by March 1, 2014, and erect barricades at trail heads and other access points as necessary to enforce closures at the WPG Trail Complex.
9. Pending written justification and Service concurrence, ONF may adjust wet weather monitoring locations to meet changing conditions during project implementation.
58
10. ONF will provide the Service annual reports documenting activities performed under Numbers 1 – 9 above. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 9.
1. ONF will monitor user numbers for each season of use. ONF (2013) defines the seasons of use as:
a. Second Friday of March through October 31.
b. Three days before Thanksgiving through two days after Thanksgiving.
c. December 25 through January 2.
2. ONF will continue to enforce laws and implement policies to prevent and discourage illegal OHV presence in the WPG Trail Complex.
3. ONF will provide the Service annual reports documenting activities performed under Numbers 1 and 2 above.
These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 10.
1. ONF monitor stream biota by conducting Basin Area Stream Survey (B.A.S.S.) assessments in Year 2 (2016) and Year 5 (2018). ONF will continue monitoring Caney and Brushy Creeks concurrent with Board Camp and Gap Creeks both to strengthen the baseline dataset and increase confidence in long-term trends.
2. ONF will monitor physical characteristics of Board Camp and Gap Creeks in Year 2 (2016) and Year 5 (2018). Sampling should include, but may not be limited to, channel form, substrate, embeddedness, instream cover, and shade canopy.
3. ONF will provide the Service reports documenting activities performed under Numbers 1 and 2. These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 11.
1. ONF will post educational materials at each trail head and on the internet site for WPG Trail Complex to inform users of responsible OHV practices necessary to protect natural resource damage.
2. ONF will develop and distribute an educational brochure for the WPG Trail Complex to inform users of responsible OHV practices necessary to protect natural resource damage.
59
These Terms and Conditions are associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 12.
1. The ONF will meet twice annually with the Service to review status of activities ongoing and planned for WPG.
2. The ONF will provide the Service with an annual report of activities in the WPG Trail Complex. The report will include, but may not be limited to, all reporting requirements specified in the terms and conditions implementing RPMs 1 – 12.
Northern Long-eared Bat
This Term and Condition is associated with Reasonable and Prudent Measure 13.
1. The ONF will survey for northern long-eared bat prior to tree removal. The ONF will follow Indiana bat summer survey guidance unless otherwise approved by the Service.
a. If northern long-eared bat is not present, proceed with tree clearing.
b. If northern long-eared bat is present, tree removal should occur while the bats are in hibernation (November 15 – March 15). The Reasonable and Prudent Measures, with their Terms and Conditions, are designed to minimize the effect of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. The Service believes that an indeterminate number of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot will be incidentally taken as a result of the proposed action, with incidental take occurring at an estimated rate of 1,077 tons of sediment per year from WPG trails and roads and 968.5 tons of sediment per year from stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks over a five year period extending from January, 2014 – January, 2019. If during the course of the action, ONF exceeds this level of sediment loading (leading to incidental take of Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot), such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures. The ONF must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review the need for possible modification of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to use their authorities to further the purpose of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse impacts of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
1. Offset the sediment contribution of WPG Trail Complex with commensurate sediment reductions upstream of the Board Camp Creek confluence.
60
2. Assist with Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot propagation and augmentation efforts in the Ouachita River.
3. Work cooperatively with Polk County to identify erosion problems and implement corrective action(s) on county roads in the WPG Trail Complex.
4. Ensure ONF roads and trails are designed and maintained to Forest Service standards.
5. Reduce road and trail connectivity with the Ouachita River and its tributaries upstream of Lake Ouachita.
REINITIATION NOTICE
This concludes formal consultation regarding the Service’s participation in and approval of the voluntary FES Conservation Agreement and its effects on the SP, RF, and YCD. As provided in 50 CFR Sec 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Service involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if:
1. The amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is exceeded,
2. New information reveals effects of ONF’s action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered,
3. ONF’s action, including conservation measures, is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in the BO/CO, or
4. A new species is listed, or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action.
In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
For this BO/CO, the authorized take for Arkansas fatmucket, spectaclecase, and rabbitsfoot would be exceeded when the take exceeds 1,077 tons of sediment per year from roads and trails in WPG and 968.5 tons of sediment per year from stream bank erosion in Gap and Board Camp Creeks (ONF ownership only) (as defined in the Incidental Take Statement) over a period extending from 2014 – December 2018. The authorized take for northern long-eared bat is six acres. These are the amounts of habitat that are exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act by this BO/CO. This consultation was assigned FWS ID Number 43421-2013-F-0735. Please refer to this number in any correspondence concerning this consultation.
61
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, R. A. and M. A. Hayes. 2008. Water availability and successful lactation by bats as related to climate change in arid regions of western North America. Journal of Animal Ecology 77: 1115-1121.
Allan, J. D. 1995. Stream Ecology. Modification of running waters by humankind. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Allan, J. D. and A. S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity Conservation in Running Waters. BioScience 43:32-43
Amelon, S., and D. Burhans. 2006. Conservation assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (northern long-eared bat) in the eastern United States. Pages 69-82 in Thompson, F. R., III, editor. Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the eastern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, General Technical Report NC-260. St. Paul, Minnesota. 82 pp.
Anthony, J. L., D. H. Kesler, W. L. Downing, and J. A. Downing. 2001. Length-specific growth rates in freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae): extreme longevity or generalized growth cessation? Freshwater Biology 46:1349-1359.
Armour, C. L., D. A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 16(1):7-11.
Avise, J. C., and J. L. Hambrick, eds. 1996. Conservation genetics: case histories from nature. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Ayala, R. D., P. Srivastava, C. J., Brodbeck, E. A. Carter, and T. P McDonald. 2005. Modeling sediment transport from an off-road vehicle trail stream crossing using WEPP model: In: Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting. St. Joseph, MI. Paper Number 052017.
Baird, M. S. 2000. Life history of the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta Say, 1829 (Bivalvia, Unionoidea, Margaritiferidae). Unpublished M.S. thesis, Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield. 108 pp.
Bale, J. S., G. J. Masters, I. D. Hodkinson, C. Awmak, T. M. Bezemer, V. K. Brown, J. Butterfield, A. Buse, J. C. Coulson, J. Farrar, J. E. Good, R. Harrington, S. Hartley, T. Hefin Jones, R. L. Lindroth, M. C. Press, I. Symrnioudis, A. D. Watt, J. B. Whittaker. 2002. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Global Change Biology 8:1-16.
Barbour, R. W. and W. H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Kentucky. 63
Bauer, G. 1988. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in Central Europe. Biological Conservation 45(4):239-253.
Bauer, G. 1992. Variation in the life span and size of the freshwater pearl mussel. Journal of Animal Ecology 61:425-436.
Benedict, R. A., H. H. Genoways, and P. W. Freeman. 2000. Shifting distributional patterns of mammals in Nebraska. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences 26:55-84.
Brack, V. 2007. Temperatures and Locations Used by Hibernating Bats, Including Myotis sodalis (Indiana Bat), in a Limestone Mine: Implications for Conservation and Management. Journal of Environmental Management 40:739–746.
Brack, V., and J. O. Whitaker. 2001. Foods of the northern myotis,Myotis septentrionalis, from Missouri and Indiana, with notes on foraging. Acta Chiropterol. 3: 203–210.
Brim Box, J. B. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18(1):99-117.
Broders, H.G., Forbes, G.J., Woodley, S., Thompson, I.D., 2006. Range extent and stand selection for roosting and foraging in forest-dwelling northern long-eared bats and little brown bats in the Greater Fundy ecosystem, New Brunswick. J. Wildl. Manage. 70, 1174–1184.
Bruenderman, S. A., and R. J. Neves. 1993. Life history of the endangered fine-rayed pigtoe, Fusconaia cuneolus (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in the Clinch River, Virginia. American Malacological Bulletin 10(1):83-91.
Buchanan, A. C. 1980. Mussels (Naiades) of the Meramec River basin. Missouri Dept. of Conservation Aquatic Series, No. 17. 68pp. Beussink, Z. S. 2007. The Effects of Suspended Sediment on the Attachment and Metamorphosis Success of Freshwater Mussel Parasitic Life Stages. Dissertation Missouri State University, Springfield.
Butler, R. S. 2005. Status assessment report for the rabbitsfoot, Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica, a freshwater mussel occurring in the Mississippi river and Great Lakes Basins. Unpublished Report, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the Ohio River Valley Ecosystem Team Mollusk Subgroup, Asheville, NC. 208 pp.
Butler, R. S. 2002. Status assessment for the spectaclecase, Cumberlandia monodonta, occurring in the Mississippi River system (US Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 3, 4, 5, and 6). Report by Ohio Valley Ecosystem Team, Mollusk Subgroup.
64
Caceres, M. C., and M. J. Pybus. 1997. Status of the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, Wildlife Status Report No. 3, Edmonton, AB.
Caceres, M. C., and R. M. R. Barclay. 2000. MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS. Mammalian Species No. 634:1-4.
Caire, W., R. K. LaVal, M. L. LaVal, and R. Clawson. 1979. Notes on the ecology of MYOTIS KEENII (Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae) in Eastern Missouri. Amer. Midl. Nat. 102(2):404-407.
Call, R. E. 1895. A study of the Unionidae of Arkansas, with incidental reference to their distribution in the Mississippi Valley. Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis 3 (1).
Carter, Timothy C. and G. Feldhamer. 2005. Roost tree use by maternity colonies of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats in southern Illinois. Forest Ecology and Management 219: 259–268.
Chin, A., D. M. Rohrer, D. A. Marion, J. A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of all-terrain vehicles on stream dynamics. General Technical Report SRS-74. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Pp. 292-296.
Christian A. D., J. L. Farris, J. L. Harris, M. S. Barnett, and S. E. Seagraves. (Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, State University AR). 2006. Life history and population biology of the federally threatened Arkansas fatmucket [Lampsilis powellii (I. Lea 1852)] and the state special concern Ouachita creekshell [Villosa arkansasensis (I. Lea 1862)]. Final Report. Hot Springs (AR): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ouachita National Forest. 83 p.
Clark, B.K, Bowles, J.B. and B.S. Clark. 1987. Status of the endangered Indiana bat in Iowa. American Midland Naturalist, 118(1): 32-39.
Clingenpeel, J. A. 2012a. Analysis of basin area stream survey (BASS) data for streams influenced by the Wolf Pen Gap OHV road and trail complex. Unpublished File Report. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Clingenpeel, J. A. 2012b. Water quality assessment for the Wolf Pen Gap OHV complex EA. Unpublished File Report. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Clingenpeel, J. A., and B. G. Cochran. 1992. Using physical, chemical and biological indicators to assess water quality on the Ouachita National Forest using basin area stream survey methods. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Sciences 46: 33– 35.
65
Cope, J.B. and S.R. Humphrey. 1972. Reproduction of the bats MYOTIS KEENII and PIPISTRELLUS SUBFLAVUS in Indiana. 13:9-10.
Cope, W. G., R. B. Bringolf, D. B. Buchwalter, T. J. Newton, C. G. Ingersoll, N. Wang, T. Augspurger, F. J. Dwyer, M. C. Barnhart, R. J. Neves, and E. Hammer. 2008. Differential exposure, duration, and sensitivity of unionoidean bivalve life stages to environmental contaminants. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27(2):451–62.
Crnkovic, A. 2003. Discovery of Northern Long-Eared Myotis, Myotis septentrionalis (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in Louisiana. The Southwestern Naturalist, 48(4) p.715-717.
Crump, B. 2013. Final Review: Analysis of basin area stream survey (BASS) data for streams influenced by the Wolf Pen Gap OHV road and trail complex by J. Alan Clingenpeel 7/26/2013 (Report). Unpublished File Report. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Davis, G. M., and S. L. H. Fuller. 1981. Genetic relationships among recent Unionacea (Bivalvia) of North Amercia [sic]. Malacologia 20(2):217-253.
Dennis, S. D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussel fauna of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation. Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Dickinson, M.B., Norris, J.C., Bova, A.S., Kremens, R.L., Young, V. and M.J. Lacki. 2010. Effects of wildland fire smoke on a tree-roosting bat: integrating a plume model, field measurements, and mammalian dose–response relationships. Can. J. For. Res. 40: 2187–2203.
Downing, J. A., Y. Rochon, M. Pérusse, and H. Harvey. 1993. Spatial aggregation, body size, and reproductive success in the freshwater mussel Elliptio complanata. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12(2):148-156.
Dougherty, M., A. Srivastava, and J. Grace III. 2009. Evaluation of BMP sediment load reductions in southeastern US forest regions using WEPP. Paper Number 096737. (presented at the ASABE Annual International Meeting, held June 21-24, 2009, Reno, Nevada)
Easterla, D. A. 1968. Parturition of Keen's Myotis in Southwestern Missouri. Journal of Mammalogy 49(4):770.
Ellis, M. M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology 17(1):29-42.
66
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results.
Faure, P. A., J. H. Fullard, J. W. Dawson. 1993. The gleaning attacks of the Northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, are relatively inaudible to moths. Journal of Experimental Biology 178:173-189.
Feldhamer, G. A., T. C. Carter, J. O. Whitaker Jr. 2009. Prey Consumed by Eight Species of 5 Insectivorous Bats from Southern Illinois. The American Midland Naturalist 162(1):43-51.
Fitch, J. H. and K. A. Shump, Jr. 1979. Myotis keenii. Mammalian Species, No. 121:1-3.
Fobian, T. B. 2007. Reproductive biology of the rabbitsfoot mussel (Quadrula cylindrica) (Say, 1817) in the upper Arkansas River system, White River system, and the Red River system. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Missouri State University, Springfield. 104 pp.
Foltz, R. B. 2006. Erosion from all terrain (ATV) trails on national forest lands. Proceeding of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Annual International Meeting. St. Joseph, MI. Paper Number 068012.
Foster, R. W. and A. Kurta. 1999. Roosting ecology of the Northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and comparisons with the endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Journal of Mammalogy 80(2):659-672.
Fraley, S. J., and S. A. Ahlstedt. 2000. The recent decline of the native mussels (Unionidae) of Copper Creek, Scott County, Virginia. Pp. 189-195 in: P.D. Johnson and R.S. Butler, eds. Freshwater Mollusk Symposium Proceedings--Part II: Proceedings of the First Symposium of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society, March 1999, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus.
Frierson, L. S. 1927. A classified and annotated check list of the North American naiads. Baylor University Press, Waco, Texas. 111 pp.
Fuller, S. L. H. 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca:Bivalvia). Pp. 215-273 in: C.W. Hart, Jr., and S.L.H. Fuller, eds. Pollution ecology of freshwater invertebrates. Academic Press, New York.
Galbraith, H. S., D. E. Spooner, and C. C. Vaughn. 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation 143 (5):1175-1183.
67
Garroway, C. J. and H. G. Broders. 2008. Day roost characteristics of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in relation to female reproductive status. Ecoscience 15(1):89-93.
Gatenby, C. M., R. J. Neves, and B. C. Parker. 1996. Influence of sediment and algal food on cultured juvenile freshwater mussels. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 15(4):597-609.
Gilpin,M. E., and M. E. Soulé. 1986. Minimum viable populations: processes of species extinction. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts:19-34.
Goehring, H. H. 1954. Pipistrellus subflavus obscurus, Myotis keenii, and Eptesicus fuscus fuscus hibernating in a storm sewer in central Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy 35(3):434-436.
Gordon, M. E., and J. B. Layzer. 1989. Mussels (Bivalva: Unionoidea) of the Cumberland River. Review of life histories and ecological relationships. Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Cookeville, TN.
Griffin, D. R. 1940. Reviewed notes on the life histories of New England cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 21(2):181-187.
Griffin, D. R. 1945. Travels of banded cave bats. Journal of Mammalogy 26(1): 15-23.
Griffith, L. A. and J. E. Gates. 1985. Food habits of cave-dwelling bats in the central Appalachians. Journal of Mammalogy 66(3):451-460.
Haag, W. R., and J. L. Staton. 2003. Variation in fecundity and other reproductive traits in freshwater mussels. Freshwater Biology 48:2118-2130.
Hall, J. S., R. J. Cloutier and D. R. Griffin. 1957. Longevity records and notes on tooth wear of bats. Journal of Mammalogy 38 (3): 407-409.
Harris, J. L., and M. E. Gordon. 1988. Status survey of Lampsilis powelli (Lea, 1852). Final Report. Jackson (MS): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Office. 44 p. + Appendix I.
Harris, J.L and M.E. Gordon. 1990. Arkansas mussels. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas. 32 pp.
Harris, J. L., W. R. Posey II, 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. Unionida (Mollusca: Margartiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas, third status review. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Vol. 63.
68
Hartfield, P. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Pages 131-141 in Proceedings of a conference on conservation and management of freshwater mussels. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Hartfield, P., and E. Hartfield. 1996. Observations on the conglutinates of Ptychobranchus greeni (Conrad 1834) (Mollusca:Bivalvia:Unionidea). American Midland Naturalist 135:370-375.
Hastie, L. C., P. J. Boon, M. R. Young, and S. Way. 2001. The effects of a major flood on an endangered freshwater mussel population. Biological Conservation 98(1): 107- 115.
Havlik, M. E. 1994. Unionids and margaritiferids (Mollusca: Bivalvia), Saint Croix River, Afton and Wild River State Parks, Minnesota, Jone 1992. Unpublished report, Triannual Unionid Report No. 4:16.
Henley, W. F., M. A. Patterson, R. J. Neves, and A. D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural resource managers. Reviews in Fishery Science 8(2):125-139.
Hitchcock, H. B. 1949. Hibernation of bats in southeastern Ontario and adjacent Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 63(2): 47-59.
Hove, M. C., and R. J. Neves. 1994. Life history of the endangered James spinymussel Pleurobema collina (Conrad, 1837) (Mollusca: Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin 11(1): 29-40.
Ingersoll, C. G., N. J. Kernaghan, T. S. Gross, C. D. Bishop, N. Wang, and A. Roberts. 2007. Laboratory toxicity testing with freshwater mussels. Freshwater bivalve ecotoxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida and SETAC Press, Pensacola, Florida. Pp. 95-134.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Johnson, R. I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of the maximum pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 149(2):77-189. Harvard University. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
69
Johnson, J. B., W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards. 2012. Roost networks of northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis) in a managed landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 266: 223–231.
Jones, G., D. S. Jacobs, T. H. Kunz, M. R. Willig, P. A. Racey. 2009. Carpe noctem: the importance of bats as bioindicators. Endangered Species Research 8: 93–115.
Kanehl, P., and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Research Report 155. 32 pp.
Krochmal, A. R. and D. W. Sparks. 2007. Timing of Birth and Estimation of Age of Juvenile Myotis septentrionalis and Myotis lucifugus in West-Central Indiana. Journal of Mammalogy 88(3):649-656.
Kunz, T. H. 1971. Reproduction of Some Vespertilionid Bats in Central Iowa. American Midland Naturalist 86(2):477-486.
Kunz, T. H. 1973. Temporal and Spatial Components of Bat Activity in Central Iowa. Journal of Mammalogy 54(1):14-32.
Kurta, A. 1995. Mammals of the great lakes region. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kurta, A. and J. A. Teramino. 1994. A novel hibernaculum and noteworthy records of the Indiana bat and eastern pipistrelle (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). American Midland Naturalist 132(2):410-413.
Lacki, M. J. and J. H. Schwierjohann. 2001. Day-Roost Characteristics of Northern Bats in Mixed Mesophytic Forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):482- 488.
LaVal, R. K., R. L. Clawson, M. L. LaVal and W. Caire. 1977. Foraging Behavior and Nocturnal Activity Patterns of Missouri Bats, with Emphasis on the endangered species Myotis grisescens and Myotis sodalis. Journal of Mammalogy 58(4):592- 599.
Layzer, J. B., M. E. Gordon, and R. M. Anderson. 1993. Mussels: the forgotten fauna of regulated rivers. A case study of the Caney Fork River. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 8(1-2):63-71.
Layzer, J. B., and L. M. Madison. 1995. Microhabitat use by freshwater mussels and recommendations for determining their instream flow needs. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 10(2-4):329-345.
70
Marking, L. L., and T. D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on freshwater mussels. Pages 204-211 in: J.R. Rasmussen, ed. Proceedings of the UMRCC symposium on Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.
Menzel, M. A., S. F. Owen, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, P. B. Wood, B. R.Chapman, and K. V. Miller. 2002. Roost tree selection by northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) maternity colonies in an industrial forest of the central Appalachian mountains. Forest Ecology and Management 155:107-114.
Mills, R. S. 1971. A concentration of Myotis keenii at caves in Ohio. Journal of 11 Mammalogy. 52(3) 625 pp.
Morris A. D., M. J. Vonhof, D. A. Miller, M. C. Kalcounis-Rueppell. 2009. Myotis septentrionalis Trouessart (Northern long-eared bat) records from the Coastal Plain of North Carolina. Southeastern Naturalist 8(2):355-362.
Mumford R. E., and J. B. Cope. 1964. Distribution and status of the chiroptera of Indiana. American Midland Naturalist 72(2):473-489 . Nagorsen, D. W., and R. M. Brigham. 1993. The Mammals of British Columbia. 1. Bats. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, and the University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. pp. 164.
Negus, C. L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River Thames at Reading. Journal of Animal Ecology 35:513-532.
Neves, R. J., and S. A. Ahlstedt. 2001. The status of species and recovery programs for endangered freshwater mussels in the Southern Appalachians. Pp. 67-72 in: D.B. Adams, K. Burke, B. Hemingway, J. Keay, and M. Yurewicz, compilers. U.S. Geological Survey Appalachian Region integrated science workshop proceedings, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 2001. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01- 406.
Neves, R. J., A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams, S. A. Ahlstedt, and P. W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of aquatic mollusks in the southeastern United States: a downward spiral of diversity. Pp. 43-85 in: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins, eds. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, March-April 1994, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga.
Obermeyer, B. K. 2000. Recovery plan for four freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas: Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana), Ouachita kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus occidentalis), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica), and western fanshell (Cyprogenia aberti). Unpublished report, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt. 52 pp.
71
Oesch, R. D. 1984. Missouri naiades: a guide to the mussels of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. 270 pp.
Ortmann, A. E. 1912. Notes on the family and genera of the najades. Annals of the Carnegie Museum 8(2):222-365.
Ortmann, A. E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III: systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum 8(1):1-384.
Owen, S. F., M. A. Menzel, W. M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, B. R. Chapman, K. V. Miller, and P. B. Wood. 2002. Roost tree selection by maternal colonies of Northern long-eared Myotis in an intensively managed forest. USDA Forest Service. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.
Parmalee, P. W., and A. E. Bogan. 1998. The freshwater mussels of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. 328 pp.
Pearson, E. W. 1962. Bats hibernating in silica mines in southern Illinois. Journal of Mammalogy 43(1):27-33.
Perry, R. W., and R. E. Thill. 2007. Roost selection by male and female northern long- eared bats in a pine-dominated landscape. Forest Ecology and Management 247:220-226.
Peterjohn, W. T., and D. L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65.5:466-1475.
Poff, R.J. 2012. Technical specifications for erosion and sediment control for OHV trails in Wolf Pen Gap. Unpublished File Report. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Poole, K. E., and J. A. Downing. 2004. Relationship of declining mussel biodiversity to stream-reach and watershed characteristics in an agricultural landscape. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 23(1):114-125.
Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the New World: tropical-temperate comparisons. BioScience 50(9):807-823.
Raesly, R. L. and J. E. Gates. 1987. Winter habitat selection by north temperate cave bats. American Midland Naturalist 118(1):15-31.
Riedel, M. S. 2006. Quantifying trail erosion and stream sedimentation with sediment tracers. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, NC.
72
Richter, B. D., D. P. Braun, M. A. Mendelson, and L. L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11(5):1081-1093.
Rodenhouse, N. L., L. M. Christenson, D. Parry, and L. E. Green. 2009. Climate change effects on native fauna of northeastern forests. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 39:249-263.
Roghair, C.N., and C.A. Dolloff. 2013. Application of diversity indices and an index of biotic integrity to a basin area stream survey (BASS) fish dataset collected on the Ouachita National Forest 1990-2011. Unpublished File Report. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.
Rosgen, D. L., 1996. “Applied River Morphology”, Wildland Hydrology Books, 1481 Stevens Lake Road, Pagosa Springs, Co. 81147, 385 pp.
Sasse, D.B. and P.J. Pekins. 1996. Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the white mountain national forest. Bats and Forests Symposium October 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, p.91-101.
Say, T. 1817. Article Conchology. In: W. Nicholson, editor. American Edition of the British Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, Comprising an Accurate and Popular View of the Present Improved State of Human Knowledge. Vol. 2 1st ed. No pagination. Pls. 1-4. Samuel A. Mitchel and Horace Ames, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Scott, M. 2004. Life history and population biology of the Arkansas fatmucket, Lampsilis powellii (Lea 1852). MS thesis. State University (AR): Arkansas State University. 97 p. + appendices A-E.
Scruggs, G. D., Jr. 1960. Status of fresh-water mussel stocks in the Tennessee River. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Special Report No. 370:1-41.
Shaffer, M. L. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31(2):131-134.
Shaffer, M. L., and F. B. Samson. 1985. Population size and extinction: a note on determining critical population sizes. The American Naturalist 125(1):144-152.
Shute, P. W., R. G. Biggins, and R. S. Butler. 1997. Management and conservation of rare aquatic resources: a historical perspective and recommendations for incorporating ecosystem management. Pp. 445-466 in: G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins, eds. Aquatic fauna in peril: the southeastern perspective, March-April 1994, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Special Publication 1, Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, Chattanooga.
73
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. P.516. [Wilson, D.E. and D.M. Reeder (editors)]. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Simpson, C. T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the naiads of pearly freshwater mussels. B. Walker, Detroit, Michigan.
Soulé, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages 151-169 in M. E. Soulé and B. A. Wilcox, eds. Conservation Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Sparks, B. L., and D. L. Strayer. 1998. Effectsof low dissolved oxygen on juvenile Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17(1):129-134.
Spooner, D. E. and C. C. Vaughn. 2008. A trait-based approach to species’ roles in stream ecosystems: climate change, community structure, and material cycling. Oecologia 158:307-317.
Sproules, J., P. Grobler, N. Johnson, J. W. Jones, and E. M. Hallerman. 2006. Genetic analysis of selected populations of the rabbitsfoot pearlymussel (Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica) (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Unpublished Report submitted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Frankfort, Kentucky. 16 pp.
Stevenson, L.K. 1986. Some ecological aspects of Myotiskeenii in Oklahoma. M.S. Thesis. Pittsburg State Univ.,Pittsburg, KS. 61 pp.
Stones, R.C. and W. Fritz. 1969. Bat studies in upper Michigan’s copper mining district. The Michigan Academician, p. 77-85.
Strayer, D. L. 1999. Use of Flow Refuges by Unionid Mussels in Rivers. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Vol 18 (4):468-476.
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):429-439.
Swanson, G. and C. Evans. 1936. The hibernation of certain bats in southern Minnesota. Journal of Mammalogy, 17(1): 39-43.
Tilman, D., R. M. May, C. L. Lehman, and M. A. Nowak. 1994. Habitat destruction and the extinction debt. Nature 371:65-66.
Timpone, J. C., Boyles, J.G., Murray, K.L., Aubrey, D.P., and L.W. Robbins. 2010. Overlap in roosting habits of Indiana Bats (Myotis sodalis) and northern bats (Myotis septentrionalis). American Midland Naturalist, 163:115-123.
74
Trimble, S. W. and A. C. Mendel. The cow as a geomorphic agent-a critical review. Geomorphology 13(1):233-253.
Turgeon, D. D., J. F. Quinn, Jr., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, F. G. Hochberg, W. G. Lyons, P. M. Mikkelsen, R. J. Neves, C. F. E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J. D. Williams. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland. 277 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Arkansas fatmucket mussel (Lampsilis powelli) Recovery Plan. USFWS Region 4, Atlanta, GA. 19 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Arkansas best management practices for Fayetteville Shale natural gas activities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, Arkansas. 25 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Recovery Outline for the Rabbitsfoot (September 2013). Unpublished Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Conway, Arkansas. 19 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered species handbook – procedures for conducting consultation and conference activities under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex interim management plan. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. 5 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 2013a. Environmental assessment for Wolf Pen Gap project. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR. 166 pp.
Utterback, W. I. 1915. The mussels of Missouri. American Midland Naturalist 4(4):97- 152. van der Schalie, H. 1966. Hermaphroditism among North American freshwater mussels. Malacologia 5:77-78.
Van Hassel, J. H., and J. L. Farris. 2007. A review of the use of unionid mussels as biological indicators of ecosystem health. Freshwater bivalve ecotoxicology. Pp. 19- 49. van Zyll de Jong, C.G. 1979. Distribution and systematic relationships of long-eared Myotis in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 57: 987-994.
75 van Zyll de Jong, C. G. 1984. Taxonomic relationships of Nearctic small-footed bats of the Myotis leibii group (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:2519-2526.
Vannote, R. L., and G. W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 79(13):4103-4107.
Wang, N., C. G. Ingersoll, D. K. Hardesty, C. D. Ivey, J. L. Kunz, T. W. May, F. J. Dwyer, A. D. Roberts, T. Augspurger, C. M. Kane, R. J. Neves, and M. C. Barnhart. 2007. Acute toxicity of copper, ammonia, and chlorine to glochidia and juveniles of freshwater mussels (Unionidae). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 26(10):2036-2047.
Waters, T. F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 pp.
Watters, G. T. 1988. A survey of the freshwater mussels of the St. Joseph River system, with emphasis on the federally endangered white cat’s paw pearly mussel. Unpublished report, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, West Lafayette. 127 pp.
Watters, G. T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: A review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in R.A. Tankersley, D. I. Warmolts, G. T. Watters, B. J. Armitage, P. D. Johnson, and R. S. Butler (editors). Freshwater mollusk symposia proceedings. Part II. Proceedings of the first freshwater mollusk conservation society symposium. Ohio Biological Survey Special Publication, Columbus, Ohio.
Watters, G. T. 2007. Freshwater mussel reproductive biology. Pages 5 1-59 In: Van Hassel, J. and J. Ferris (eds.), Freshwater bivalve ecotoxicology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Welsh, M. J. 2008. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads and off-highway vehicle trails in the Upper South Platte River watershed, Colorado. Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado State University.
Wheeler, H. W. 1918. The Mollusca of Clark County, Arkansas. Nautilus 31:109-125.
Whitaker, J.O. and W.J. Hamilton. 1998. Mouse-eared bats, Vespertilionidae. P. 89-102. In Mammals of the eastern United States, Third Edition. Comstock Publishing Associates, a Division of Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Whitaker, J.O. and R.E. Mumford. 2009. Northern Myotis. P. 207-214. In Mammals of Indiana. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana.
76
Whitaker, J.O. and L.J. Rissler. 1992. Seasonal activity of bats at copperhead cave. Proceedings 17 of the Indiana Academy of Science, 101: 127-134.
Yeager, B. L., and R. J. Neves. 1986. Reproductive cycle and fish hosts of the [rough rabbitsfoot] mussel, Quadrula cylindrica strigillata (Mollusca: Unionidae) in the upper Tennessee River drainage. American Midland Naturalist 116:329-340.
Yeager, M. M., D. S. Cherry, and R. J. Neves. 1994. Feeding and burrowing behaviors of juvenile rainbow mussels, Villosa iris (Bivalvia:Unionidae). Journal of the North American Benthological Society 13(2):217-222.
Zimmerman, L. L., and R. J. Neves. 2002. Effects of temperature on duration of viability for glochidia of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae). American Malacological Bulletin 17:31-35.
77
APPENDIX A
MAP OF WOLF PEN GAP TRAIL COMPLEX
(USFS 2013)
P K 6 1
0 Wolf Pen Gap Area Trails and Roads
1 ek 1 re 7 C p Alternative I m
a A R C 8 3 d A 4 r 9 95 3 0 a N o
B
!! ! !
! ! 3! ! !
31 !
! 3 3
!
! ! ÆP
! ! Med-evac
!
!
! ! ! Helipad
!
30 !
! 0 !
! ! !
! !
3 ! !
! * ! #High 48
! 3 48319
! 2
!
! Point 5
! 48320
! ! ! ! West ! 4
TH! 832 4 £ Vista ! 7 831
Trailhead 4 GG !
3 © Shale
! !
! 2 ! Pit 1 ï 77 A £TH Pavilion 2 1 48320 1 5 0 North 10 3 P N 3 Med-evac 1 8 Trailhead K 4 61 Helipad ÆP 27 7 2 B 8 ! ! oa PK61 rd
B! e C G a am
a r! Mountain p C
p reek ! C ! r 1 e ek
2
0 4 ! 5
! 3 ! ! 5 ! 10 4 1 ! 9
5 8 Legend ! !
!
!
A ! !
R 6 6 ! ! 3 ! ! ! ! 7 ! ! Project Area 5 ! ! A ! ! 8 !
!
! ! !! ! ! B
TH ! ! o £ ! ! a G ! r
USFS Ownership South ap ! d ! C ÆP Trailhead C ! am Med-evac
r e 8 p 510 ek ! ! (õ ! (! ! C
!õ ! ! ! r Helipad õ (õ 6! ! ! ee
( õ ! ! k
! !
( Foot Trail ! ! ! 5 ! ! (õ
( ! (õ õ ! 8 !!! 8 10 Hawk's ! ! ! 5
* ! ! !
Highway System ! # Overlook! !
!
! ! 95
! !
8 © ! Shale Pit Restoration 3 ! 6 8
!
6 !
24 !
! !
! !
! ! 6!
! !! 14
!
G Warm-up Trail Obliteration ! !
Ì !
Mine !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! 3 243
6! 4
!
! 2
6 !
1 ! !
4 ! ! ! 5
G Warm-up Trail Relocation ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! 9 ! ! !
6 TH! ! East
! £
! ! !
!
Wolf Pen Gap Trails ! Þ Trailhead ! Two-footed ! Alternative I Oak
! ! 66 ! Seasonal OHV Obliterate Wolf Pen Gap Roads Alternative I
The Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. They may be developed from Highway Only - Year Round sources of differing accuracy, accurate only at certain scales, based on modeling or interpretation, and incomplete while being created or revised, etc. Using GIS products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. This information was released on the date shown below. The Forest Service Highway and OHV - Year Round reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. For more information, contact the Womble Ranger District at 1523 Hwy. 270 East, Mount Ida, AR or phone (870) 867-2101. Designation of a road, trail or area for motor vehicle use by a particular class of vehicle under 36 CFR 212.51 is not represented on this map. It is the responsibility Highway Year Round/Seasonal OHV of the user to acquire the current Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The MVUM identifies those roads and trails designated for the motor vehicle use under 36 CFR 212.51 for the purpose of enforcing the prohibition at 36 CFR 261.13. Seasonal - Highway and OHV To Be Closed 1:47,520 Obliterate County, State or Private 0 0.5 1 2 F Miles
APPENDIX B
WET WEATHER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
WOLF PEN GAP TRAIL COMPLEX
(USFS 2013)
Purpose & Need: Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) use in the Wolf Pen Gap Trail Complex has contributed to degraded soils, trails, and roads, and declining water quality resources, especially during periods of wet conditions when these impacts are exacerbated. This has created the need for increased maintenance, including re-design and/or re-location of roads or trails.
The purpose of a Wet Weather Management Plan (WWMP) is multi-fold: to protect native surfaced roads and trails during the wet periods when they are most susceptible to damage; to minimize soil erosion and its role in sediment delivery to streams; and to reduce hydrologic connectivity between trails and tributaries to minimize sediment delivery to streams. Such a plan will move the WPG trail system towards the goal of improved natural resource protection and trail sustainability, and contribute to the protection, preservation and enjoyment of our national forest for future generations.
The WWMP is designed as a supplemental document to the Environment Assessment (EA) and can also serve as a vehicle to help ensure that designated Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed for the trail system are effective. However, there is a separate monitoring protocol for BMPs.
Overview: The Wolf Pen Gap (WPG) OHV complex is a series of roads and trails that is open to mixed use of OHVs and highway legal vehicles. The WWMP includes: measures to identify degraded road and trail surface tread and drainage structures and related detrimental impacts to water quality due to high moisture conditions; and to limit OHV use during those periods where additional use would further contribute to resource damage. This plan employs a system in which the factors of precipitation, trail condition, and soil moisture are monitored and utilized to inform decisions on trail openings and closures.
Infrastructure: Two weather stations have been installed: one on High Point Peak (within the WPG OHV Complex – end of trail 300)) and the second at the Mena Ranger District Work Center. The weather station consists of a tipping bucket drainage, recorder and transmitter. The High Point unit provides a radio signal to the Mena Work Center (FS facility) where it is linked to a website. When activated by precipitation, either or both weather stations provide notification via email and phone text messaging to designated persons and can post information to the web.
Calibration: In order to determine when wet weather monitoring should begin, an initial threshold needed to be established. Since significant seasonal rainfall in the area is typically during late fall through early-mid spring, this is the time in which this monitoring will be focused. Beginning in October of 2011, portions of the trail system were observed within 24 hours of precipitation events and sediment and trail surface issues for various levels of precipitation were documented. For calibration purposes, two manual rain gauges were located on the east end of Road 243 during the fall and winter months of 2011-2012. Comparing the manual gauges to the weather stations data would demonstrate if total precipitation values are consistent across the WPG area. It was found
B-1
that precipitation values are reasonably consistent across the WPG area with an average difference of one-tenth to two-tenths of an inch over a four month period.
During the course of making field observations of the effects of rainfall volume and intensity on the trail system, several Key Indicators were noted:
Failing cross-drains Presence of water on trail (puddling and flow/connectivity) Rutting on trail surface Degradation of rolling dip drainage structures Sediment basin mal-functions & at maximum capacity Increase in turbidity below crossings
Key Considerations These symptoms of wet weather and high soil/site moisture conditions lead us to focus monitoring on those trail segments which are most adversely affected by seasonal OHV use. This will help ensure that the effects of rainfall during the wettest times of the year are captured and documented. From monitoring trail conditions following precipitation events in the fall/winter of 2011/2012, it was discovered that a rainfall amount of 0.4 inches within a 24-hour period resulted in some degraded condition in trail condition and water quality. While this is the point where damage first occurred in 2011-2012, it is understood that the effects of this amount and intensity of rainfall will not be the same for every season or even for every such event within the same season every year. However, during the late fall through winter months when soil moisture is higher this threshold can serve as an indicator to accelerate monitoring activities to assess trail conditions and its effects on water quality.
Flexibility will be necessary for several reasons. First - some rainfall events could occur within a close proximity in time (back-to-back), so monitoring may be best implemented after all such events have ended. Second - over the past several years there have been numerous rainfall events of 0.4 inches in a 24-hour period per year in the WPG area, therefore some digression and practicality should drive the timing of monitoring activities, given limitations of time and resources. As more rainfall and soil moisture data is collected over time, the precipitation threshold will likely need to be adjusted to reflect the correlation between antecedent soil moisture and rainfall amounts and their impacts to resources. When this threshold is determined, the WWMP will be promptly updated. Therefore, it is initially recommended that monitoring be triggered by one or both of the following: During March thru June and December - after a rainfall event consisting of a minimum of 0.4 inches of rain in a 24-hour period OR after a series of rainfall events exceeding this. At a minimum, not more than two such events should pass that monitoring is not completed. Otherwise, resource damage will not be assessed in a timely enough manner to initiate trail closings before damage is exacerbated and thus more costly and time-consuming to mitigate. Whenever possible, monitoring should be done within 24 hours of the end of precipitation event(s). No monitoring should be done when weather conditions compromise the safety of people.
B-2
Using this information, the following procedure is recommended:
1. A precipitation event or series of events take place. 2. A text or email (and in the future web based notification) is initiated to all interested parties – this includes volunteers and/or Forest Service employees. 3. Forest Service employees and/or volunteers travel to monitoring sites* on the trail (within 24 hours if possible) and assess site conditions. Monitoring procedures are followed as outlined on the following page. In addition to data collection, a date-stamped photo is taken. Per guidelines on page 6, If monitoring results are satisfactory, the trail remains open. If not, the trail or trail segment is closed. 4. Volunteers and/or Forest Service employees update the web page with openings and closings (using the OAC and Trail Blazer web sites if possible). 5. If trail conditions were inadequate, volunteers and/or Forest Service employees continue to document trail conditions until monitoring results show site conditions suitable for trail re-opening. 6. Volunteers and/or Forest Service employees update Web page as changes are needed. 7. Forest Service employees download precipitation data from weather station once a month. 8. Forest Service employees perform necessary non-technical maintenance to weather stations at Mena WC and at High Point Peak (WPG – Trail 300).
* Note: While in route to (and returning from) the monitoring sites, much can be learned about trail conditions. Therefore, making observations and taking note of any serious resource concerns along the way will likely prove very useful in the end.
Trail closures on maintained trails will likely be for a short duration of time when the precipitation is in the form of rainfall. However, when the precipitation event is snow or freezing rain, the trail running surface is very susceptible to damage, and the closure may persist until a prolonged thaw allows drying.
Other Mitigations: It is recognized that maintenance, reconstruction, and/or new trail construction may improve, remove, and/or replace many of the trail segments that exhibit poor surface conditions and/or water quality issues. With successful implementation (proper cross-drain construction and spacing, replacement of unimproved stream crossings, and hardening of crossing approaches), the monitoring locations can be adjusted to allow more flexibility. Thresholds may be adjusted as more rainfall and soil moisture data is collected and analyzed to reflect the correlation between the two. The WWMP process and web page can also be used to identify trail segments closed for other reasons such as maintenance, safety, or other considerations.
For this project to be successful, key components must include: Clear communication of responsibilities and expectations Results documentation Proper training of volunteers
B-3
Development of Web Page protocols Monitoring of trail conditions and effects on water quality Education of trail users Proper placement of signage on trails Designation of a person at the district level to coordinate all aspects of monitoring documentation, trail-related management, activities, education, and publicity.
Monitoring Procedures (Monitoring Sites are provided in Table 1)
Connectivity
For Connectivity concerns at three designated points o Drive through the ponded water (4 to 6 MPH – normal trail speed) o In reverse, back through the puddle o Confirm whether or not the effects of the OHV tires push water through the puddle outlet and into the tributary o Record the results as well as other pertinent information on the form o Take a photo
Trail Drainage Structure Stability – For rolling dip condition and effect on sediment basin functionality
After a precipitation event, if no recent OHV tracks are present: 1. Drive back & forth through the rolling dip (D1 thru D4) a minimum of seven (7) times.
2. Observe positions D1 and D2 (Figure 1) on the rolling dip – and record conditions as follows:
a. Good (G): D1 – no berm between dip and sediment basin or berm is in early stage of development, trail out- slopes toward basin; D2 – Little to no evidence of tread damage (if ruts are present, they are < 1” deep).
b. Marginal (M): D1 – berm present between dip and sediment basin, and impeding some water flow to basin indicated by ruts of 1” to <2” deep with evidence of puddling . (transitioning from “Good” to “Poor” - Figure 2), trail out-slope is leveling; D2 - moderate evidence of tread damage (Most ruts are 1” to 2” deep with very slight berms*).
c. Poor (P) : D1 – berm present between dip and sediment basin , and impeding most or all water flow into basin indicated by ruts of > 2” deep with puddling (Figure 2), trail out- slope is marginal, non- existent, or in-sloping; D2 - strong evidence of tread damage (ruts
B-4
2” or more deep with mostly large berms*).
3. Take soil moisture measurements at the designated locations in or near the rolling dips.
4. Record the results, and take a photo.
*See Figure 2
Note: While sediment basins are not specified for assessment in these monitoring procedures, observing their condition at each location (and others while in route) would provide additional insight into the overall condition of these and other sites.
Figure 1
Figure 2
B-5
Soil Moisture – For measuring soil moisture in areas adjacent to trail drainage structures and within drainage structures (where feasible), an electronic soil moisture meter will be used. This device measures the percentage of water per unit volume of soil (Volumetric Water Content).
Thresholds have been determined based on Field Capacity values for the two main general soil textures in WPG – loam (35%) and clay (50%) and allowing for higher compaction on drainage structures. Field capacity is essentially the water content of a soil at the point where gravity eases to be a factor in soil water movement (i.e. excess water has drained away and the rate of downward movement has materially decreased). Above field capacity, an increase in soil water content will more readily advance to saturation level, at which point soil strength and (consequently) trail stability are at their lowest. Instructions and training on the operation of the soil moisture meter will be provided.
Closure determination Monitoring sites should be assessed within 24 hours of a precipitation event. Trail segments should be closed under the following conditions: 1. If more than one of the drainage structure assessments is “Poor.” 2. If more than one of the sites has soil moisture percentages exceeding thirty- five percent (35 %) for loam soils or fifty percent (50%) for clayey soils. 3. If more than one of the connectivity points shows water flow into a tributary.
If Closing is deemed necessary: Place a barrier (or close the gate) at one entrance and drive the trail to insure no one will become trapped. Place a barrier or close the gate on the other end of the trail. Trail segments closed will remain closed until noted rolling dips are repaired, all soil moisture values fall below the threshold levels, and trail/tributary connectivity recedes.
Adjustments Monitoring sites are subject to changes in location and number based on future progress in trail maintenance, trail improvements, trail re-locations, monitoring results, and data collection and analysis.
Records At the end of each of those months in which monitoring is conducted as a part of Wet Weather Management, a copy of the completed monitoring forms for each precipitation event(s) will need to be sent to the Forest Soil Scientist or Forest Hydrologist. This will help ensure consistency in information sharing and maintenance of records at all staff levels – and this should expedite and enhance the working relationship between District
B-6
and S.O. staff towards sufficient resource protection, and trail improvement and sustainability.
Table 1 – Type and Locations of Monitoring
The following table lists ten monitoring sites on the Wolf Pen Gap trail system. These site numbers are labeled on maps which will be provided. Sites are subject to changes in location and number based on future progress in trail maintenance, trail improvements, trail re-locations, monitoring results, and data collection and analysis.
Monitoring Site Trail/Road # Resource Concern 1 3 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 2 313 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 3 313 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 4 6 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 5 6 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 6 8 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 7 8 Rolling Dip & Soil Moisture 8 243 Hydrologic Connectivity 9 243 Hydrologic Connectivity 10 243 Hydrologic Connectivity
B-7
APPENDIX C
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY MONITORING PLAN
FOR THE
WOLF PEN GAP TRAIL COMPLEX
(USFS 2013)
Background
Long-term monitoring conducted by the Ouachita National Forest shows impairment to Board Camp and Gap Creeks, two tributaries to the Ouachita River, related to sediment delivery from the Wolf Pen Gap trail system to adjacent streams. It is a priority for the Ouachita National Forest (ONF) and partners to immediately assess and efficiently address sedimentation within the Wolf Pen Gap (WPG) trail system and streams. The Ouachita National Forest is currently under informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered species in the watershed and proposed a plan of action in 2011 to address these issues. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Trails Unlimited group also completed an in-depth diagnostic of the WPG - Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails system in June 2011. They have since developed Best Management Practice (BMP) recommendations specific to the WPG trail system. Trails Unlimited (TU) completed heavy maintenance on approximately two miles of “Trail 6” with the aid of USFS district staff in February 2012 to serve as a demonstration of satisfactory trail restoration techniques. The Ouachita ATV Club (OAC) and Arkansas Trail Blazers have also donated significant time, money, and efforts toward a solution for the trails at WPG.
Due to limited available funding for assessment, maintenance and restoration of degraded trail systems such as these, it will take a series of collaborative efforts, grants and/or other private funding to accomplish these tasks. The project proposed below would pool resources and partnerships to implement monitoring and restoration objectives that align with the proposed action plan for Wolf Pen Gap. This collaborative effort to address the issues with WPG among stakeholders, including the ONF, TNC, TU, OAC, and landowners, will be a unique partnership that could be replicated in other forests with recreational ATV trails.
Proposed Work/Methodology
Sediment Trap Efficiency The restoration work implemented by TU in 2012 involved installing a number of open- arch culverts, rolling dips, and sediment basins (referred to as “traps” in this document) for routing and containing sediment coming from the trail system. The ONF seeks to identify effective methods to monitor both the amount of sediment moving from the trail system into the sediment trap features as well as the timing and amount of sediment that over tops the traps in relation to specific rainfall events. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), upon request, has compiled information on relevant techniques for monitoring sediment trap retention. TNC proposes to collect the following metrics over a period of 18 months to analyze sediment trap efficiency, sediment amounts retained, and maintenance needs of the sediment traps: trap dimensions, total volume of sediment captured related to total rainfall and rate of rainfall during storm events, and site characteristics including those specified in the “Sediment Basin Site Risk Matrix” provided by the ONF (see Table 1, appendix).
C-1
Sediment Trap Selection Criteria A total of approximately 20 sediment traps will be selected throughout the WPG complex to study. The selected sediment traps will have contributing trail segments that will span a range of slope classes; “low” (2-6%), “moderate” (6-15%), and “high” (>15%). Under the assumption that erosion rates start to increase significantly at higher gradients, TNC will select a slightly higher proportion of sediment traps in the 15%+ category. For example, if the target is 20 total traps, six traps will be selected within both the “low” and “moderate” categories and eight traps will be selected for study within the 15%+ category. To obtain an appropriate amount of traps within each slope category, approximately 40-50 traps will initially be randomly selected from the entire set. These traps will then be measured for contributing trail gradient and distance and categorized according to slope. If the targeted number of traps for each slope category are not obtained within the first sample, the above steps will be repeated to do so. A random selection within each slope category will then be selected until the desired number is reached for each slope class.
Sediment Accumulation Measurements /Trail Erosion Rate Estimations To calculate existing dimensions for each sediment trap; length, width, and height of the basin will be measured in centimeters initially and at the end of the sampling period. The goal will be to establish a three-dimensional view of the existing basin dimensions with which to re-survey and compare following significant rainfall and runoff events. To calculate sediment depth following storm events, a minimum of 5 permanent survey pins will be installed in each trap flush to the ground, and additional pins if warranted by the shape of the trap (see Diagram below). These pins will establish a permanent elevation for each trap to insure both the accuracy of the sediment depths measured throughout the study period and to aid as a frame of reference for detecting erosion along the trap walls. Each pin will be installed at ground level and capped with a plastic cap. A benchmark, or reference point, will be established near each of the selected traps in a stable, undisturbed location to establish an arbitrary elevation. Elevation data of each of the pins will then be established through standard surveying techniques with elevations calculated to the hundredth of a foot. Sediment depth measurements will be taken either from the base of the pin, if found, or from the equivalent elevation established during site set-up. The total average volume of sediment accumulation will then be calculated and recorded along with the documented storm event information (precipitation and duration) from High Point Station within the Wolf Pen Gap trail system.
The selected sediment traps will preferably be cleaned out by the ONF Mena/Oden District prior to the start of the project and again if they fill such that trap efficiency has been compromised. This will be triggered when sediment accumulation in the silt fence indicates that overtopping sediment has occurred at three subsequent rain events and with increasing amounts measured. In the case where traps are cleaned out, sediment will be recycled and compacted back onto the trail to reinforce the water control features. Failure of any water control features, such as rolling dips, to divert all water into the sediment traps means in-accuracy in determining true erosion rates of the trail surface and will be documented. Documentation of any maintenance to the traps will also be made as measurements of the new trap dimensions and survey pins if necessary. Trail
C-2
Figure 1. Diagram of Sediment Trap Monitoring Set up. counters will be installed adjacent to the sediment traps selected for study to relate sediment generation to level of usage.
To monitor sediment trap efficiency and maintenance needs, a silt fence will be installed below the traps to document when and how much sediment escapes or overtops the trap following significant rain events (see sampling frequency below). TNC will also obtain at least one bulk density core sample from both the traps and the silt fences. These sample cores will be given to USFS research staff to analyze grain-size distribution and rock type distribution of surface grains in an effort to determine origins of the accumulated sediment (trail surface or adjacent banks to the trail).
Sampling Frequency Initially, following individual site set-up, each trap will be measured following rain events of .40 inches or more over a 24 hour period OR .25 inches in 1 hour. Traps will be studied closely in the beginning of the study to determine if variables such as length of time between rain events and/or rate of rainfall indicate significant effects on erosion rates. If this proves to be the case, triggers to measure the traps may be altered, but will always be documented. For example, if trap sediment depths are found to be low following the slower and smaller storm events (.40 - .75 inches/24 hours), focus may be emphasized on these events only if they occur at a faster rate (i.e. 1/4 inch or greater in 60 minutes), or if they occur following a long dry spell (2-3 months). A cursory look at the auto generated alerts from the WPG High Point Station in the last 15 months showed that more than 40 events occurred in the criteria described above (.40 inches or more in 24 hours or .25 inches in 1 hour) (pers. comm. Dan Marion, 1/10/2013). This was in a relatively dry year. Due to time and travel constraints, sampling frequency may be adjusted as described above to capture the most critical events.
C-3
Assessing In-stream Stability and Measuring Stream Bank Erosion Rates TNC proposes to assess the geomorphic stability and measure stream bank erosion rates of key representative reaches of Board Camp and Gap Creeks. First, TNC will conduct a Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) analysis and estimate near bank shear stress (NBS) for Board Camp and Gap Creek stream banks from origin to confluence with the Ouachita River, utilizing the methodology described in Rosgen, 2001. Permanent erosion study sites will be selected that include a range of BEHI and NBS ratings and will reflect the channel conditions found throughout the drainage. A minimum of one, preferably two, reference reaches outside of the Board and Gap Creeks watersheds but within the Upper Ouachita watershed will also be surveyed for comparison purposes. The reference reach will act as the control or represent the least disturbed condition. Lateral erosion rates will be measured using bank profiles. Vertical stability will be assessed through monumented cross-sections in at least one riffle facet in each reach in addition to a longitudinal profile. Where gravel bed riffles are present throughout the reach, scour chains will be installed to determine the rate and magnitude of aggradation or degradation within the channel (see Figure 1, appendix). Bed material size distribution will be determined through reach and facet pebble counts. A stream channel stability analysis will be completed including characterization of the channel’s current succession scenario. Following initial site set up and survey, predictions can be made for erosion rates based on erosion curves established for other watersheds, including curves from Colorado, Yellowstone, and North Carolina, and measured values from a variety of conditions within the West Fork of the White River in Arkansas, and Middle Fork Saline River in Arkansas. After 12-18 months of flows, TNC will re-survey each of the selected sites, including the selected reference reach, to determine if predicted values are validated or need to be adjusted based on measured values within each reach. All erosion data will be related to the nearest USGS gage site and categorized as a low, normal, or high flow year based on available gage data.
While current erosion rates will be determined through the above mentioned method, USFS research hydrology staff will be investigating various ways, including dendrochronological techniques, to model and/or estimate past erosion rates. The data produced by TNC will establish a baseline of existing conditions in the Wolf Pen Gap streams and can be utilized as a tool in the future to measure change in erosion rates, and relate the changes to the BMP installation, maintenance, and relocation work completed within the trail system. The monitoring methods described above will support the development of in-stream channel erosion rates by providing measured lateral erosion and vertical aggradation or degradation values. These values would support the development of sediment models for the WPG area, an effort currently underway by research hydrology staff within the USFS.
Measuring Other BMP Effectiveness Trail segments within Wolf Pen Gap include OHV only, mixed OHV & vehicle, and gated USFS access only trails. The majority of sediment traps installed are on OHV only trail segments and thus the majority of study sites described above will occur on these segments. It has been suggested to look at sediment captured within other BMP’s that
C-4
exist throughout the complex. TNC also proposes to study two sections of trail of the same slope categorization, both with sediment traps at the outlet of the segment, and determine erosion rate reduction from the installation of ¾” rock placed throughout the trail prism. Rock will be installed on only one of the two selected segments and the same measurement methods will be utilized as described above for measuring sediment accumulation within the sediment traps. These study segments will include the same methodology described above to estimate sediment retention in the traps in an effort to provide comparisons between segments with and without rock installation as a BMP.
Another suggestion, with the potential to include significant involvement from the local stakeholder groups and/or the local college, was to conduct either biannually or once every three years a “Critical Sites Analysis”. This would include a trail-wide assessment looking specifically at variables such as connectivity of sediment from trails to streams and other site conditions matrix to continually update prioritization of BMP needs throughout the system. Current cost estimations could be tied to each required BMP to understand the ongoing maintenance costs of the system. A specific outcome of this work could be detailed photo monitoring at randomly selected sites within the Wolf Pen Gap Complex. These photo points could be randomly selected to repeat in future assessments with a very detailed protocol in an effort to visually tell the story of the progression of restoration and maintenance efforts within the trail system. TNC conducted a trail assessment in 2010 that included the above mentioned data. If determined useful, TNC will provide the protocol describing the assessment methodology conducted in 2010 including GPS location and photos of more than 216 photo monitoring point locations that could be randomly selected from to repeat in future assessments.
References Rosgen, David L. 2001. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol.2, pp. II – 9-15, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV.
C-5