environmental assessment wildcat hollow...

Environmental

Assessment

WILDCAT HOLLOW

PROJECT

Compartments 477-488

Yell County, Arkansas

Fourche Unit Jessieville–Winona–Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest USDA Forest Service Southern Region 8

November 2012

Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 2012 ii

Environmental Assessment

WILDCAT HOLLOW PROJECT

Compartments 477-488

Yell County, Arkansas

Fourche Unit Jessieville–Winona–Fourche Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest USDA Forest Service Southern Region 8

For Further Information Contact: Responsible Official:

Rudy W. Thornton, Megan Moynihan Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District District Ranger P.O. Box 189 Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Jessieville, AR 71949 Ouachita National Forest (501) 984-5313 ext 107 (501) 984-5313 ext 113 [email protected] [email protected]

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,

disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,

reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

November 2012


November 2012 iii

Contents

Page Chapter 1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 1

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Proposed Action 1

1.3 Need and Purpose for the Action 2

1.4 Scope of this Environmental Assessment 9

1.5 History of the Planning and Scoping Process 9

1.6 Relevant Planning Documents 10

1.7 Concerns Eliminated From Further Study 11

1.7.1 Special Land Use 11 1.7.2 Civil Rights and Minority Groups 11 1.7.3 Compliance with Laws & Best Management Practices 11

1.8 Effects Disclosed and Analysis 11

1.9 Decisions to Be Made 12

Chapter 2.0 Alternatives 13

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 Design of Alternatives 13

2.3 Project Objectives 13

2.4 Technical Requirements and Design Criteria 14

2.5 Alternative Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study 17

2.6 Alternatives Documented in Detail 17

2.6.1 Proposed Action Alternative 17 2.6.1.1 Roads 17 2.6.1.2 Stand Improvement–Pre-commercial Thinning 18 2.6.1.3 Harvest–Commercial Thinning Pine 18 2.6.1.4 Harvest–Clearcut (Restoration of Shortleaf Pine) 19 2.6.1.5 Harvest–Seed Tree Regeneration with Reserves 19 2.6.1.6 Stand Improvement−Release 20 2.6.1.7 Prescribed Burning−Fuel Reduction & Ecosystem Restoration 20 2.6.1.8 Wildlife Habitat 21 2.6.1.9 Control/Eradication of Non-native Invasive Plant Species 22 2.6.1.10 Proposed Action Alternative Summary Tables 23

2.6.2 No Herbicide Alternative 37

2.6.3 No Action Alternative 37

2.7 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 37

2.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives 40

2.9 Preferred Alternative 42


November 2012 iv

Chapter 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 43

3.1 Introduction 43

3.2 Analysis Tools Used 43

3.3 Other Information and Data Used 43

3.4 Environmental Effects 44

3.4.1 Air Quality 44

3.4.1.1 Federal Air Quality Regulations and Rules 44 3.4.1.2 Visibility Regulations/Regional Haze Rule 45 3.4.1.3 State Regulations 45 3.4.1.4 Forest Service Standards and Guidelines 45 3.4.1.5 Present Conditions 45 3.4.1.6 Analysis of Effects: Air Quality 48

3.4.2 Soil Productivity 52

3.4.2.1 Present Conditions 52 3.4.2.2 Analysis of Effects: Soils 52

3.4.3 Water Resources and Quality 61 3.4.3.1 Present Conditions 61 3.4.3.2 Water Resources and Quality Effects Analysis 61 3.4.3.3 Floodplains, Frequent Flooding Areas, SMAs, 65 Riparian Areas, Wetlands, Municipal Watersheds, and Public Drinking Water Source 3.4.3.3.1 Floodplains, Flooding, SMAs, Riparian 65 3.4.3.3.2 Wetlands 66 3.4.3.3.3 Public Drinking Water Source 67

3.4.4 Wildfire Hazards & Fuels Accumulations 67

3.4.4.1 Present Conditions 67 3.4.4.2 Effects Analysis: Wildfire Hazards & Fuels Accumulation 69

3.4.5 Vegetation 69

3.4.5.1 Present Conditions 70 3.4.5.2 Effects Analysis: Vegetation 73

3.4.6 Wildlife and Fish; MIS; PETS 81

3.4.6.1 Project Level Management Indicator Species (MIS) 81

3.4.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife 83 3.4.6.2.1 Northern bobwhite 83 3.4.6.2.2 Prairie Warbler 88 3.4.6.2.3 Eastern Wild Turkey 89 3.4.6.2.4 White-tailed deer 93 3.4.6.2.5 Pileated Woodpecker 95 3.4.6.2.6 Scarlet Tanager 99

3.4.6.3 Fish and Fish Habitat MIS 102 3.4.6.3.1 Streams 102

3.4.6.4 PETS Species and Habitats 104 3.4.6.4.1 Harperella 106 3.4.6.4.2 Scaleshell mussel 109 3.4.6.4.3 Bachman’s Sparrow 112


November 2012 v

3.4.6.4.4 Diana fritillary butterfly 116 3.4.6.4.5 Ozark chinquapin 119 3.4.6.4.6 Aquatic Vertebrates 122 3.4.6.4.7 Aquatic mussels 124

3.4.7 Scenery and Recreation Resources, Special Uses, Roadless Areas 127 3.4.7.1 Scenery 127 3.4.7.2 Recreation 130 3.4.7.3 Special Uses 131 3.4.7.4 Roadless Areas 131

3.4.8 Transportation System 131

3.4.9 Economics 135

3.4.10 Financial Efficiency 136

3.4.11 Public Health and Safety 138

3.4.12 Climate Change 140

3.4.13 Cultural Resources 142 Chapter 4.0 Interdisciplinary Team Members & Primary Authors 144 Chapter 5.0 Persons and Agencies Contacted and/or Consulted 145

Chapter 6.0 Literature Cited and/or Reviewed 146 Appendices

Appendix “A”: Biological Evaluation and PETS Checklist

Appendix “B”: Maps Management Areas Harvest Timber Stand Improvement Wildlife Habitat Improvement Prescribed Fire Burn Units Road Status and Motor Vehicle Use Road Work

List of Figures and Tables Page

Figure 1: Vicinity Map 1

Table 1.1: Project Conditions, Needs, and Management Activities 5

Table 1.2: Reference for Revised Forest Plan Standards by Management Area 10

Table 2.1: Proposed Action Summary – Compartment 477 24








November 2012 vi






Table 2.13: Proposed Action Summary – Totals by Compartment 36

Table 2.14: Past Resource Activities (USFS) in Project Area 37

Table 2.15: Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model–Other Present Actions 39

Table 2.16: Summary Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative 40

Table 2.17: Summary Comparison of Effects on Environment by Alternative 41

Table 2.18: Summary Comparison of Objectives Met by Alternative 42

Table 3.1: National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter 2.5 45

Table 3.2: Air Quality Index (AQI) 46

Table 3.3: VSMOKE Model Results Summary 50

Table 3.4: USLE Soil Loss Analysis Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives 58

Table 3.5: Current Watershed Risk Levels, Potential to Adversely Affect Aquatic Beneficial Uses 64 and the Distribution of Private Versus Forest Service Land Jurisdiction

Table 3.6: Sediment Sources (Delivery) 64

Table 3.7: Summary of Sediment Increases 65

Table 3.8: At-risk Communities-Fire 67

Table 3.9a: Existing Fire Condition Class 68

Table 3,9b: Fire Condition Class Description and Potential Risks 68

Table 3.10: Effect on Fire Condition Class Status 69

Table 3.11: Current Age Class Distribution for Forested Land by Forest Type 71

Table 3.12 Projected Age Class Distribution in 10 Years 75

Table 3.13: Management Indicator Species for Ouachita National Forest 81

Table 3.14: Potentially Affected Terrestrial Management Indicator Species 82

Table 3.15: Response of Selected Management Indicator Species 83

Table 3.16: Potentially Affected Stream and River MIS 103

Table 3.17: PETS Species Evaluated 105

Table 3.18 Summary of LD50 Values for Herbicide Active Ingredient (Bobwhite and Mallard) 115

Table 3.19 Summary of LD50 Values for Herbicide Active Ingredient (Bee) 118

Table 3.20: Summary Proposed Road Work and Motor Vehicle Use Designation 135

Table 3:21: Financial Efficiency Analysis 137

Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 2012 1

Chapter 1.0: Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction The Project Area that is the subject matter of this Environmental Assessment is within Region 8 (Southern Region) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and is part of the Ouachita National Forest (ONF, NF or Forest), which is composed of nearly 1.8 million acres in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Project Area, or Wildcat Hollow Project, consists of the Bear Creek West, Brogan, and Barn Hart watershed management units. Land ownership in the 17,897-acre Project Area is as follows:

Publicly owned, Ouachita National Forest 16,555 acres

Publicly owned, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Nimrod Project) 820 acres

Privately owned 522 acres

The Project Area is part of the Fourche Unit of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District. The District contains over 400,000 acres and consists of 65 watershed management unit areas, including the watersheds in the Project Area. The District Ranger for the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District is the Forest Service line officer that has the responsibility and authority for conducting analyses, preparing necessary documentation, and making decisions on proposed actions under his/her jurisdiction (FSM 1950.41d).

1.2 Proposed Action The District Ranger for the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District of the Ouachita National Forest has proposed resource management activities described herein for the Wildcat Hollow Project. The Project Area is located in Yell County Arkansas (see Figure 1: Vicinity Map). Proposed management activities on national forest lands would occur in management compartments 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, and 488. There have been some revisions to the acreage amounts disclosed during scoping; these changes are not considered significant.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map


November 2012 2

The following activities summarize the proposed action for the Wildcat Hollow Project:

Road work consisting of 4.6 miles of new system road, reconstruction on 8.5 miles of existing road, general maintenance on 49.2 miles of existing road, and 23.4 miles of temporary access.

3.4 miles of existing road would be decommissioned.

An additional 4.9 miles of road would be open year-round to all vehicles (total: 32.9 miles).

Road designated as open to highway legal vehicles only would be reduced by 0.7 miles (total: 8.7 miles).

2.4 miles of road would be open seasonally (October 1 to December 31) to all vehicles.

Timber stand improvement with pre-commercial thinning on 150 acres, midstory reduction on 2,720 acres, and release management on 323 acres.

Commercial thinning of pine on 4,329 acres.

Clearcut of loblolly pine would occur on 80 acres primarily for the purpose of restoring native species (shortleaf pine). Site preparation would be conducted prior to hand-planting shortleaf pine seedlings.

Harvest using the modified seed tree with reserves method on 817 acres. Following seed tree harvest, natural forest reforestation would be promoted by site preparation. Hand planting, if necessary, would be utilized to achieve desired seedling stocking levels.

Prescribed burning on a total of 20,178 acres every 3 to 7 years on a recurring schedule. Approximately 2 miles (2 acres) of new fireline would be established.

Wildlife habitat improvement consisting of midstory removal on 1,332 acres and overstory development on 538 acres, 60 ponds created for water source, 180 nest structures, and maintenance of four existing wildlife food plots (12 acres).

Eradication of non-native, invasive plant species on as much as 828 acres.

Firewood areas (by permit) to meet local demand for home heating purposes would be provided in coordination with timber harvest and resource management activities.

Most Proposed Action activities are scheduled for phased implementation beginning in 2012. Prescribed burning would take place on a recurring schedule and would extend until the area is re-examined and subsequent decision-making is completed for continued management activities (normally in 10 to 15 years). Timber harvest activities could be expected to commence during 2012 and continue for a period of 5 years or more. Site preparation activities and wildlife habitat activities could commence with the completion of harvest operations and continue for a period of 2 to 3 years. Stand improvement by release treatment or midstory removal would occur 2 to 15 years after implementation of the Project commences. Reforestation by hand planting, if needed, could take place for a period of 5 years after harvest is completed. Eradication of non-native, invasive plant species would continue throughout the entry cycle (normally 10 to 15 years).

1.3 Need and Purpose for the Action

The Proposed Action is needed because:

Early forest stage cover habitat (0-10 years), used by many species of wildlife and required by others and home to diverse assemblages of plants, is very limited, transitory, and rapidly fades within 3-5 years after establishment.

Many stands of older, mature timber are very crowded (have high basal areas) that result in increased competition for growing space, water, nutrients and light, increasing stress on individual trees and the potential for disease and insect infestation.


November 2012 3

After commercial thinning of the overstory, the midstory of these harvested stands remains dense, restricting the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor. This reduces the growth of herbaceous and grassy vegetation used by animal species for food and habitat.

Hardwood and hardwood-pine stands are dense, restricting crown development. This reduces the amount of hard mast (i.e. acorns) produced for wildlife consumption.

A variety of forested and non-forested conditions are needed to provide habitat for Neotropical migratory and resident birds that use the Project Area. These habitat conditions can be provided and accentuated through proposed silvicultural and wildlife habitat improvement activities.

Canopy closure and lack of fire have resulted in a less diverse assemblage of herbaceous plant species that provide food and cover for wildlife.

Trees comprising young overly dense stands are stressed and susceptible to disease and insect infestation. These stands are not conducive to shade-intolerant plant species and do not provide useful habitat conditions for wildlife.

Standing water is not readily available throughout the Project Area year-round and is needed for consumption by wildlife and as reproductive sites for native amphibian species. Some species of wildlife, particularly amphibians, do not use flowing water as habitat (example: woodland salamanders).

Through time, the natural accumulation of leaf litter and larger woody debris in non-harvested stands, the generation of debris during harvest and other silvicultural activities, and as the result of natural stochastic events (e.g., wind and ice storms) poses a threat as fuels for catastrophic wildfire which can be reduced through use of prescribed burning.

Harvest of timber would provide wood products that benefit the local economy by providing jobs and help achieve desired stand conditions.

The proposed removal of cedar and non-native species, thinning or removal of pine and some hardwood, and prescribed burning in woodland glades will help achieve native species restoration and assist in the restoration to their original, prairie-like condition.

The current open road density exceeds Revised Forest Plan guidelines. Some roads are no longer needed and could be decommissioned or closed for administrative use only. There is not existing access to some stands proposed for management treatments. Public preference is for more open roads, including off-road-vehicle use.

Several non-native, invasive plant species have been detected throughout the Project Area.

Specific purposes for the Proposed Action include:

Develop early forest stage (early seral) cover habitat conditions.

Improve the health and vigor of mature growth timber stands.

Development of stands designated for old growth restoration (Management Area 21)

Improve the capability of hardwoods to produce hard and soft mast.

Restore and improve habitat for Neotropical and resident migratory birds.

Improve the volume, palatability and variety (diversity) of herbaceous plant species in the understory of hardwood and pine stands and in wildlife openings.

Improve the health and vigor of young stands by reducing excessive competition.

Ensure water is spatially available for wildlife throughout the Project Area.

Reduce excessive fuel loads to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire.

Provide a sustained supply of wood and wood products.

Improve forest health by reducing the likelihood of insect infestations and disease outbreaks.

Eradication or control of non-native, invasive plants.


November 2012 4

Review open road density.

Review designation of road status and motor vehicle use.

Protect the scenic character of the Project Area and surrounding area.

Protect cultural resources/historic properties. Management purposes and objectives for the Wildcat Hollow Project are presented in Table 1.1, as well as treatments designed to meet Project need, purposes, and objectives. The proposed management activities were determined to be within the scope of this analysis and were generated from contrasts between the existing and desired conditions in reference to the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest−“Revised Forest Plan” (U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service 2005a).

Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 2012 5

Table 1.1: Project Conditions, Site Specific Needs, and Proposed Management Activities

Desired Conditions (Revised Forest Plan)

Existing Conditions Site Specific Needs Proposed Management Activities

Provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities throughout the planning area.

Improve habitat for game and non-game species. (Revised Forest Plan, p. 20)

Manage for identified natural plant communities. (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 6-19)

Conduct prescribed burning (Revised Forest Plan, p. 59)

Past fire suppression activities have removed or diminished the natural role of fire from the landscape. This has resulted in limited open under-stories necessary for wildlife foods, lack of natural regeneration of pine and oak, and loss of suitable habitat conditions for plants adapted to fire.

Increase fire frequency to meet desired intervals for various Ouachita ecosystem types (Revised Forest Plan, Part I, pp. 6-19) present in Project Area.

Shortleaf Pine-Oak Forest. At least 50 percent of the spatial extent of the pine-oak forest is treated with prescribed fire every 3 to 7 years with an occasional growing season fire. Ouachita Shortleaf Pine-Oak Woodland. Prescribed fire is applied to at least 50 percent of this community every 3-5 years, with an occasional growing season fire.

Repeated prescribed burning on 20,178* acres of national forest land for fuel reduction and ecosystem restoration.

* Includes Project Area and additional acres of an adjacent

watershed area to allow utilization of existing firelines (see Appendix “B” Burn Units Map)

Produce a sustained yield of wood products at a level consistent with sound economic principles and appropriate multiple use objectives. (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 43, 68)

Improve forest health by maintaining conditions that would reduce insect and disease caused losses (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 58-59).

Numerous pine stands contain damaged, poorly formed, and diseased trees. Many stands are overcrowded or densely stocked, reducing growth and crown development.

Trees in many pine stands are crowded or densely stocked; many Forest stands are older than 20 years of age (10,130 acres or 94% of pine stand acreage for NF land in Project Area; see Table 3.11). These conditions result in stress and reduced vigor and health, increasing susceptibility to insects and diseases.

Restore and develop healthy forest conditions. Regeneration harvest (even-aged) on 897 acres

Commercial thinning on 4,329 acres

Pre-commercial thinning on 150 acres

Midstory removal on 2,720 acres

Release on 323 acres of existing pine regeneration

Provide a safe transportation system that meets the minimum needs of the various resources and their users, minimizes wildlife habitat disturbance, and satisfies some public demand for motorized recreation. (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 67)

Variation in level of maintenance on existing forest roads within the Project Area; subject in part to budget limitations.

Erosion control and repair or replacement of inadequate road structures

Culvert replacement/repair

Wing ditch repair

Ditch cleaning

Resurfacing


November 2012 6




Achieve open road density (open road per square mile) objective (0.75 or 1.0) driven by wildlife concerns (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 59, 67, 90-92).

By 2015 identify all system roads that should be obliterated/decommissioned (Revised Forest Plan, OJB37, p. 67).

Seasonally close roads where possible for wildlife purposes (Revised Forest Plan, WF012, p. 79).

National forest land in the Project Area consists of 25.87 square miles. Open road density for MA-14 lands is 1.60; for MA-17 and MA-21 it is 1.38. Open road density reflects recent Travel Management decision-making.

Maintain or reduce open road density to the greatest extent possible (Revised Forest Plan, TR006, p. 91)

Open road density for MA-14 lands would increase to 1.88; it would remain 1.38 for MA-17 and MA-21 lands

3.4 miles of existing road would be decommissioned

2.4 miles of road would be open seasonally (10/1 to 12/31)

Provide at least one permanent water source per 160 acres for wildlife objectives (Revised Forest Plan, p. 79).

22 wildlife ponds exist in the Project Area (1 pond per 429 acres of national forest).

Establish additional water sources where no permanent water is currently available (Revised Forest Plan, WF010, p. 79) and where geological and soil conditions are suitable.

Identify available water source (lakes, streams, ponds)

Construction 60 new ponds (Total of 82 ponds). These new ponds will move the Project Area closer to achieving forest objectives during this entry.

Provide suitable seedbeds in natural regeneration stands.

Conditions do not exist for successful natural regeneration.

Need to create a suitable seedbed for seed fall after the regeneration harvests; in regeneration sites after initial prescribed burning in the even-age regeneration stands; and in the even-age regeneration stands after initial prescribed burning and hand tools.

Site Preparation by prescribed burning and/or herbicide treatment on 897 acres

If necessary, hand plant seedlings on areas of even-aged harvest

Increase growth rate and quality of desired trees (Revised Forest Plan pp. 83).

Competition among species is reducing growth rate.

Need to decrease competition for nutrients and water among plant species.

Release utilizing herbicide application on 323 acres

Where open habitats are not provided by other conditions, develop one (1) permanent wildlife opening, one to five acres per 160 acres (Revised Forest Plan, p. 78).

There are 4 permanent wildlife openings (12 aces) in the Project Area. Existing closed roads provide approximately 46 acres of habitat beneficial to wildlife. There are 400 acres of forest stands 10 years of age and younger. There are 81 acres of permanent rights-of-way in the Project Area.

Develop additional wildlife openings (one 1-5 acres per 160 NF acres) or create additional woodland habitat (Revised Forest Plan, WF008, p. 78)

Maintain existing permanent wildlife openings (12 acres)

Additional road closure and decommissioning (52 acres).

Log landings developed for harvest operations (73 acres).


November 2012 7




A minimum of 3-6% of the suitable acres should be in well-distributed, 0-10 year old, grass/forbs or shrub/seedling (early seral) habitat; limit even-aged regeneration cutting to no more than 6-14% of suitable acres managed under even-aged prescriptions, per 10-year entry (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 7-12, 35, 78, 101, 103).

Of the 12,557 acres of suitable land assigned to even-aged management) in the Project Area, there are 400 acres of forest type that currently qualify as early seral (10 years age or less). Early seral habitat is provided with current conditions that include 81 acres of permanent rights-of-way, 12 acres or permanent wildlife food openings, and 46 acres of closed roads.

Provide grass/forb or seedling/shrub conditions.

minimum 6% suitable MA-14/17= 703 acres

minimum 3% suitable MA-21= 25 acres

Limit for suitable/even-aged cutting:

14% MA-14 = 1,536 acres

6-10% MA-17 = 45-75 acres

6% MA-21 = 50 acres

Even-aged harvest (clearcut and seed tree) on 897 acres

Closed & decommissioned roads (52 acres)

Temporary roads (40 acres)

Log landings (73 acres)

Commercial thinning (4,329 acres also will provide temporary openings and early seral habitat when combined with rotational prescribed burning).

Open stand conditions to allow improved development of grasses and forbs on the forest floor. Habitat conditions to sustain healthy populations of native and desirable non-native wildlife and fish species. Areas for hardwood mast production. Vegetation conditions that maintain or enhance wildlife habitat (Revised Forest Plan, pp. 20, 78, 79)

Stand conditions are in many areas heavily stocked, reducing sunlight to the forest floor which inhibits development of grasses and forbs.

Reduce midstory component in mostly pine and pine-hardwood forest types.

Midstory removal on 2,720 acres for timber stand improvement

Midstory removal on 1,332 acres for wildlife habitat improvement

Provide bird nest structures where suitable natural cavities do not occur and when needed (Revised Forest Plan, WF009, p. 79)

Existing nesting structures are needed to meet wildlife objective.

Additional nesting structures 180 nest structures would be placed near newly constructed and existing wildlife ponds, streams, right-of-ways, and wildlife openings

Retain or develop mature growth pine habitats (80 years old or greater) and mature growth hardwood habitats (100 years old or greater) within each compartment at rate of 5% of each broad cover type (Revised Forest Plan, WF006, p. 78).

Mature pine habitat = 4,219 acres (32% of total pine forest type habitat)

Mature hardwood habitat = 184 acres (5% of total hardwood forest type habitat)

Retain current habitats and plan for increased mature hardwood habitats.

Prescription for retention of mature growth pine would not reduce mature growth pine below 5%. In 10 years, projected mature pine habitat would be 8,145 acres.

Prescription for development of mature growth hardwood allows hardwood to move into the mature stage. In 10 years, projected mature hardwood habitat would be 408 acres.


November 2012 8




Provide for and designate areas for mast production at the approximate rate of 20% of each project area (Revised Forest Plan, WF03, p. 78)

3,105 acres in the Project Area are of the hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types age 50 years and older. This represents approximately 19% of forested lands in the Project Area.

Manage hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types for increased mast production.

Wildlife habitat improvement employing midstory removal and overstory development would take place on 1,870 acres to insure a variety of hard mast wildlife food sources and to enhance herbaceous and grassy vegetation valuable for producing wildlife food and cover.

In mixed pine-hardwood forests subject to harvesting, maintain between 30-50% hardwoods in each stand, including large overstory hardwoods distributed throughout the stand (Revised Forest Plan, FR004, p. 80).

Mixed pine-hardwood stands are generally characterized with a hardwood component of at least 30%.

Specifically identify hardwood component in pine-hardwood stands designated for harvest treatment

Prescription to provide for maintaining at least 30% of hardwood in harvested stands with mixed pine-hardwood forest type.

Maintain all recreation facilities to standard (Revised Forest Plan, OBJ24, p. 65).

There is one developed recreation resource in the Project Area, namely, the Fourche Mountain Picnic Area, at Highway 27 and Forest Road 83 consisting of approximately 3 acres. Dispersed recreation consists primarily of hunting and vehicular touring. 839 acres of the 2,403-acre Fourche Mountain Semi-Primitive Area are in the Project Area.

Maintain public access to site. Provide public safety. Facilities to be compatible with overall setting of the area.

Periodic inspection and, if necessary, repair of facilities.

Maintain safe access for public

Grounds maintenance, including debris removal and treatment of poison ivy

Fourche Mountain Recreation Site: rehabilitate current camping units, replace tables, grills, and lantern posts, erect new information board, replace trash receptacles and signs, paint restrooms, and install new risers and seats in restrooms.

Eradication of non-native, invasive species. (Revised Forest Plan: Program Priorities and Objectives; OBJ03)

Several non-native, invasive plant species have been detected throughout the Project Area. The most prevalent are found along roadways and other openings and are sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Mimosa/Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) and Fescue grass species (Lolium spp.), widely used for erosion control and as a local forage grass. Also found along roadways, openings and under dense canopies is Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)

Eradication or control of targeted species. Several site-specific sites within the Project Area have been identified as areas with high concentrations of invasive species. These locations, as well as other areas noted during field examination over the next 10-15 years, will be prioritized for control for up to five percent of national forest lands in the Project Area

Wildcat Hollow Project Environmental Assessment Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District Ouachita National Forest ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 2012 9

1.4 Scope of this Environmental Assessment Generally, the Forest Service provides that there are to be two levels of decision-making for national forest system planning units. The first level is the development of a forest plan that provides direction for all resource management activities. The current Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan) for the Ouachita National Forest was adopted in 2005 (Record of Decision /s/ September 23, 2005). The Revised Forest Plan consists of forest-wide vision, strategy, and design criteria, as well as anticipated resource outputs. The second level of forest planning entails analysis and implementation designed to accomplish the goals and objectives of the applicable forest plan. For over a decade, the Ouachita National Forest has opted to utilize a “watershed analysis” approach to provide a systematic way to estimate direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed management activities and to establish the type, location, and sequence of management actions within a defined watershed area. Watersheds are considered an appropriate scale for a forest-planning unit because they have well-defined geographic areas with distinctive features, recurring processes, and a community of dependent plant and animal species. The watershed analysis process takes into account ecosystem elements, including human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial components. It considers features, conditions, processes, and interactions of the ecosystem. This analysis of the Bear Creek West, Brogan, Barn Hart watershed management units (Project, Project Area or Wildcat Hollow Project) is designed to be ecosystem analysis at the watershed level. It is an effort to understand the consequences of the management actions described herein before implementation and to furnish the context for decision-making. This Environmental Assessment is intended to comply with the directives and requirements of primary authorities including: Forest Service Manual 1950, Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1614), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4346), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1500-1508 which set forth specific requirements for implementing the NEPA, U.S. Department of Agriculture NEPA regulations at Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, part 1b which supplement the CEQ regulations and direct Department of Agriculture agencies to develop and to implement procedures for compliance with NEPA, and Forest Service NEPA regulations at Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, part 220 which supplement CEQ regulations.

1.5 History of the Planning and Scoping Process Scoping is the procedure by which the Forest Service identifies important issues and determines the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed action; it is an integral part of environmental analysis. Scoping provides for an “early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying issues related to a proposed action. The process includes inviting participation of affected governmental agencies, affected Indian tribes, proponents of the action, and other interested persons or organizations. See FSH 1909.15 Chapter 10, 40 CFR § 1500 and 36 CFR § 220. Proposed Action. On July 28, 2011, the District Ranger for the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District of the Ouachita National Forest sent a letter of Notice of Proposed Action to individuals and/or organizations that have expressed interest in proposed management activities for the Fourche Unit of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District (see Chapter 5.0). Included with the notice letter was a copy of the Proposed Action–Ecosystem Management Activities–Wildcat Hollow Project–Compartments 477-488 in Yell County, Arkansas. Comments on the Proposed Action were submitted by Mr. Dick Artley who opposed road construction, timber harvest and herbicide use. Comments were also submitted by Mr. David Saugey recommending greater attention to prescribed burning special interest areas, giving emphasis on the establishing early forest stage cover, utilizing herbicide in areas treated for wildlife habitat improvement, questioning the expenditures and effectiveness of treatment of invasive species, recommending creating a scenic viewing site at the old fire tower west of Highway 27, and questioning whether proposed wildlife water sources meet design criteria of the Forest Plan (Project file).


November 2012 10

Heritage Resources. An archeological report (Ouachita Cultural Resources Report 347−USDA-Forest Service 2011b), has been prepared by the District and submitted for review to the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Office, Arkansas Archeological Survey, Osage Nation, Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Nation, Chickasaw Nation, and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended 1992, and 36 CFR 800 regulations with respect to inventory survey adequacy, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of archeological sites and the expected effects of the actions proposed with Project alternatives on cultural resources, cultural resource inventories were conducted to identify historic properties. Historic properties are defined at 36 CFR 800.16 (l) as cultural resource sites that may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The findings were submitted to the Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Quapaw and Caddo Tribes, and the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Osage Nations of Oklahoma for review and comment. Letters of concurrence were issued by the SHPO on August 15, 2011 and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma on August 26, 2011. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Concurrence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relative to two endangered species, harperella and the scaleshell mussel by letter dated April 11, 2012. Margaret Harney of the USFWS Arkansas Field Office signed a concurrence letter dated April 25, 2012. This proposed Project has also been disclosed in the Ouachita National Forest “Schedule of Proposed Actions” (SOPA) notice published quarterly. The SOPA is available for review from the Ouachita National Forest website, http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/.

1.6 Relevant Planning Documents Proposed management activities described in this Environmental Assessment (EA) are consistent with the vision, strategy, and design criteria of the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) for the Ouachita National Forest. Proposed treatments are typical of those projected for implementation in the Revised Forest Plan and for which the environmental effects are disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2005b). This assessment tiers to and incorporates by reference the analyses and disclosures of effects presented in the Revised Forest Plan and the FEIS.

This assessment also tiers to the Ouachita National Forest Travel Management Project Environmental Assessment (USDA-Forest Service 2009a) and associated Decision Notice & Finding of No Significant Impact signed January 4, 2010. This decision designates roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. Designation

Table 1.2: Reference for Revised Forest Plan Standards by Management Area

Management Area Number

Management Area Description Project Area

National Forest System Acres

Revised Forest Plan Reference Management Area Design Criteria*

3 Developed Recreation Areas (Fourche Mountain) 3 Part 2, pp.31; Part 3, pp. 102

6 Rare Upland Communities 2 Part 2, p. 32-33; Part 3, p. 102

9 Water and Riparian Area 1,917 Part 2, pp.34; Part 3, pp. 103-108

14 Ouachita Mountains, Habitat Diversity Emphasis 12,781 Part 2, p. 35; Part 3, p. 108

17 Semi-Primitive Areas (Fourche Mountain) 862 Part 2, pp.37-38; Part 3, pp. 111-112

21 Old Growth Restoration, Pine-Grass Emphasis 990 Part 2, p. 39-41; Part 3, p. 118-119

* Part 3–Design Criteria of the Revised Forest Plan (pp. 73-97) present standards applicable Forest-wide.


November 2012 11

includes class of vehicle and, if appropriate, time of year for motor vehicle use, and limited motor vehicle use for big game retrieval. Maps depicting these designations were released to the public May 9, 2011 and made available from the Forest website, http://www.fs.usda.gov/ouachita, and ranger district offices.

1.7 Concerns Eliminated from Further Study For the following reasons, some subject matters were determined not to warrant further consideration in this assessment:

Outside the scope of the proposed action.

Already decided by law, regulation, Revised Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision.

Irrelevant to the decision to be made.

Speculative and not supported by scientific evidence.

The following concerns will not be discussed further in this assessment

1.7.1 Special Land Use (Parklands, Prime Farmlands, Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers,

Ecologically Critical Areas) There are no parklands, prime farmlands, wilderness, wild & scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas within or adjacent to the Project Area. Such areas would not be impacted or affected by the proposed management activities described in this assessment.

1.7.2 Civil Rights and Minority Groups There is a concern that management actions could affect civil rights and minority groups. The actions proposed consider all groups of people equal. None of the alternatives would adversely affect the civil rights of any individual or group. Effects to women, Native Americans, minority groups, or persons with disabilities are not expected to be different than to any other population individual or group. Effects to consumers, civil rights, minorities, or women will not be discussed further in this assessment.

1.7.3 Compliance with Laws & Best Management Practices No federal, state, or local laws would be knowingly violated with the implementation of the proposed treatments described in this environmental assessment. Required permits would be obtained. All treatments would follow as much as reasonably possible Revised Forest Plan design criteria which meet or exceed State of Arkansas Best Management Practices.

1.8 Effects Disclosed and Analysis The following concerns are considered relevant to the proposed action and disclosure of effects of each alternative to the specific environmental factor or factors can be found in Chapter 3:

Smoke from prescribed burning impacts to air quality and smoke sensitive targets

Management actions impact to soil productivity

Management actions impact to water quality and resources

Management actions impact to accumulation of fuels

Management actions impact to hunting and fishing opportunities

Management actions impact to wildlife and fisheries populations or habitats


November 2012 12

Management actions impact to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species (PETS) or their habitat

Management actions impact to scenery and recreation resources

Management actions impact to financial or economic impact on the local economy

Management actions contribution to introduction and spread of non-native invasive plant species

Management actions contribution to human-induced climate change

Management actions impact to human health and safety

Management actions impact to cultural resources/historic properties

1.9 Decisions to be Made The Responsible Official (District Ranger) must decide which of the alternatives, if any, analyzed in detail in this environmental assessment should be implemented. In addition, the Responsible Official must decide whether the effects resulting from implementation of the selected alternative would cause significant impact on the quality of the human environment and if such effects constitute a major federal action.


November 2012 13

Chapter 2.0: Alternatives

2.1 Introduction At the direction of the District Ranger, staff of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District met regularly to evaluate resource conditions for the Project Area. The District Ranger issued an EA Project Initiation letter and established an Interdisciplinary Team (ID team) to assess potential management activities for the Project Area. ID Team members and their areas of expertise are listed in Chapter 4.0. The ID Team discussed and reviewed data collected for the analysis area during field examinations. Those discussions involved current forest conditions, management needs, goals, objectives, opportunities, and desired conditions for Forest resources for the Project. The ID Team then developed a list of possible and probable resource management actions that were submitted to the District Ranger for review. The District Ranger approved the Proposed Action and then distributed a summary document to those persons and groups on the District NEPA mailing list, requesting review and inviting comments (see §1.5 History of the Planning and Scoping Process). The ID Team then began to analyze the Proposed Action and develop alternatives to address issues and concerns identified during the scoping process. Alternatives are the essential components of this environmental assessment. This chapter describes in detail the activities of the Proposed Action and other alternatives. Based on the descriptions of the relevant resources, the predicted effects on the quality of the human environment disclosed in Chapter 3.0, and the predicted attainment of Project objectives, the alternatives are compared in tabular form, providing a basis of evaluation for the decision maker. This chapter identifies the preferred alternative as determined by the Responsible Official.

2.2 Design of Alternatives

The District Ranger, in consultation with the ID Team, identified and approved the formulation of alternatives and Project objectives included in this analysis. These were used by the ID Team to design various alternatives and determine how well those alternatives met Project objectives. The District Ranger used these same criteria in making the final selection of which alternative, if any, to implement.

2.3 Project Objectives Consistent with the Revised Forest Plan, the following objectives state the overall desired conditions for the Project:

Utilize prescribed burning to help achieve and maintain desired conditions; treat highest priority areas for fuel reduction; contribute to achievement of the Forest goal for hazardous fuel reduction on 180,000 acres annually (by 2011)–measured in acres burned.

Maintain or improve population status of Forest management indicator species and those species federally listed or proposed for listing–measured in trends in population estimates.

Establish grass/forb condition within the pine-oak forest while maintaining 60-90% in mature to late seral condition–measured in acres of regeneration harvest under irregular shelterwood or irregular seedtree system and acres of mature pine-oak forest.

Restore ecosystem health in oak forests and woodlands affected by oak decline and other hardwood diseases, insect problems and drought–measured in acres of oak forest and woodland treated.

Reduce susceptibility to disease and insects (especially southern pine beetle) outbreaks–measured in acres treated.

Contribute to achievement of Forest goal for timber sale (200,000 CCF annually)–measured in CCF of timber sold.


November 2012 14

Provide access without unduly increasing the open road density–measured in open road miles per square mile area, and, to the greatest extent reasonably possible, provide public access to forest roads, including opportunity for off-road-vehicle use.

Maintain a natural appearing landscape whenever possible

Maintain or enhance air and water quality

Maintain scenic integrity objectives and recreation features

Protect cultural/historic resources and properties

Eradicate or control non-native, invasive plant species on National Forest System lands measured in acres treated

2.4 Technical Requirements and Design Criteria Project activities will comply with all relevant laws and regulations, and any required permits would be obtained The Interdisciplinary Team reviewed Revised Forest Plan Forest-wide Design Criteria, Management Area-specific Design Criteria, and specialist recommendations, and identified the following Project requirements: Soil and Water

Soil protection from excessive compaction would be assured by implementing heavy equipment operating season restrictions on logging and by effective contract administration during road construction, temporarily restricting logging equipment when the soils are wet, site preparation work, and revegetation efforts.

Temporary roads and skid trails established for Project activities would be of the out-slope/rolling dip design where feasible. This design helps maintain natural runoff patterns and more evenly dissipates storm water flow. All road use would follow Revised Forest Plan standards to minimize adverse impacts to streams and riparian areas. Closed roads that are opened for use for Project activities would be closed, out-sloped where feasible, water-barred where needed, and seeded with erosion control/wildlife mix, and fertilized following use. Any seeding would follow Forest guidelines for approved seed species and source.

Skid trails and log landings may be utilized as necessary when approved by the appropriate Forest Service officer (Timber Sales Administrator or Forest Service Representative). Best management practices and Revised Forest Plan standards would be followed for skidding and stream crossings. Skid trails and log landings may be established but would be revegetated after use.

Disturbed areas, including but not limited to exposed soil from timber harvesting, road, and landing construction, log skidding, etc., would be revegetated after the site has been satisfactorily prepared. The operator would be advised as to species, methods of revegetation, and season to plant.

Roads, landings, firelines, and other areas dedicated to those uses would have as minimal an impact as possible on the soil. Displaced soil (consisting of soil mounds greater than 8” in settled height) would be redistributed on areas not dedicated to other uses.

Where excessive rutting would occur due to wet soil conditions, heavy equipment operations would be restricted to designated skid trails and temporary roads, or operations would cease if erosion control measures cannot be adequately implemented or other unacceptable resource damage is occurring.

Equipment operations in or near natural drainages, springs, seeps, areas subject to frequent flooding, or near open bodies of water would be avoided in most instances (springs and seeps should always be avoided).

Harvest and other Project activities shall comply with soil and water resources design criteria set forth in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, SW001-SW009, pp. 74-76). See Section 3.4.2 for a more detailed discussion of soil resources.


November 2012 15

Air Quality

A Burn Plan with smoke management procedures would be prepared for each prescribed burn.

Smoke dispersion modeling would be utilized to evaluate the effects of proposed burns.

Apply goals, objectives and standards as outlined in the Revised Forest Plan.

Burning would only occur when conditions are favorable for adequate smoke dispersal away from smoke sensitive areas (see VSMOKE analysis in Project file).

Burning of large blocks of land would be spread over time and space to minimize local cumulative smoke effects.

Proposed burn areas would be large enough for efficient burning but small enough to allow burning to be completed by mid-afternoon so that most smoke is dispersed by nightfall when smoke tends to sink down slope into valleys.

Ensure adequate and timely public notification of prescribed burning information prior to ignition.

Avoid higher concentrations of particulates in the air by burning in smaller units when appropriate.

As weather allows, consider extending the burn season to times which are conducive to reduced smoke production and better lofting and smoke dispersion.

To ensure adequate smoke ventilation, conduct burn when conditions are good for rapid dispersion. The atmosphere should be unstable enough so that smoke would rise and dissipate, but not so unstable as to cause control problems.

Current weather information and fire-weather forecasts would be used to determine what would happen to the smoke, as well as to determine behavior of the fire.

When it is compatible with resource objectives, “mass ignition” firing techniques (usually helicopter) would be considered to maximize fire heat production and the resultant plume heights in order to promote mixing at higher altitudes.

Firing techniques that minimize smoldering would be applied.

The Arkansas Smoke Management Program (Arkansas Forestry Commission 2007) would be followed.

Place smoke warning signs along travel ways that lead into the burn area.

Worker and Public Health and Safety−Herbicide

Worker and public safety in and around areas of herbicide use is a high priority concern. Measures would be taken to help ensure that the general public does not come in contact with herbicides. These include posting warning signs on areas that have been treated, temporary area closure, selectively targeting application for only that vegetation that needs to be controlled rather than using a broadcast application, establishing buffer zones of non-treatment around private property, streams, and roads; carefully transporting only enough herbicide for one day’s use; mixing material on-site away from private land, open water or other sensitive areas, properly maintaining and operating equipment (e.g. no leaks), and having good accident pre-planning and emergency spill plans in place. These measures along with others are incorporated into contracts and through good enforcement and administration will be effective in reducing the risk of accidental contamination of humans or the environment. Exposure to herbicide can be mitigated by requiring workers to wear proper attire and safety equipment, using properly functioning equipment, applying herbicide at proper rates, working in an organized fashion so as to not re-enter treated areas, not exceeding the “typical” length of workday, and other measures where needed.


November 2012 16

Historic Properties

The following measures only apply to cultural resource sites that are unevaluated, eligible for listing, or listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

HP1: Site Avoidance During Project Implementation. Avoidance of historic properties (HP) will require the protection from effects resulting from the undertaking. Effects will be avoided by (1) establishing clearly defined site boundaries and buffers around archeological sites where activities that might result in an adverse effect. Buffers will be of sufficient size to ensure that integrity of the characteristics and values which contribute to, or potentially contribute to, the properties' significance will not be affected, and (2) routing proposed new roads, temporary roads, log landings and skid trails away from historic properties;

HP2: Site Protection During Prescribed Burns

(1) Firelines. Historic properties located along existing non-maintained woods roads used as fire lines will be protected by hand-clearing those sections that cross the sites. Although these roads are generally cleared of combustible debris using a small dozer, those sections crossing archeological sites will be cleared using leaf blowers and/or leaf rakes. There will be neither removal of soil, nor disturbance below the ground surface, during fireline preparation. Historic properties and features located along proposed routes of mechanically-constructed firelines, where firelines do not now exist, will be avoided by routing fireline construction around historic properties. Sites that lie along previously constructed dozer lines from past burns where the firelines will be used again as firelines, will be protected during future burns by hand clearing sections of line that cross the site, rather than re-clearing using heavy equipment. Where these activities will take place outside stands not already surveyed, cultural resources surveys and regulatory consultation will be completed prior to project implementation. Protection measures, HP1, HP3, and HP4, will be applied prior to project implementation to protect historic properties.

(2) Burn Unit Interior. Combustible elements at historic properties in burn unit interiors will be protected from damage during burns by removing excessive fuels from the feature vicinity and, as necessary, by burning out around the feature prior to igniting the main burn, creating a fuel-free zone. Burn out is accomplished by constructing a set of two hand lines around the feature, approximately 30 to 50 feet apart, and then burning the area between the two lines while the burn is carefully monitored. Combustible features located in a burn unit will also be documented with digital photographs and/or field drawings prior to the burn. Historic properties containing above ground, non-combustible cultural features and exposed artifacts will be protected by removing fuel concentrations dense enough to significantly alter the characteristics of those cultural resources. No additional measures are proposed for any sites in the burn interior that have been previously burned or that do not contain combustible elements or other above ground features and exposed artifacts as proposed prescribed burns will not be sufficiently intense to cause adverse effects to these features.

(3) Post-Burn Monitoring. Post-burn monitoring may be conducted at selected sites to assess actual and indirect effects of the burns on the sites against the expected effects. SHPO consultation will be carried out with respect to necessary mitigation for any sites that suffer unexpected damage during the burn or from indirect effects following the burn.

HP3: Other Protection Measures. If it is not feasible or desirable to avoid an historic property that may be harmed by a project activity (HP1), then the following steps will be taken: (1) In consultation with the Arkansas SHPO, the site(s) will be evaluated against NRHP significance criteria (36 CFR 60.4) to determine eligibility for the NRHP. The evaluation may require subsurface site testing; (2) In consultation with the Arkansas SHPO, tribes and nations, and with the ACHP if required, mitigation measures will be developed to minimize the adverse effects on the site, so that a finding of No Adverse Effect results; (3) The agreed-upon mitigation measures will be implemented prior to initiation of activities having the potential to affect the site.

HP4: Discovery of Cultural Resources during Project Implementation. Although cultural resources surveys were designed to locate all NRHP eligible archeological sites and components, these may go undetected for a variety of reasons. Should unrecorded cultural resources be discovered, activities that may be affecting that


November 2012 17

resource will halt immediately; the resource will be evaluated by an archaeologist, and consultation will be initiated with the SHPO, tribes and nations, and the ACHP, to determine appropriate actions for protecting the resource and mitigating adverse effects. Project activities at that locale will not resume until the resource is adequately protected and until agreed-upon mitigation measures are implemented with SHPO approval.

2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Proposed Action without Harvest Activity

An alternative similar to the Proposed Action but without harvest applications was considered by the ID Team but eliminated from detailed analysis for two reasons. First, the ID Team concluded that a No Action Alternative adequately addressed the overall effects of a no harvest alternative. Also, there is a concern that restoration-type actions and wildlife habitat improvements could not reasonably be funded without the use of KV funds made available through timber sales. Since these types of actions would not take place without KV funding (Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930, which authorizes utilizing a portion of timber sale receipts for capital improvements in the timber sale area), a restoration-only no harvest alternative was considered unrealistic as an action alternative.

Proposed Action without Prescribed Burning An alternative similar to the Proposed Action, but without the application of prescribed burning (other than existing authorized burn decisions), was considered by the ID Team but eliminated from detailed analysis. The ID Team concluded that a No Action Alternative adequately addressed the overall effects of a no prescribed burning alternative.

2.6 Alternatives Documented in Detail Three (3) alternatives were identified by the ID Team and approved by the Responsible Official to be evaluated and documented in detail:

Proposed Action Alternative

No Herbicide Alternative (same as Proposed Action Alternative without use of herbicide)

No Action Alternative 2.6.1 Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action, identified herein as the Proposed Action Alternative, is designed to accomplish multiple integrated ecosystem management objectives for national forest lands of the Project Area. A summary of proposed management activities is provided in Section 1.2 and further described in this section. It is estimated that harvest would provide approximately 50,400 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of pine sawtimber and pine roundwood (pulpwood). This harvested timber would be offered through timber sales; no individual sale would exceed 30,000 CCF. In non-harvest treatment areas where thinning occurs for timber stand or wildlife habitat improvement, hardwood, firewood, cedar, or other raw timber products may be sold commercially where opportunities exist.

2.6.1.1 Roads Utilizing the network of National Forest System roads in the Project Area is necessary to accomplish proposed management activities. The Project Proposed Action includes reconstruction of 8.5 miles of existing roads and


November 2012 18

general maintenance on 49.2 miles of road, and construction of 4.6 miles of new system roads. 3.4 miles of existing road would be decommissioned. Access for proposed management activities will include approximately 23.4 miles of temporary roads. Revegetation and closure of all temporary roads will occur after management activities are complete. 27.4 miles of road would be closed (administrative use only). Road closure would occur primarily for the purposes of minimizing wildlife habitat disturbance, reducing impacts of roads on streams and streamside management areas, providing reasonable and safe access, and optimizing road maintenance resources. Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in motor vehicle use consisting of 32.9 miles open year-round to all vehicles, 8.7 miles open year-round to highway legal vehicles only, and 2.4 miles of road open to all vehicles seasonally from October 1 to December 31. One-half mile game retrieval corridor(s) for off-highway-vehicles would be associated with most open roads. See maps, Appendix “B”. 2.6.1.2 Stand Improvement: Pre-commercial Thinning

Timber stand improvement with pre-commercial thinning would take place on 150 acres. Pine plantations averaging 3 inches in diameter at breast height would be thinned to approximately 440 trees per acre. A hardwood component would be retained at 10% to 30% of the total trees per acre. 2.6.1.3 Harvest: Commercial Thinning Pine Commercial thinning is an appropriate harvest method in that it is designed to reduce stand density of trees, capture imminent mortality due to competition, or to modify the forest stand so that continued development would enhance the quality or growth of remaining trees (Helms 1998, p. 185). Commercial thinning is proposed on 4,329 acres. Post-thinning stocking levels would meet the basal area criteria described in Table 3.6 (p. 84) of the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) as approximate guides to desired conditions by broad Ecological Condition Community Groups. Post-thinning stocking levels would allow for a more advantageous distribution of site resources by developing vigorous timber stands that are less susceptible to disease and insects, especially pine beetle infestations. Deviations from these guides are allowable if site-specific conditions warrant, subject to approval by the Project Responsible Official. Pine plantations ranging from 25 to 30 years of age will be thinned to an approximate spacing of 20 feet by 20 feet to improve the health and vigor of the remaining trees; this will also reduce the fuel loading. There are 1,610 acres of pine plantation thinning proposed in the Project Area. Old growth thinning is an appropriate harvest method designed to maintain or restore pine-grass old growth forests and woodlands. Pine-grass old growth systems provide habitat for a wide range of wildlife. Old growth thinning, with residual basal area of 50-90 square feet, is proposed on 480 acres in replacement stands. Older and larger trees will be retained along with den trees and a hardwood component of 10% to 30%, favoring oaks and hickories. Snags will be retained if they do not pose a safety threat to employees and visitors. Connected activity associated with commercial pine thinning harvest: On 2,270 acres of pine and pine-hardwood stands to be commercially thinned, midstory removal is a timber stand improvement connected activity that will be implemented following harvest. Some pine trees measuring less than five inches dbh, and some hardwood stems measuring one inch and larger dbh, will be felled with chainsaw or other hand tools or treated with herbicide (triclopyr, amine, up to 2 lb. a.e./ac) using frill girdle (hack and squirt), injection, or cut surface application methods. This treatment reduces the basal area of the midstory, develops a more open canopy, and promotes an increased level of sunlight reaching the forest floor.


November 2012 19

Midstory removal would be favorable to the overall general health of forest stands, including old growth restoration stands (MA-21), and would produce beneficial wildlife habitat. 2.6.1.4 Harvest: Clearcut (Restoration of Native Shortleaf Pine)

Regeneration clearcut is proposed on 80 acres of acquired loblolly pine plantations and is optimal treatment for the primary purpose of restoring native forest in the Project Area. The Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, FR010, p. 82) specifies that clearcutting may be utilized in certain instances, including restoration of native forests on lands that currently support non-native tree species. Cutting or harvest in streamside management areas (SMAs) could occur for the purpose of reducing vulnerability to southern pine and/or ips beetle and/or restore native vegetation (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, 9.02/Table 3.10, p. 104). A hardwood component of 10% to 30% will be developed with the regeneration of the native shortleaf pine. Oak and Hickory species will make up the majority of the hardwoods with some fruit bearing species. Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) design criteria FR005, FR0009/Table 3.2, and Table 3.11 identify parameters associated with even-aged management. The management practice of clearcut harvest has been selected to accomplish replacement of this forest type that is outside its natural range (Forest Plan, OBJ11, page 60). The subject area will be replaced with shortleaf pine and native hardwoods. The Forest Plan provides that maximum size of regeneration areas may be exceeded with approval of the Forest Supervisor up to a maximum of 80 acres for pine and pine-hardwood forest types (FR009/Table 3.2, page 80; Table 3.11, page 108). The Forest Plan also authorizes utilization of clearcutting for the purpose of restoring native forests on lands that currently support non-native tree species (FR010, page 82). The proposed harvest for Wildcat Hollow Project Stand 9 of Compartment 485 and Stand 14 of Compartment 486 is based on reasonable and prudent silvicultural practices of Ouachita National Forest lands. Utilization of clearcutting as a harvest method, applying treatment to no more than 80 acres, and treating these two stands as a single regeneration area are consistent with the objective of the Forest Plan to replace off-site loblolly pine with shortleaf pine and native hardwoods. For these reasons, Forest Supervisor Norman L. Wagoner approved the two stands described herein as being a single regeneration area and authorized the application of clearcut harvest up to 80 acres for this area. (See file letter dated September 24, 2010.) Connected activities associated with clearcut harvest include:

Site Preparation with Herbicide and Prescribed Burning. Following the clearcut harvest of pine trees, site preparation treatment of residual hardwood, such as oaks, hickory, maple, elm, and other species, and loblolly pine in all age classes, would consist of herbicide (triclopyr amine, up to 2 lb. a.e./acre) application (cut surface and/or directed foliar spray) and prescribed burning to further ready the soil for planting. An overstory hardwood component of 5 BA would be retained if available. A hardwood component would be established in the regenerated stand at a rate of 10% to 30% of the total trees per acre. Fruit-bearing and den trees when available will be favored in order to obtain a desired hardwood component. Reforestation−Hand Planting. After the harvest of the loblolly pine, shortleaf pine will be planted at a rate of 302 to 908 seedlings per acre, depending on site requirements. These seedlings will be monitored for survival with a first and third year survey. If survival of pine seedlings is less than 250 seedlings per acre, replanting will be scheduled.

2.6.1.5 Harvest: Seed Tree Regeneration with Reserves

The Seed Tree Regeneration with Reserves type of harvest is an even-aged regeneration method of management by which some or all the seed trees are retained on-site over an extended period of time for the purpose of establishing continued regeneration. Seed tree harvest is proposed on 817 acres of the Project Area. The basal area will be reduced to 10 to 15 square feet of basal area per acre of overstory pine trees. Residual seed trees would be retained (approximately 12 to 20 per acre) as older sawtimber legacy trees. This harvest method is


November 2012 20

appropriate to meet the objectives and requirements of the Revised Forest Plan. The basal area and amount of residual seed trees will vary. Connected activities associated with proposed seed tree harvest include:

Site Preparation with herbicides and prescribed burning. Treatment for the purpose of preparing sites for natural pine regeneration, involves felling and/or herbicide treatment of residual hardwoods such as oaks, hickory, maple, elm, and other species in all size age classes after harvest has occurred. Chainsaw and/or other manual tools would be used to fell hardwood stems. Herbicide (triclopyr up to 2 lb. a.e./acre) would be used to treat cut stumps and/or foliage of hardwoods that are less than six feet in height. The area then would be prescribed burned. The seed tree regeneration method involves retaining a seed source and removal of the ground cover from the seed bed, allowing the seed to reach the soil for germination. A hardwood component will be retained in the regenerated stand at a rate of 10% to 30% of the total trees per acre. Fruit-bearing and den trees when available will be favored in order to obtain the hardwood component. Following the harvest of pine trees the hardwood components of the seed tree stands would be reduced to a basal area of approximately 5 square feet per acre.

Reforestation−Hand Planting. It is expected that natural regeneration would occur in the 817 acres of seed tree harvest in shortleaf pine stands. These sites would be monitored and, if an adequate amount of pine natural regeneration (target level of 250-500 seedling per acres–Revised Forest Plan, Table 3.5, p. 83) is not established in a timely manner after the seed tree harvest, hand planting shortleaf pine would be used to achieve desired stocking levels. 2.6.1.6 Stand Improvement: Release

To ensure a viable stand, a minimum of 250 shortleaf pine seedlings per acre and 25 hardwood seedlings (preferably a hard mast species) per acre should be free to grow without direct competition from vegetation for sunlight, moisture and nutrients. Pine and hardwood seedlings would be released, with treatment consisting of felling hardwood stems such as oaks, hickory, maple, elm, and other species with chainsaws or other hand cutting tools. Herbicide (triclopyr, up to 2 lb. a.e./ac) would be applied using frill girdle (hack and squirt), injection, cut surface, or directed foliar spray methods. Treatment would occur in all size classes. 2.6.1.7 Prescribed Burning: Fuel Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Prescribed fire would be employed in the management of National Forest lands associated with the Project. Prescribed fire is an important tool for the reduction of fuel loads to lessen the risk of catastrophic wildfire. There are other important objectives to be accomplished with the use of prescribed burning, including preparation of sites for regeneration, ecosystem restoration, controlling understory vegetation, wildlife habitat enhancement, soil nutrient enhancement, and controlling insects and diseases. The Project Area has been divided into 13 burn units ranging in size from 1,036 acres to 2,235 acres (see Burn Units Map, Appendix “B”). Each burn unit would be treated with prescribed fire approximately every 3 to 7 years. This recurring schedule would extend until the area is re-examined and subsequent decision-making is completed for continued management activities (normally in 10 to 15 years). Specific burn unit treatment would be subject to evaluation and examination which shall include individual burn plan for biological, cultural, scenic, recreation, air quality, weather condition, environmental planning in compliance with the Revised Forest Plan, the National Environmental Policy Act, and Forest Service policy considerations associated with prescribed burning and affected forest resources. Burn units may be combined with burn units in adjacent watershed areas to improve efficiency. “Burn Plans” require approval of the designated responsible official, the District Ranger. Actual burn implementation is also subject to review by the fire management staff of the ONF Forest. Prescribed burning is a key management tool to achieve improved Fire Regime areas and Condition Class for National Forest lands and to provide greater protection for At-Risk Communities.


November 2012 21

As much as possible, management of prescribed burns would utilize existing “fire breaks” such as roads, utility rights-of-way, and streams. Some national forest acres outside the Project Area are included with proposed prescribed burning for the Project in order to utilize an existing road for fireline (Appendix “B”, Burn Units Map). Approximately 2 miles (2 acres) of new fireline would be established with the proposed prescribed burning for the Project Area. Within the Project Area there are 990 acres designated as Management Area 21, Old Growth Restoration (Appendix “B”, Management Areas Map). This Forest area (Barn Hart Old Growth) is “maintained by frequent, moderately intense ground fires, some of which occur in the summer and fall (July-November). Fire return intervals range from one to more than four years, but occur on an irregular basis, at varying times, seasons, and intensities. Fires are frequent and hot enough to suppress the woody understory and occasionally kill individual overstory trees or small groups of trees.” (Revised Forest Plan, page 41; also, 21.12, page 119) 2.6.1.8 Wildlife Habitat

There are four existing permanent wildlife food plot sites (three acres each) within the Project Area. Temporary openings beneficial to some wildlife species would be created using available skid trail and log landing and may be maintained for a number of years. Proposed clearcut, seed tree and commercial thinning combined with rotational prescribed burning will create temporary openings in the form of early seral pockets that will provide beneficial forage, browse, and cover for wildlife species dependent on early seral conditions. In addition, these treatments may be staggered over several years, providing a rotating local source of early seral habitat. Skid trails, log landings, temporary roads and firelines will all be seeded with a mixture of native seed beneficial to wildlife. Within the Project Area, 60 ponds would be created to provide water sources for wildlife (there are 22 existing ponds). The majority of these ponds would be established in the aforementioned treatment areas. Each pond would be approximately ⅛ to ¼ acre in size and spaced to provide water at approximately ½-mile intervals throughout National Forest land in the Project Area. 180 nest structures would be placed for songbirds, Wood Ducks, and other cavity-dependent animals near newly constructed and existing wildlife ponds, streams, and along temporary openings such as skid trails and log landings. Currently, there are 400 acres of forest type in the Project Area of the 0-10 year age class. Other existing early forest stage habitat conditions, identified in accordance with criteria prescribed by the Revised Forest Plan, include 46 acres of closed roads, 12 acres of permanent wildlife opening, and 81 acres of utility rights-of-way. Clearcut (80 acres) and seed tree (817 acres) harvest would establish approximately 897 acres of early forest stage habitat condition beneficial for game and non-game wildlife as well as plants beneficial to wildlife. Associated with proposed management activities, additional closed roads, roads to be decommissioned, temporary roads, and log landings (in commercial thinning areas) would also provide approximately 165 acres of additional early forest stage habitat important for wildlife. Midstory removal to improve wildlife habitat would occur on 1,332 acres in pine and pine-hardwood forest types with objectives to:

Reduce the basal areas of midstory pine and hardwood trees.

Promote an increased level of sunlight reaching the forest floor. Increased sunlight levels enhance herbaceous and grassy vegetation (early forest stage cover habitat) responsible for producing wildlife food in the forms of vegetative parts, seeds, fruits, and nectar for pollinators, and nesting and brood-rearing sites for upland birds, and habitat for many species of amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Designated midstory hardwood and pine will be eliminated by severing the stems with chainsaw or other hand tools or by application of the herbicide triclopyr (amine, up to 2 lb. a.e./acre) applied by frill girdle (hack and squirt), stem injection, cut surface, or foliar spray.


November 2012 22

Soft-mast producing trees in the midstory such as dogwood and serviceberry, and trees containing vines of wild grapes are typically not treated, depending upon their densities within the area treated. Snags and den trees (living trees with cavities) will be retained. Residual hardwoods in the overstory and midstory will include representatives of the red oak, white oak and hickory groups to ensure a variety of hard (acorns/nuts) and soft mast (fruits/berries) types are available for wildlife consumption. Treatment will transition stand composition toward historic open, pine-bluestem conditions. Overstory development to improve wildlife habitat is planned for 538 acres in stands of hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types where basal areas are high. The objectives of this treatment are to:

Thin the stand (reduce the basal area) by removing selected trees in the overstory and midstory.

Increase the long-term vigor and health of remaining trees by reducing stress associated with competition for sunlight, moisture, nutrients and growing space, thereby allowing better utilization of the site.

Allow residual tree crowns to enlarge over time, which has been shown to be a primary factor in hard mast (acorns, nuts) production capability.

Increase sunlight levels reaching the forest floor for regeneration of hardwood tree species, thereby enhancing growth of forest floor herbaceous and grassy vegetation responsible for producing wildlife food in the forms of vegetative parts, seeds, fruits, and nectar for pollinators.

Enhance insect populations used as prey items by many species of wildlife that are associated with forest floor vegetation.

Provide snags (and future logs) for wildlife use when girdling is used as a treatment method (designated trees greater than 8 inches dbh).

Provide immediate forest floor structural diversity by removal of stems 8 inches or less dbh while not markedly increasing forest floor fuel loading.

Tree density would be decreased by severing or girdling selected stems with chainsaw or other hand tools or by application with the herbicide triclopyr (amine, up to 2 lb. a.e./acre) applied by frill girdle (hack and squirt), stem injection, cut surface, or directed foliar spray. Residual overstory basal area will be composed of representatives of white oak, red oak and hickory tree groups to ensure a variety of hard mast types are available for wildlife consumption. Soft mast producers such as dogwood, serviceberry and trees containing wild grape vines, typically found in the midstory layer, will also be retained at varying densities. 2.6.1.9 Control/Eradication of Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIS)

An objective of the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, OBJ03, p. 59) is the treatment of at least 300 acres per year for non-native, invasive species. Several non-native, invasive plant species have been detected throughout the Project Area. The most prevalent NNIS, found along roadways and other openings in the forest, are sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), Mimosa/Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) and Fescue grass (Lolium spp.), widely used for erosion control and as a local forage grass. Also found along roadways, openings and under dense canopies are Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), privet (Ligustrum spp.), and autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate). In addition to mechanical eradication, herbicides may be applied for elimination or control of non-native invasive plants along roadways and in forest openings and encroaching into timber stands and wildlife openings. Herbicides that would be utilized include glyphosate (up to 2 lb. a.e./acres), triclopyr (amine, up to 2 lb. a.e./acre), or imazapyr (up to 2 lb. a.e./acre) utilizing frill girdle (hack and squirt), stem injection, cut surface, directed foliar spray, or basal bark application methods. These treatments provide effective control of undesired non-native invasive and noxious plant species and aids in the release and establishment of desirable grassland species.


November 2012 23

Several specific sites within the Project Area have been identified as areas having high concentrations of invasive plant species. These locations, as well as other areas noted during field examination, will be prioritized for control over the next 10-15 years. Up to five percent (828 acres) of national forest lands within the Project Area could be treated for NNIS control. 2.6.1.10 Proposed Action Alternative Summary Tables The following tables (2.1-2.13) list the specific actions proposed for each Forest compartment and stand of the Project Area. All treatments, except ponds and nest structures, are given in acres. Acreage values are estimates based on best available data; actual treated area may be revised to reflect more accurate field information and stand analysis. Road activities are not included with these tables but are discussed and presented in other sections (1.2, 2.6.1.1, 2.6.1.2, and 3.4.8). The No Herbicide Alternative would consist of the same treatments as the Proposed Action Alternative, except that hand tool or mechanical methods would be employed to accomplish site preparation, release, midstory removal, overstory mast development, and non-native invasive plant control.


November 2012 24

Table 2.1: Wildcat Hollow Project Proposed Action Summary Compartment 477, Brogan Watershed (estimated; actual treatment units may vary)

Sta

nd

Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2

(Total Stand

Area)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a

nd/or girdle and

herbicide)

Ponds

(Wildlife Water Source)

Nes

t B

oxe

s (Cavity Nesters−

Wildlife Habitat)

Wild

life

Open

ings

(Maintain 3 existing food

plots)

acres acres acres number number acres

1 0 13 0 0 0 0

2 0 64 643 1 3 0

3 0 80 0 0 0 0

4 0 15 0 0 0 0

5 0 19 193 0 0 0

6 0 45 0 0 0 0

7 0 27 0 0 0 3

8 571 57 0 0 0 0

9 0 61 613 1 3 0

10 0 64 0 0 0 3

11 0 88 0 0 0 0

12 0 128 0 1 3 3

13 0 16 0 0 0 0

14 0 36 363 0 0 0

15 0 21 0 0 0 0

16 0 28 0 0 0 0

17 0 30 0 1 3 0

18 0 54 0 0 0 0

19 0 3 0 0 0 0

20 0 21 0 0 0 0

21 0 23 0 0 0 0

22 0 61 0 0 0 0

23 0 12 0 0 0 0

24 0 9 0 0 0 0

25 0 12 0 0 0 0

26 0 18 0 0 0 0

27 0 7 0 0 0 0

28 0 7 0 0 0 0

29 0 6 0 0 0 0

30 0 6 0 0 0 0

31 0 6 0 0 0 0

32 0 27 0 0 0 0

33 0 30 0 0 0 0

34 0 47 0 1 3 0

35 0 5 0 0 0 0

36 0 3 0 0 0 0

38 0 18 0 0 0 0

Total 57 1167 180 5 15 9

1 Plantation Thinning 2 Fuel reduction prescribed burning includes acres burned for wildlife benefit, site preparation, and old growth and pine-bluestem grass ecosystem restoration purposes

3 Midstory thinning to promote woodland/grass community and habitat opportunity


November 2012 25

Table 2.2: Wildcat Hollow Project Proposed Action Summary Compartment 478, Barnhart Watershed (estimated; actual treatment units may vary)

Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see

dlings if necessary)

Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (chainsaw and

herbicide)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Rel

ease

(herbicide)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t / R

egen

erat

ion

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (Prescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

3 (Total Stand

Area)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a

nd/or girdle and herbicide

)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe

s (Cavity Nesters−Wildlife Hab

itat)

Wild

life

Open

ings

(Maintain 3 existing food

plots)

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres number number acres

1 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0

2 0 221 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0

3 0 721 0 0 0 72 0 1 3 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 105 0 0 0 0

6 35 0 0 0 35 35 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 51 0 51 0 1 3 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 106 1064 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 1 3 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0

12 0 422 42 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

13 0 1432 143 0 0 143 0 1 3 3

14 0 202 20 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 78 784 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 1 3 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

19 0 481 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

Total 35 347 205 51 35 1098 184 5 15 3

1 Plantation Thinning 2 Old Growth Restoration Unit Thinning 3 Fuel reduction prescribed burning includes acres burned for wildlife benefit, site preparation, and old growth and pine-bluestem grass ecosystem restoration purposes

4 Heavy midstory thinning to promote pine-bluestem grass community and habitat opportunities for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker


November 2012 26


Sta

nd

Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Pre

-com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (chainsaw and

herbicide)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

3 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning)-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe

s (Cavity Nesters−

Wildlife Habitat)

acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 0 0 86 0 1 3

2 0 0 0 55 55 0 0

3 0 0 0 46 0 1 3

4 541 0 0 54 0 0 0

5 0 28 0 28 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 60 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

9 862 0 86 86 0 0 0

10 351 0 0 35 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 18 0 0 0

12 0 48 0 48 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 71 0 1 3

14 0 0 0 78 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 120 0 1 3

16 0 0 0 21 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 52 52 1 3

18 1042 0 104 104 0 1 3

19 621 0 0 62 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

21 852 0 85 85 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 22 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 16 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 31 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 13 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 134 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 7 0 0 0

Total 426 76 275 1361 107 6 18

1 Plantation Thinning1 Plantation Thinning 2 Old Growth Restoration Unit Thinning 3 Fuel reduction prescribed burning includes acres burned for wildlife benefit, site preparation, and old growth and pine-bluestem grass ecosystem restoration purposes


November 2012 27

Table 2.4: Wildcat Hollow Project Proposed Action Summary Compartment 480, Brogan Watershed (estimated; actual treatment units may vary)

Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Pre

-com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l ((chainsaw

and

herbicide)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t / R

egen

erat

ion

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (herbicide)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (Prescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Hab

itat

Improvem

ent T

hinn

ing-

cut a


))

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat Improvem

ent T

hinning- cut

and/or gird

le and

herbicide)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 1 3

2 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0

4 0 39 0 39 0 39 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0

8 0 941 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0

10 0 641 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 3

13 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0

14 40 0 0 0 40 43 0 0 1 3

15 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0 0

16 0 23 0 23 0 23 0 0 0 0

17 0 42 0 42 0 42 0 0 0 0

18 0 29 0 29 0 29 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 49 0 0 0 0

20 0 0 38 0 0 38 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 36 0 0 36 0 0 0 0

22 40 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 3

24 0 38 0 38 0 38 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 313 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

28 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 0

29 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

31 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0

Total 80 329 74 171 80 1282 109 31 4 12


3 Heavy midstory thinning to promote pine-bluestem grass community and habitat opportunities for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker


November 2012 28

Table 2.5: Wildcat Hollow Project Proposed Action Summary Compartment 481, Brogan and Barnhart Watersheds

(estimated; actual treatment units may vary)

Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (chainsaw and

herbicide)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Ponds

(Wildlife Water Sou

rce)

Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 311 0 0 31 0 0 0 0

2 0 34 34 0 34 0 0 0 0

3 0 29 29 0 29 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0

5 40 0 0 40 69 0 0 1 3

6 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 75 75 0 1 3

8 0 371 0 0 37 0 0 0 0

9 31 0 0 31 31 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 52 0 523 0 0

11 0 631 0 0 63 0 0 1 3

12 0 0 0 0 59 0 593 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

20 0 141 0 0 14 0 0 1 3

21 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0

23 0 19 19 0 19 0 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0

27 0 37 37 0 37 0 0 0 0

28 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0

29 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

30 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

31 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

32 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0

33 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

34 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0

35 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0

36 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

37 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

38 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0

39 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

40 40 0 0 40 55 0 0 0 0

Total 111 264 119 111 1096 101 111 4 12


3 Heavy Wildlife Habitat Improvement midstory removal to promote pine bluestem and habitat opportunities for Red-cockaded Woodpecker

4 Nest box at pond site and Wood duck box adjacent to Barnhart Creek 5 Wood duck box adjacent to Barnhart Creek 6 Wood duck box adjacent to Brogan Creek


November 2012 29


Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (chainsaw and

herbicide)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 0 0 0 82 0 0

2 0 91 91 0 91 0 0

3 0 75 75 0 75 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 32 0 0

5 0 591 0 0 59 0 0

6 0 791 0 0 79 0 0

7 0 25 25 0 25 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 39 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 49 0 0

10 0 26 26 0 26 0 0

11 40 0 0 40 48 1 3

12 0 491 0 0 49 0 0

13 0 42 42 0 42 0 0

14 37 0 0 37 37 0 0

15 0 68 68 0 68 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 42 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 20 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 57 1 3

19 0 137 137 0 137 1 3

20 0 0 0 0 124 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 95 0 0

Total 77 651 464 77 1276 3 9



November 2012 30


Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Release (h

erbi

cide

)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0

2 0 411 0 0 41 0 0 0

3 34 0 0 34 34 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 138 1383 1 3

6 0 0 0 0 91 0 1 3

7 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 179 0 0 0

12 0 0 33 0 33 0 0 0

13 0 281 0 0 28 0 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 264 0 1 3

16 0 771 0 0 77 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 40 403 0 0

19 0 481 0 0 48 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 125 0 1 3

22 40 0 0 40 73 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 74 743 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 99 993 0 0

25 0 0 59 0 59 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 11 113 0 0

28 40 0 0 40 50 0 0 0

Total 114 194 92 114 1999 362 4 12




November 2012 31

Table 2.8: Wildcat Hollow Project Proposed Action Summary Compartment 484, Bear Creek West Watershed


Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (chainsaw and

herbicide)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Release (h

erbi

cide

)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning)-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 491 0 0 0 49 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0

3 0 97 97 0 0 97 0 1 3

4 0 35 35 0 0 35 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0

6 0 0 0 44 0 44 0 1 3

7 0 158 158 0 0 158 0 1 3

8 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0

10 0 105 105 0 0 105 0 0 0

11 40 0 0 0 40 43 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 81 81 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 1 3

15 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0

18 0 25 25 0 0 25 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0

22 0 176 176 0 0 176 0 1 3

23 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0

28 40 0 0 0 40 53 0 0 0

29 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Total 80 645 596 44 80 1498 81 5 15



November 2012 32



Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Cle

arcu

t H

arve

st

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (cha

insaw and

herbicide

)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Release (h

erbi

cide

)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

1 (Total Stand

Area)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe

s (Cavity Nesters−W

ildlife Hab

itat)


1 0 0 0 0 45 0 45 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0

3 0 0 14 14 0 0 14 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 1 3

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0

8 0 0 139 139 0 0 139 0 1 3

9 0 55 0 0 0 55 67 0 0 0

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 0 1 3

11 40 0 0 0 0 40 58 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 362 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0

14 0 0 46 46 0 0 46 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 43 0 43 0 1 3

16 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0

18 0 0 19 19 0 0 19 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 2 6

20 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 232 0 0

24 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 682 1 3

25 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 0 0 0

26 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 0

28 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Total 40 55 218 218 88 95 1547 162 7 21

1 Fuel reduction prescribed burning includes acres burned for wildlife benefit, site preparation, and old growth and pine-bluestem grass ecosystem restoration purposes



November 2012 33



Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Cle

arcu

t Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (cha

insaw and

herbicide

)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (herbicide)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning)-

cut a


)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe

s (Cavity Nesters−W

ildlife Hab

itat)


1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 1041 0 0 104 0 0 1 3

4 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 0

5 40 0 0 0 40 80 0 0 0 0

6 0 0 101 101 0 101 0 0 1 3

7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

10 0 0 41 41 0 41 0 0 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 0 0 221 0 0 1 3

13 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0

14 0 25 0 0 25 31 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 52 52 0 52 0 0 0 0

16 40 0 0 0 40 74 0 0 1 3

17 0 0 0 0 0 43 43 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 0 0 107 0 1073 0 0

20 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 146 0 733 2 6

24 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0

25 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0

Total 80 25 298 194 105 1493 43 180 6 18




November 2012 34



Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (cha

insaw and

herbicide

)

Sta

nd Im

prov

emen

t

Release (h

erbi

cide

)

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (h

erbicide

)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (Prescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres number

number

1 40 0 0 0 40 57 0 0

2 40 0 0 0 40 77 1 3

3 0 601 0 0 0 60 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0

5 0 211 0 0 0 21 0 0

6 0 38 38 0 0 38 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0

8 0 881 0 0 0 88 0 0

9 0 0 0 0 0 68 1 3

10 0 711 0 0 0 71 0 0

11 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0

12 0 341 0 0 0 34 0 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0

14 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0

15 0 0 0 0 0 117 0 0

16 40 0 0 0 40 77 1 3

17 0 124 124 0 0 124 1 3

18 0 213 213 0 0 213 1 3

19 0 0 0 48 0 48 0 0

20 0 32 32 0 0 32 0 0

21 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0

22 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0

23 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0

24 0 71 71 0 0 71 1 3

25 0 0 0 0 0 94 0 0

26 0 531 0 0 0 53 0 0

27 0 0 0 0 0 73 1 3

28 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0

Total 120 805 478 48 120 1822 7 21


3 Nest boxes (3) at pond site and Wood duck boxes (3) adjacent to Wildcat Creek 4 Wood duck boxes adjacent to Wildcat Creek


November 2012 35



Sta

nd

See

d T

ree

Har

vest

(Plant see


Com

mer

cial

Thin

nin

g

Har

vest

Ref

ores

tatio

n

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (herbicide)

Site

Pre

par

atio

n (P

rescrib

ed Burn)

Fuel

Red

uct

ion

Pre

scribed

Burn

2 (Total Stand

Area)

Ove

rsto

ry D

evel

opm

ent

(Wildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning)-

cut a


)

Mid

story

Rem

ova

l (W

ildlife Habitat

Improvem

ent T

hinning-

cut a


)

Ponds


Nes

t B

oxe


itat)

acres acres acres acres acres acres number number

1 0 301 0 30 0 0 0 0

2 40 0 40 40 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 71 0 0 1 3

5 0 0 0 122 0 1223 1 3

6 0 371 0 37 0 0 0 0

7 0 281 0 28 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0

9 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0

10 40 0 40 79 0 0 1 3

11 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0

12 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0

13 0 0 0 43 43 0 1 3

14 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0

15 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0

16 0 0 0 54 54 0 0 0

17 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0

18 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0

19 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 0

Total 80 95 80 909 97 122 4 12




January 2012 36

Table 2.13: Proposed Action Management Activity Summary by Compartment

Management Activity Units C-477 C-478 C-479 C-480 C-481 C-482 C-483 C-484 C-485 C-486 C-487 C-488 Total

Seed Tree Harvest acres 0 35 0 80 111 77 114 80 40 80 120 80 817

Clearcut Harvest (Restore native species)

acres 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 25 0 0 80

Commercial Thinning Harvest (Includes thinning of 480 acres of old growth restoration unit and 1612 acres of pine plantation)

acres 57 347 426 329 264 651 194 645 218 298 805 95 4,329

Stand Improvement Pre-commercial Thinning (chainsaw)

acres 0 0 76 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150

Stand Improvement Midstory Removal (chainsaw and herbicide)

acres 0 205 275 171 119 464 0 596 218 194 478 0 2,720

Stand Improvement Release (herbicide)

acres 0 51 0 0 0 0 92 44 88 0 48 0 323

Reforestation Site Preparation (prescribed burning and herbicide)

acres 0 35 0 80 111 77 114 80 95 105 120 80 897

Prescribed Burning Fuel Reduction1 acres 1167 1098 1361 1282 1096 1276 1999 1498 1547 1493 1822 909

16,548

20,1782

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Overstory Development (cut and/or girdle and herbicide)

acres 0 0 107 109 101 0 0 81 0 43 0 97 538

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Midstory Removal (cut and/or girdle and herbicide)

acres 180 184 0 31 111 0 362 0 162 180 0 122 1,332

Wildlife Ponds number 5 5 6 4 4 3 4 5 7 6 7 4 60

Nest Boxes number 15 15 18 12 12 9 12 15 21 18 21 12 180

Maintain 4 Wildlife Openings acres 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12

1 Fuel reduction prescribed burning includes acres burned for wildlife benefit, site preparation, and old growth and pine-bluestem grass ecosystem restoration purposes.

2 Includes national forest lands of adjacent management units in order to utilize existing roads as control lines.


November 2012 37

2.6.2 No Herbicide Alternative A No Herbicide Alternative was developed in accordance with Ouachita National Forest policy to include such an alternative when circumstances are such that there are feasible or practical alternatives to accomplish the management purposes (Project file–August 4, 2006 Memo from Norman L. Wagoner, Forest Supervisor). The No Herbicide Alternative is the same as the Proposed Action Alternative except that chainsaws or other hand tools, instead of herbicide application, would be utilized for site preparation, release, midstory removal, overstory development, and control of non-native invasive plants. 2.6.3 No Action Alternative No specific number of alternatives is required or prescribed for Forest Service environmental assessments (36 CFR § 220.7). Project scoping did not identify any unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources for the Project (36 CFR §220.7(b)(2); §102(2) of NEPA–42 U.S.C. §4332(2)). A No Action Alternative is considered in the effects analysis by contrasting impacts of the action alternatives with the current condition and expected future condition if the action alternatives were not implemented. No-Action does not necessarily mean that activities on national forest lands in the Project Area would not occur. Road maintenance for public safety would continue. The area generally would continue to be accessible for outdoor recreation purposes. The Forest Service would respond to wildfires. Salvage operations and/or suppression of insect or disease outbreaks could take place. It is also possible that management activities qualifying as categorical exclusions (36 CFR Part 220) could occur in the Project Area.

2.7 Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Cumulative impact refers to effects on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR § 1508.7; 36 CFR § 220.4). Cumulative effects analysis puts the direct and indirect effects from proposed actions in context with effects, direct and indirect, of other projects that overlap in time and space (“bounds”) with the proposed actions. The bounds for cumulative effects assessment are to be determined for each resource (e.g., air, water). Other Past Actions. Land and resource management activities on national forest lands have occurred in the Project Area in accordance with implementation of past decisions. These activities are summarized for the past 10 years in Table 2.14. A complete history of activities by compartment and stand is located in District files.

Other Present Actions. The Aquatic Cumulative Effects (USDA-Forest Service 2005d) analysis includes input for “other present actions” that would occur in the identified sixth-level HUC (hydrologic unit code) watershed. The Project Area is located primarily in two sixth-level HUC areas: (111102060205 and 111102060301). The Project Area consists of 17,897 acres (16,555 NF) of the 57,193 total base acres of these 6th level (Hydrologic Unit Code) HUC areas. Other present actions in these sixth level watershed areas for the proposed year of

Table 2.14: Past Resource Activities (USFS) in Project Area

Management Activity (acres)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010-2011

Total

Prescribed Burn Fuel Reduction

0 0 0 0 106 0 0 0 0 106

Regeneration Seedling Planting

76 48 0 191 132 0 0 0 0 447


November 2012 38

implementation and the two previous years were included in the Aquatic Cumulative Effects analysis (see Project file) and are summarized in Table 2.14 and Table 2.15. Other Reasonably Foreseeable Actions (36 CFR § 220.3). From time to time, natural events, such as tornadoes or high wind, ice storms, disease or insect outbreaks, occur within the Forest that may require treatment or salvage. It would be speculative to attempt to predict where and to what degree such circumstances might take place; however it is the usual policy of the District to effect salvage operations or suppression measures in accordance with existing policy and NEPA decisions. Private property ownership in the Project Area amounts to 522 acres situated mostly in the northern part of the Project Area along the Fourche La Fave River. These privately owned lands consist primarily of rural agricultural use. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction of 820 acres lands along the Fourche La Fave River associated with Nimrod Lake. Scoping for the Project did not disclose any definitively planned activities for private lands. Aquatic Cumulative Effects (USDA-Forest Service 2005d) analysis for the Project includes erosion estimates resulting from “proposed private” timberland management, including harvest, road construction and conversion of lands from pasture to cultivated or woodland to pasture. These erosion estimates were identified for each of the two affected sixth-level watershed areas. Aquatic Cumulative Effects analyses are included in the Project file.


November 2012 39

Table 2.15:

Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model*–Other Present Actions

Activity

Sixth-Level HUC Watershed 111102060205 (31,313 acres)

Sixth-Level HUC Watershed 111102060301 (23,880 acres)

2012 2011 2010 2012 2011 2010

Resources Management (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Clearcut 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seedtree 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shelterwood 0 0 0 0 0 0

Light Thinning 0 0 0 0 0 0

Medium Thinning 0 0 0 0 0 0

Heavy Thinning 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mid Story Thinning 0 0 0 0 0 0

Singletree Selection 0 0 0 0 0 0

Group Selection 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fuel Reduction Burn 667 0 0 1988 0 0

Wildlife Opening Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wildlife Opening Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pond Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0

All Other Open Pit Mining 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rehabilitated Mining Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wildfire 0 0 0 0 0 0

Construction Activities (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Construction Level D 0 0 0 0 0 0

Temp Road Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0

Road Reconstruction 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fireline Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fireline Reconstruction 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATV -Designated 0 0 0 0 0 0

ATV - Undesignated 0 0 0 0 0 0

Site Preparation (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Herbicide 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chainsaw 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Herbicide and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chainsaw and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chop, Burn and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chainsaw, Burn and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Herbicide, Burn and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burn and Rip 0 0 0 0 0 0

Herbicide and Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chainsaw and Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chop and Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shear and Burn 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shear and Windrow 0 0 0 0 0 0

* USDA-Forest Service 2005d. A Manual for the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model. Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.


November 2012 40

2.8 Summary Comparison of Alternatives The following Tables 2.16, 2.17, and 2.18 provide a comparison of management activities by alternative, a summary comparison of environment effects by alternative, and a summary comparison of objectives met by each alternative.

Table 2.16: Summary Comparison of Management Activities by Alternative

Activity and Measure Proposed Action

Alternative No Herbicide Alternative

No Action Alternative

Seed Tree Harvest (acres) 817 817 0

Clearcut Harvest (acres) 80 80 0

Commercial Thinning Harvest (acres) 4,329 4,329 0

Stand Improvement (acres) Pre-commercial Thinning (Chainsaw) 150 150 0

Stand Improvement Midstory Removal (acres) (Chainsaw and Herbicide) 2,720 0 0

Stand Improvement Midstory Removal (acres) (Chainsaw) 0 2,720 0

Stand Improvement Release (Herbicide) (acres) 323 0 0

Stand Improvement Release (Chainsaw) (acres) 0 323 0

Reforestation Site Preparation Prescribed Burning and Herbicide (acres) 897 0 0

Reforestation Site Preparation Prescribed Burning and Chainsaw (acres) 0 897 0

Prescribed Burning Fuel Reduction (acres) 20,178 20,178 0

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Overstory Development (Chainsaw Cut and/or Girdle and Herbicide) 538 0 0

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Overstory Development (Chainsaw Cut) 0 538 0

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Midstory Removal (acres) (Chainsaw Cut and/or Girdle and Herbicide) 1,332 0 0

Wildlife Habitat Improvement Midstory Removal (acres) (Chainsaw Cut) 0 1,332 0

Wildlife Ponds (number) 60 60 0

Nest Boxes (number) 180 180 0

Maintain Wildlife Openings (acres) 12 12 0

New Road (miles) 4.6 4.6 0

Road Reconstruction (miles) 8.5 8.5 0

Road Maintenance (miles) 49.2 49.2 *

Temporary Road Construction (miles) 23.4 23.4 0

* Undetermined; assumes maintenance only for public safety; could be reduced with implementation of travel management decisions (see §3.4.8)

** With No Action no new fireline is planned; however it should be noted that with the higher risk of wildfire associated with this Alternative it is possible that a substantial amount of new fireline would be necessary.


November 2012 41

Table 2.17: Summary Comparison of Effects on Environment by Alternative

Environmental Effect and Measure Proposed Action Alternative and

No Herbicide Alternative No Action Alternative

Erosion Typical Case:

allowable soil loss / USLE predicted loss (tons per acre─3-year recovery)

12.0-13.0 / 10.85-11.19

0.01-0.15 tons/ac/yr (undisturbed forest soil)

Erosion Worst Case:

allowable soil loss / USLE predicted loss (tons per acre─3-year recovery)

12.0 / 11.27

Sedimentation (Risk Assessment Level) HUC 111102060205 (Low) HUC 111102060205 (Low)

HUC 111102060301 (Low) HUC 111102060301 (Low)

Early Seral Habitat Created (acres) 1,062 0

Volume Harvested (CCF) 50,400 0

Air Quality meets National Ambient Air Quality Standards Comply Comply

Open Road Density (NF) (miles open road per square mile)

MA-14: 1.88 MA-17 & 21: 1.38

MA-14: 1.60 MA-17 & 21: 1.38

Hardwood Component-Managed Pine Stands

In shortleaf pine stands, meets VM004 with 10-30% total BA for hardwood in dominant or co-dominant crown classes.

In shortleaf pine stands, meets VM004 with 10-30% total BA for hardwood in dominant or co-dominant crown classes

Hardwood Component-Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands Harvest could occur in treated stands if potential market can be identified

No harvesting

Permanent Water Source for Wildlife 60 new ponds No new ponds planned; 22 ponds presently in Project Area.

Permanent Wildlife Opening Maintain 4 existing openings (12 acres)

No maintenance


November 2012 42

2.9 Preferred Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative is the Preferred Alternative of the Ouachita National Forest as determined by the Responsible Official, the District Ranger for the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District.

Table 2.18: Summary Comparison of Objectives Met by Alternative

Objective and Measure Proposed Action Alternative and

No Herbicide Alternative No Action Alternative

Provide open under-stories (acres of reduced fuels)

Yes (see Table 1.1) No

Increase the amount of healthy, vigorous, and quality forest stands (acres of commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, seed tree)

Yes (see Table 1.1) No

Early seral habitat (acres of early seral conditions created)

Yes. There are currently 539 acres of early seral habitat. An additional 1,062 acres would be created with proposed management activities.

No

Provide temporary road access for management actions

Yes, 23.4 miles N/A

Provide permanent water source for wildlife (Forest plan calls for one water source every 160 acres-currently, objective is not being met)

60 new ponds No new ponds planned; 22 ponds presently in Project Area.

Provide permanent wildlife openings (Forest Plan calls for one acre for every 160 acres of early seral habitat)

Maintain 4 existing openings (12 acres) No maintenance


November 2012 43

Chapter 3.0: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction Based on experience with other similar Ouachita National Forest projects and scoping for the Wildcat Hollow Project, the Interdisciplinary (ID) Team reviewed and summarized effects of the Project on resources considered relevant. Chapter 3.0 summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the affected Project Area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives considered. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives shown in the comparison tables of Chapter 2.0. The terms effects and impacts as used in this EA are synonymous. Effects include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts (40 CFR 1508).

3.2 Analysis Tools Used Computer models commonly utilized by the Forest Service–CompPATS, USLE, VSMOKE, Quick-Silver, and Aquatic Cumulative Effects–were used (1) to determine if site-specific management actions would meet Forest standards, or (2) to generate relative outputs from the alternatives analyzed. The Aquatic Cumulative Effects model was used to estimate the cumulative risk to water quality and associated beneficial uses from silvicultural activities and other anthropological actions. The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) model was used to calculate representative potential erosion. The VSMOKE model was used for smoke emission analysis associated with prescribed burning activities. The habitat capability portion of Computerized Project Analysis and Tracking System (CompPATS) was used to calculate present wildlife habitat capabilities. Effects from past actions, those planned for the future and approved by previous decisions, and the actions described in the alternatives were calculated and are summarized in this document. The economic analysis was calculated by hand and with the Quick-Silver program. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) worksheets were utilized to calculate risk assessment for the use of the herbicides.

3.3 Other Information and Data Used The following information, data and/or documents were used in the analysis of the environmental effects of the action alternatives:

Data from silvicultural field examination of these compartments within the analysis area, field notes and stand tally sheets compiled in updated Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg).

Compartment records for previous management activities and entry cycles.

Soils Resource Report by Jeff Olson and Stanley Mason, ONF Soil Scientists, December 5, 2011

ARFISH User Friendly Database (2001); Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission plant and animal Element Occurrence Records (EORS) database for lands within the Forest Service administrative boundary (2007); reports and gray literature, District plant, fish and wildlife survey and occurrence information, published scientific literature; and Endangered & Threatened Species List for Yell County (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, July 2010).

Amended List of Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants and Animals from the Regional Forester, effective 8 August 2007 (letter dated 17 July 2007). See USDA-Forest Service 2007b.

Biological Evaluation (including PETS Checklist), April 10, 2012 (Appendix “A” hereto).

Site-specific surveys: fish (16 July 2010 with Forest Stream Ecologist), mussel relicts (28 January 2010, collected by District Biologist, 16 July 2010 collected by District Biologist (retired), David Saugey, and Forest Stream Ecologist, relicts identified by Dr. John Harris, Ecologist, Arkansas Transportation and Highway Department, Little Rock) and aquatic insects during establishment of a Basin Area Stream


November 2012 44

Survey monitoring site (16 July 2010); harperella (19 July 2010, Former District Biologist, David Saugey, with Theo Witsell, Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission); Southern lady’s slipper (District Biologist, May through July 2010); and bluff and elevated glades (Former District Biologist, David Saugey, with Theo Witsell, Botanist, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, 5 April 2010 helicopter recon for unique plant communities, 19 July 2010 on-the-ground), and the R8 Bird database . Current Biologist and trainee also evaluated the area and performed background PETS searches with heritage data.

Geographic Information System (GIS) data files.

3.4 Environmental Effects 3.4.1 Air Quality

This section includes a summary of applicable air quality rules and regulations, a description of current air quality conditions for the surrounding area, and an assessment of effects of potential emissions from prescribed burning. 3.4.1.1 Federal Air Quality Regulations and Rules Federal Clean Air Act Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act in 1955. Eight years later, Congress passed the nation’s Clear Air Act of 1963. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); these standards include acceptable levels of pollutants called criteria pollutants. The NAAQS are designed to protect human health and public welfare (USDI/USDA-Forest Service 2001). The six criteria pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Of these six criteria pollutants, the one of most concern to area residents and prescribed fire practitioners is fine particulate matter (see Table 3.1). Forest Service directives provide that there shall be no violation of NAAQS (FSM 5144). The CAA also requires that states provide extra protection for air quality in certain National Parks and Wilderness Areas. To accomplish this, the EPA has defined Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air quality class areas I, II and III. These three air quality classes characterize allowable levels of air quality deterioration. Certain National Parks and Wilderness areas are identified as mandatory “Class I Federal Areas,” imposing the most stringent restrictions and include protection of visibility (USDI/USDA-Forest Service 2001). There are no Class I areas located within the Project Area; all national forest system lands within the Project Area are designated Class II. The closest Class I areas are Caney Creek Wilderness in Ouachita National Forest and the Upper Buffalo Wilderness in the Ozark National Forest. Crittenden County (in eastern Arkansas near Memphis, Tennessee) is the only listed “non-attainment area” (persistently exceeded NAAQS) in Arkansas for ozone levels measured over an 8-hour period. See http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/o8index.html. The Project Area is located in Yell County, 180 miles west of Crittenden County and therefore in compliance with NAAQS for the criteria pollutants of concern for the proposed project. The nearest non-attainment area for Ozone (1-hour period) is Collin County, Texas some 215 miles to the southwest. The nearest non-attainment areas for carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide are located, respectively, in El Paso County, Texas, approximately 775 miles southwest from the Project Area and Lake County, Indiana 560 miles to the northeast. Based on one year of data from Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitors near the Class I Caney Creek Wilderness Area, emissions of sulfur dioxide


November 2012 45

have not exceeded NAAQS. The nearest non-attainment area for PM-2.5 and lead is Jefferson County, Missouri located some 283 miles northeast. There are no nonattainment listings for nitrogen dioxide. See http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/nindex.html.

Table 3.1: National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM-2.5)

Pollutant Primary Standards Averaging Times Secondary Standards

Particulate Matter–PM-2.5 (2.5 micrometers or less)

15.0 µg/m3 Annual*

(Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

35 µg/m3 24-hour**

* To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM-2.5 concentrations from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.

** To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006).

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) – These are standards set by the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), for six principle pollutants called criteria pollutants.

µg/m3: micrograms per cubic meter of air.

3.4.1.2 Visibility Regulations/Regional Haze Rule The EPA has issued regional haze regulations to protect Class I Areas. These regional haze regulations address a variety of pollution sources that cause visibility impairment across broad geographic areas (EPA 1999). The State of Arkansas has established regional haze program requirements whereby identified industrial sources are to install and operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (see Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No., 19, Chapter 15; http://www.ardeq.state.ark.us.regs.files.reg19_final.071015.pdf). 3.4.1.3 State Regulations The CAA gives individual states primary responsibility for implementing air quality programs. States carry out this responsibility through the development of a State Implementation Plan (SIP). How states would achieve and maintain federal and state standards is described in the SIP. A state will also develop a SIP that will outline how it would bring any area that has been designated non-attainment (those areas that do not currently meet NAAQS) back into compliance/attainment with the NAAQS. Project activities would be in compliance with all SIPs that regulate air quality. Arkansas Smoke Management Guidelines (Arkansas Forestry Commission 2007) is followed by the Ouachita National Forest. 3.4.1.4 Forest Service Standards and Guidelines The Revised Forest Plan outlines specific standards concerning air quality (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 73). Furthermore, the Revised Forest Plan integrates Forest Service policy that governs fire management for the Ouachita National Forest so as to ensure all federal and state air pollution standards and laws would be followed (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 62, 73). 3.4.1.5 Present Conditions Air Quality/Pollution. The EPA Air Quality Index (AQI) generally rates air quality in the vicinity of the Project Area as “good.” The AQI is a system for measuring and rating pollution levels for five of the six “criteria” pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. Criteria pollutants included in the AQI are total suspended particulate matter (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx).


November 2012 46

Volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) are also included because of their potential contribution to the development of ozone (O3). Lead is the single criteria pollutant not included in the AQI. The AQI is based on a sliding scale ranging from 0 to 500, corresponding to “good,” “moderate,” “unhealthful,” “very unhealthful,” or “hazardous.” The EPA determines the index value on a daily basis for each of the measured pollutants. Table 3.2 displays daily AQI values of four broad categories of air quality for selected counties adjacent to Yell County, where the Project Area is located:

Particulate Matter and Public Health. Occasional brief exposure to the general public of low concentrations of drift smoke is more of a temporary, short-term nuisance than a health concern. High smoke concentrations of long duration (greater than 24 hours) can be a serious health matter, particularly to sensitive populations such as individuals with asthma and other respiratory diseases, individuals with cardiovascular disease, the elderly, and children. Chronic exposure to relatively low smoke concentrations can contribute to respiratory problems and cancer. The risk of developing cancer from exposure to prescribed fire has been estimated to be less than one in one million (USDA-Forest Service 1989b). Smoke exposure among wildland firefighters has been associated with adverse health effects ranging from acute irritation and shortness of breath to headaches, dizziness and nausea lasting up to several hours; however, these are uncommon events (Reinhardt et al. 2000 p. 2). Wildfires emit the same pollutants as prescribed fires (Liu 2004). In general, wildfires are often more intense than prescribed fires (USDA-Forest Service 1976, pp. 9-22). According to Liu (2004), “Prescribed fire emissions are much smaller than those from wildfire in most regions”. Wildfires often occur at times when climatic conditions such as wind direction may carry smoke directly into sensitive areas. Application of prescribed fire, on the other hand, attempts to reduce adverse effects of the smoke plume by planning burning during favorable conditions, such as wind direction (e.g., see the following §3.4.1.6 Analysis of Effects: Air Quality, including Table 3.3: VSMOKE Model Results Summary). Sources of Particulate Matter. Particulate matter in the atmosphere includes wind-blown soil, soot, smoke, and liquid droplets. It also includes fine particulates of sulfates, nitrates, and organic compounds that are 2.5 microns or smaller in size. Particulates are emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, construction activities, automobiles, fires, and agricultural activities. Additionally, fine particulates termed “secondary” are formed through atmospheric chemistry from “primary” PM-2.5 pollutants from vehicular, industrial, and utility (power plants) pollution. Most of the counties in Arkansas have low or below average emissions compared to the rest of the United States. Emissions of PM-10 from fuel combustion and other industries (stationary sources) comprise a small portion (3%) of the total emissions (USDA-Forest Service 1999, p. 5).

Table 3.2: Air Quality Index (AQI)

AIRData- Monitor AQI Report

County Year Total Days

Monitored

Days Good

Days Moderate

Days Unhealthful for sensitive

groups

Days Unhealthful

Yell

1998-2008 No Data Scott

Logan

Pope 2008 88 70 18 0 0

Perry 1998-2008 No Data

Garland 2008 87 67 20 0 0

Montgomery 2004 291 285 6 0 0

EPA AIR Data : http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html; http://www.epa.gov/air/data/repsst.html?st~AR~Arkansas


November 2012 47

Industrial facilities that emit particulate matter in Yell County include lumber related manufacturing facilities at Ola (Deltic Timber Corporation) (http://www.epa.gov/air/data/netemis.html?st~AR~Arkansas). Smoke Sensitive Areas/Prescribed Fire Planning Federal Class I Area (40 CFR 81). The closest Federal Class I areas of concern with respect to Regional Haze compliance are the 14,460-acre Caney Creek Wilderness area in the Ouachita National Forest (48 miles southwest) and the 12,018-acre Upper Buffalo Wilderness area in the Ozark National Forest (88 miles north-northeast). Because the wind direction would be away from the Class I Areas, potential prescribed fire smoke impacts to visibility at Caney Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness will not be considered in this analysis. Class II Areas. Unless an area meets the criteria for Class I, all National Forest lands are considered Class II areas. The Flatside Wilderness Area (9,507 acres) is 25 miles southeast of the Project Area, the 6,310-acre Dry Creek Wilderness is located 14 miles to the northwest, the Poteau Mountain Wilderness Area is 42 miles to the west, and the Black Fork Mountain and Upper Kiamichi Wilderness areas are 55 miles west-southwest; the planned wind direction for prescribed burning in the Project Area would be away from these wilderness areas. Population Areas. Potential health and visibility impacts from pollution is a key consideration in prioritizing areas where public land management actions may reduce or increase the potential of wildfires and/or introduce management ignited prescribed fire. Representative population centers and rural community areas considered in this analysis include:

Area Direction from Project Area Distance (miles)

Hot Springs SE 33

Hot Springs Village SE 28

Malvern SE 50

Pine Bluff SE 94

Arkadelphia S-SE 56

Benton SE 52

Little Rock E-SE 65

Perryville E-NE 37

Morrilton NE 44

Conway NE 58

Heber Springs NE 90

Russellville N-NE 33

Danville NE 12

Clarksville N-NE 41

Booneville NW 33

Waldron W-SW 37

Magazine NW 29

Ft. Smith NW 66

Poteau (OK) W-NW 68

Fayetteville NW 92

Mena SW 50

Mt. Ida S 25

Glenwood S 38

Murfreesboro S 58

DeQueen SW 77

Texarkana SW 105

Hope S 84


November 2012 48

Because of the difficulty in forecasting weather variables such as transport winds, there could be potential intrusion and effects from nuisance smoke on areas not mentioned in this EA. Transportation Routes. Another consideration associated with air quality is the impact to visibility and the possible resultant safety concerns along major roads and waterways. The nearest Interstate Highway (I-40) is located approximately 32 miles to the north. I-30 is some 50 miles to the southeast. U. S. Highway 71 is 32 miles west of the Project Area, and U. S. Highway 270 is 24 miles to the southwest. Arkansas State Highway 27 travels north-south in the eastern part of the Project Area. Highway 314 is 2 miles southeast. Highway 298 is 14 miles south. Scenic Byway Highway 7 is 19 miles to the east. Highway 80 is 7 miles to the north. Arkansas State Highway 10 is 15 miles north of the Project Area. There are numerous Forest roads that access the Project Area, including Forest Roads 72, 83, 111, 146, 665, 795, 796, 4104, F79, F79B, F85A, F86G (see Project Maps, Appendix “B”). There are no waterway transportation features within, or in close proximity to, the Project Area. 3.4.1.6 Analysis of Effects In order to best address the public issues and meet regulatory policy the direct and indirect effects of alternatives are evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:

The PM-2.5 and CO emissions produced from the proposed burning activities based on existing fuel loads, weather conditions and proposed burn treatments.

A qualitative analysis of the effect of burning on local communities and smoke sensitive receptors. Analysis Methods. The Project Area was divided into 13 burn units (see Section 3.4.4 and Burn Units Map, Appendix “B”) to help mitigate smoke effects, as well as to strategically take advantage of roads, utility rights-of-way, and natural barriers to reduce the need to construct control lines. Modeling fire emissions and dispersion to predict compliance with NAAQS and AQI is a difficult and complex process and one that is subject to a variety of uncertainties in the choice of input data and assumptions. The computer model VSMOKE was utilized as a tool for planning prescribed burning and analysis of air quality effects. VSMOKE is a steady-state Gaussian plume smoke dispersion model. Application of the system involves integration of a process model, VSMKGS, with a geographical information system (GIS) program such as ArcMap/ArcGIS. VSMOKE predicts the maximum downwind distance that a PM-2.5 (particulate fine particle) concentration might occur. VSMOKE estimates carbon monoxide concentration and also how well a person could see through a smoke plume at a specified distance. The EPA has developed Air Quality Indices for fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide (http://cfpub.epa.gov/airnow). VSMOKE and VSMOKE-GIS assumes the terrain is flat to gently rolling as is typical in much of the eastern United States. VSMOKE analysis is but one of the tools utilized by fire management personnel for the District and Forest; it is not an exclusive source for review of prescribed burning. The model results from VSMOKE and VSMOKE-GIS provide a snapshot of the highest pollution concentrations and worst visibility conditions during an identified 1-hour time period of simulation. During the time period being analyzed it is assumed the meteorological conditions and emissions rates are constant and do not change significantly. Input values for VSMOKE include: location of burn area, total acres to be burned, fuel type, acres burned for the analysis hour, background concentration for PM-2.5, mixing height, transport winds, wind direction, time zone, year, day, temperature, wind speed, cloud cover, hour of simulation, relative humidity, and ceiling height. For planning purposes, meteorological conditions are established from historical data for the area and data observed with previous prescribed burning on the District and the Forest. Fuel type is defined from either selections provided in the Fire Emission Production Simulator (FEPS) or from parameters documented by the Ouachita National Forest. Both emission rates and heat release rates are calculated using the FEPS model (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/feps/). Typical reporting output of VSMOKE includes a summary of the burn conditions, parameters, and results as defined by user input, as well as charts and associated plume


November 2012 49

configuration. Potential smoke sensitive locations, such as cites, rural communities, recreation areas, major highways, schools, hospitals, and airports were identified for use with the VSMOKE Model. (VSMOKE summary reports in Project file) VSMOKE modeling was performed for three representative burn units (smallest, average, and largest) for the Action Alternatives. During the 1-hour period of simulation there is some concentration of PM-2.5 and/or CO considered hazardous, very unhealthy, or unhealthy as defined by the AQI. However, these concentrations are generally restricted to close proximity to the burn origin and do not adversely affect listed smoke sensitive sites described in Table 3.3. Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects:

The Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative would have direct, short-term effect on air quality in the Project Area. Under these alternatives some of the prescribed burning would occur at various times on a continuing basis. By assessing the smallest burn unit consisting of approximately 1,306 acres, an average-sized burn unit (1,574 acres) and the largest unit comprised of approximately 2,235 acres, the VSMOKE model predicts emission concentrations for PM-2.5 and CO as indicated in Table 3.3. Dividing the Project Area into manageable burn units reduces the potential for smoke impacts on sensitive areas such as hospitals, schools, and airports. No exceedence of the NAAQS is expected. Residents near the actual burn area might experience some respiratory discomfort; however, it is expected that most impacts would be in the form of nuisance smoke. Burning under these Alternatives would produce some smoky days in the local area. Smoke from the proposed burning and the associated emissions would occur in the local area for a relatively short time depending on the weather conditions. Some smoke would be expected to settle into the lower draws, drainages, and along Highways 27, 28, 80, and 314, during the evening hours following a prescribed burn. During controlled burning, some signage or traffic control may be needed along public roads to caution the public of smoky conditions. Smoke trapped in low-lying areas would be expected to dissipate once morning temperatures rose and any nighttime inversion lifted. The District maintains a Prescribed Fire Notification List of individuals, organizations, agencies, and businesses that have requested that they be advised of prescribed burning in their areas of interest the day before or day of the planned burn. Additionally, prescribed burning plans would be disclosed in advance on the Ouachita National Forest Website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/fire/rx_information.shtml. Prescribed burning would be conducted when weather conditions are predicted to produce good-to-excellent smoke dispersal. Proposed burn activities generally are planned so that most smoke is dispersed by nightfall. Smoke impact design measures would be applied, as outlined in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 73, 80) and summarized in Section 2.4. The effect on air quality is expected to be short-term because once the smoke has dispersed, the emissions are diluted and transported from local airsheds. Application of Revised Forest Plan design criteria and monitoring of results is expected to ensure compliance with NAAQS and AQI. Similar to other open burning activities, wildfire and prescribed burning produce water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and typically soot and particulate matter (PM) that are visible as a smoke plume, carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), and other light hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as benzene, and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) such as benzo(a]pyrene. Varying amounts of metals such as lead (Pb) or mercury (Hg) may be emitted. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can be emitted as well. Nitrogen oxides are not likely to be released in significant quantities during prescribed burning. The threshold temperature necessary for the release of nitrogen oxides is 1500 degrees


November 2012 50

Centigrade, which is hotter than temperatures that normally occur with prescribed fire. Sulfur dioxide emissions from prescribed fire are of minor importance since the sulfur concentration of most forest fuels is less than 0.2 percent. When forest biomass fuels are burned, carbon is released in the form of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, particulate matter, and other substances in decreasing abundance. The sum of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide accounts for more than 95 percent of the carbon released during the combustion of biomass material. Carbon monoxide may reach toxic levels above and adjacent to prescribed fires, but these concentrations decline rapidly with increasing distance from the fire. Potential for high carbon monoxide levels is addressed by fire managers by conducting prescribed burning under atmospheric conditions that encourage rapid mixing. (Stanturf et al. 2002)

Opinions on the health impacts of forest fires are somewhat equivocal. Pinto, Grant et al. (1999) found evidence that biomass smoke is injurious. Others have found evidence that biomass smoke does not have significant adverse health effects (McMahon 1999; Van Lear and Waldrop 1989). Some researchers argue that public health risks from biomass smoke are minimal because air pollution stemming from forest fires rarely if ever exceeds limits set by governmental agencies (McMahon 1999). Yet others contend that serious damages to public health occur even when air pollution levels are below limits set by governmental agencies (Schwartz 1993). The predominant view of fire ecologists and forest managers is that prescribed burning reduces long-term net health costs by reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfires that could result in even greater levels of air pollution and have other injurious effects.

Table 3.3: VSMOKE Model Results Summary

Burn Unit Time of Burn

Wind (from)

Back- ground Concen-tration

1-hour Burn Simulation

Smoke Sensitive Sites

(identified by VSMOKE/GIS model

Emission Rate

Heat Release

PM 2.5 Concentration

Unhealthy (code orange

or worse (EPA AQI)

CO Concentration

Unhealthy (code orange

or worse (EPA AQI)

Smoke Dispersal

Bogus Ridge Smallest Burn Unit 1,306 acres

Dormant or Growing Season

NW (290º

PM 2.5: 28.5 µg/m3 CO: 5 ppm

PM 2.5: 1,021.2 g/sec CO: 1,2416.0 g/sec

48,0411.6 MW

to 4.94 miles downwind from fire


Good. 75% smoke dispersed reaching mixing height; 25% dispersed at ground level

No schools, hospitals, airports, or rural communities identified by VSMOKE within downwind plume analysis; area roads may need to be monitored for possible smoke conditions to traffic.

Wildcat Hollow East Average Size Burn Unit 1,574 acres


East (80º)

PM 2.5: 28.5 µg/m3 CO: 5 ppm

PM 2.5: 1,547.5 g/sec CO: 18,814.9 g/sec

728,009.8 MW





Wildcat Hollow West Largest Burn Unit 2,235 acres


NW (290º)

PM 2.5: 28.5 µg/m3 CO: 5 ppm

PM 2.5: 1,948.1 g/sec CO: 23,685.7 g/sec

916,480.2 MW






November 2012 51

The Forest Service acknowledges that there are concerns related to the potential increase in PM emissions by the increased use of prescribed fire to reduce the risk of uncontrolled wildfires. “Public exposure to smoke is a concern because eighty to ninety percent of wildland fire smoke (by mass) is within the fine particle size class (PM-2.5)” (http://www.fs.fed.us/air/smoke.htm). An indirect beneficial effect of the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative is a reduction in the emissions that would be released from potential wildfires in the area. By removing small diameter surface fuels with low intensity prescribed fire, the potential of a high intensity catastrophic fire developing within the forest would be reduced significantly. If a crown fire were to occur, the amount of live fuel that could burn would tend to release high amounts of particulate matter.

Cumulative Effects The potential cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air quality is the downwind impact of multiple burns, ignited simultaneously, in addition to other emissions (vehicle exhaust, manufacturing emissions, etc.) in the area. Bounding these potential cumulative effects includes variable downwind distances depending on weather conditions. VSMOKE analysis typically applies to 30-miles downwind from the proposed burn area. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air quality is rather short-lived, because once the burn is completed and the smoke has dissipated, the effect is concluded. Impacts to air quality would generally be confined to no more than a few hours or at most a few days. VSMOKE provides analysis of cumulative effects to air quality by incorporating not only emissions from a single burn but also background particulate levels. Multiple burns, occurring at the same time, could cumulatively increase particulate levels. It is difficult or impossible to precisely quantify such emissions in a planning document because the time of each burn is weather dependent. In addition to compliance with applicable federal and state regulations governing open burning, protection against possible cumulative effects on air quality includes:

Compliance with the Arkansas Smoke Management Program (Arkansas Forestry Commission 2007).

VSMOKE modeling would be performed for the day of the actual burn being. This would allow for up-to-date and accurate meteorological data and more precise assessment of expected concentration levels of PM-2.5 and CO.

Should unreasonably adverse impact on air quality (smoke concentrations at unhealthy levels for extended period, visibility reduced along highways, and/or negative impact to other smoke-sensitive sites such as residence, business, hospital or school) be observed with burn-day modeling, the proposed burn would be cancelled or postponed or altered to provide more desirable results.

Approximately 106 acres have been burned in the Project Area over the past 10 years under previously issued Forest Service authorization (see Table 2.14). These smoke effects are ended and cannot be viewed cumulatively. Under the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives, prescribed burning would occur periodically on a continuing basis. There could be some delays in burning as a result of increased demand for “air space” associated with smoke management (Arkansas Forestry Commission 2007). Generally the effects of one activity are completed before another activity begins. Once these activities are completed the effects on air quality are of short duration and are not cumulative with the next activity or sets of activities as long as the time from between the two is sufficient. Emission outputs from these past and foreseeable activities are mentioned under the No Action Alternative. No exceedence of the NAAQS, non-compliance with the AQI, or other adverse cumulative air quality impacts are expected under the Proposed Action Alternative provided project design measures outlined in Section 2.4 herein, the Revised Forest Plan, and as set forth below, are applied. Other cumulative foreseeable activities that produce pollutants include, but are not limited to, use of fireplaces, dust from un-surfaced roads, wildfires, and industrial emissions.


November 2012 52

No Action Alternative With No Action, impacts from dust, vehicle emissions and other sources would not change from current conditions. However, with No Action, wildfires would likely continue to occur within the Project Area and smoke from these fires would not be easily manageable, especially under severe burning conditions during the summer or during drought conditions. This smoke could occur when dispersion is poor and likely would produce more smoke and particulate matter, and last longer than planned ignitions. Wildfire has the potential to emit large amounts of smoke that could remain in local airsheds for a short period depending on the size and intensity of the fire. As forest stands continue to mature and produce additional ground fuels, the potential for a wildfire would increase. Some rural communities, as well as farms and scattered residences within and near the Project Area, could be affected by heavy concentrations of smoke if a wildfire did develop. Wildfires often occur when weather conditions are not good for smoke dispersal. Smoke generated from a wildfire could be caught within an inversion layer reducing visibility or generating emissions that could potentially exceed NAAQS and AQI. Wildfires can significantly impact air quality (Sampson et al. 2000, p. 122). Depending on the size of the fire and weather conditions, these effects could last anywhere from one to several days. With No Action, there would be no, or very limited, prescribed burning in the Project Area for the foreseeable future. This being the case, cumulative effects from prescribed burning on national forest land in the Project Area would not occur, or would be very slight. As previously indicated, there is an increased potential for wildfire associated with a No Action circumstance. It is not feasible to predict the occurrence, intensity, or size of wildfire. However, it seems reasonable to assume that with No Action wildfire could result in a greater magnitude of cumulative effects as described for the Proposed Action Alternative. For the Ouachita National Forest, an average of 121 wildfires burn nearly 2,000 acres per year (USDA-Forest Service 2006, Ouachita National Forest Wildland Fire Statistics 1980-2005). 3.4.2 Soil Productivity 3.4.2.1 Present Conditions

The Project Area is characterized by a complex and intricate pattern of shallow, moderately deep, and deep to very deep soils originating from clayey, loamy, and very gravelly residual material and loamy and very gravelly and cobbly colluvial material–all weathered from tilted and interbedded shale and sandstone bedrock. The principal upland soils are the Bengal, Bismarck, Carnasaw, Caston, Littlefir, Octavia, Pirum, Sherless, Clebit, and Zafra series. The primary management concerns for the upland soils are low productivity and droughtiness due to shallowness and high rock fragment content, and moderate erosion hazard due mainly to steep slopes. Also included are deep and very deep soils formed in loamy and very gravelly alluvium. The Kenn, Ceda, and Avilla series are the principle soils in these areas. Kenn and Ceda soils occur in the floodplains and Avilla soils on stream terraces. The principle management concerns are flooding of the Kenn and Ceda soils. A Soil Resource Inventory has identified and described soil-mapping units in the Project Area. Soil properties and associated management implications/precautions of these soil units were analyzed with respect to the proposed practices within each alternative. See Project file for Soil Map Unit Legend, Soil Map Unit Interpretations, Soil Map Unit Descriptions, Soil Mapping Units Map and Harvest Stands and Soil Conditions Table and other pertinent information. 3.4.2.2 Analysis of Effects

Soil Erosion. Erosion is the detachment and transport of individual soil particles by wind, water, or gravity. Soils are considered detrimentally eroded when soil loss exceeds soil loss tolerance values (i.e. the Forested T-factor). Soil map unit Forested T-factors in the Project Area range from 0.44 to 0.87 tons/acre/year of allowable soil loss. Ground disturbing management practices influence erosion principally because they remove


November 2012 53

vegetative ground cover and often concentrate and channel runoff water. Forested T-factors and soil susceptibility to erosion vary by soil and mapping unit. Soil K-Factors indicate a soil’s inherent erodibility. Soil map unit K-factors in the Project Area range from 0.20 to 0.37. Soils with higher K-factor values and soil map units with severe erosion hazard ratings require more intensive management efforts to reduce the potential for accelerated erosion both during and after the soil disturbing activity. Erosion can best be managed to stay within the Forested T-factor values by leaving sufficient amounts of the forest floor, slash and other on-site woody debris material that typically dominates an effective surface cover, not overly compacting soils that would reduce water infiltration rates and result in increased overland flow rates, and not allowing water to concentrate and channel on roads, skid trails and landings. Following are some research findings and conclusions from erosion studies conducted in the Ouachita Mountains:

Natural erosion from undisturbed forest soils is very low, generally in the neighborhood of 0.01-0.15 tons/acre/year.

Soils in the Ouachita Mountains typically do not have high inherent soil erodibility values (high K-Factor) due to high surface gravel and rock contents and high concentrations of fine roots in the surface soil.

Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) or soil conservation treatment measures minimize the exposure of soils to erosion. Erosion rates approaching or exceeding Forested T-factor rates are rare when soil conservation treatment measures and water quality BMPs are used. Attention should be given to Streamside Management Area guidelines within the BMPs.

Accelerated erosion rates last for only a few years due to rapid vegetative recovery rates.

The transportation system is the most common cause of accelerated erosion that occurs in forested watersheds.

Once erosion problems have developed (gully erosion, drainage channel gullying and head cutting, road washouts, etc.) they can be very difficult and costly to mitigate.

In the Project Area, Soil Map Units 78, 137, and 159, which comprise approximately 8% of the area, have a severe erosion hazard rating and slopes in some of these areas may exceed 35 percent. Approximately 66% of the area has a moderate erosion soil rating (Soil Map Units 33, 54, 55, 77, 92, 119, 130, and 134). Approximately 26% of the area has a slight erosion soil rating (Soil Map Units 2, 3, 5, 31, 32, 33, 57, 71, 76, 98, 101, 118, 122, 127, 140, and 143, ). Protection measures proposed for all action alternatives to minimize erosion would be followed in accordance with the Revised Forest Plan. Soil Compaction. Compaction increases soil bulk density and decreases porosity as a result of the application of forces such as weight and vibration. Compaction can detrimentally impact both soil productivity and watershed condition by causing increased overland flow during storm events and reduced plant growth due to a combination of factors, including reduced amounts of water entering the soil and its reduced availability to plant growth, a restricted root zone, and reduced soil aeration. It is generally acknowledged that all soils are susceptible to soil compaction or decreases in soil porosity. The soils in the Project Area are most susceptible to compaction when wet. Based on considerable amounts of research and monitoring reports from other Forests, a number of assumptions can be made concerning compaction:

All soils can compact, some more so than others.

Soils high in rock content tend to be less compactable.

Soils are more susceptible to puddling and compaction during wet conditions.

Equipment yarding operations over an intact forest floor and woody debris material result in less compaction than over bare soil.

Low ground pressure equipment tends to compact less than high ground pressure equipment. Conventional rubber tired skidders and logging trucks operating under reduced tire pressure have shown dramatic decreases in soil compaction and less soil deformation (tire rutting).

The first few passes of conventional logging equipment over an area compact the upper few inches of


November 2012 54

the soil. Such areas are expected to return to undisturbed bulk density levels through natural means (frost heave, freeze-thaw, wet-dry, shrink/swell cycles, etc.) before the next entry. Additional passes can cause greater increases in bulk density and impact the soil to greater depths (up to 12 inches or more). This deeper compaction will not easily self-mitigate and may require deep tillage.

Landings and primary skid trails receiving multiple passes generally exceed the 15% increased bulk density threshold of concern, and mitigating treatment prescribed by a Forrest Soil Scientist could be applied.

A well-planned dedicated skid trail system whereby primary skid trails are spaced approximately 150 feet apart will result in about 7% of an activity area in skid trails. This compares to about 20-40% of an activity area in skid trails when random skidding is practiced. In addition random skidding tends to increase the amount of an activity area in trails with each succeeding entry.

Mechanical tillage can be used to mitigate compacted soils. Implements used for mechanical tillage should be designed to minimize vertical mixing of soil, leave the majority of duff and forest litter in place, reduce bulk density to near natural levels, loosen soil to a minimum depth of 12 inches, and should be pulled rather than pushed. A deep subsoiler (tillage plough tool) with winged teeth mounted on drawbars have proven to be very effective in compaction mitigation.

Monitoring on the Ouachita National Forest has found that compaction can be excessive on heavy traffic areas such as landings, primary skid trails and temporary roads, particularly when soils are wet or are rock free, or nearly rock free in the surface six inches. Control measures, such as requiring a limited operating season on soils with a severe or high compaction hazard rating and limiting activity when soils are wet (USDA Forest Service 2005b, p. 46; USDA Forest Service 2005a, pp. 74-75; 85-87) may be used to limit detrimental compaction effects. Within 2% of the Project Area, Soil Map Units 3, 57, and 122 contain soils with a severe compaction hazard rating and generally should have a July through November limited equipment operation period (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, SW001, p. 74). Soil Map Units 2, 98, and 101 contain soils with a high compaction hazard rating (less than 1% of the Project Area) and generally should have an April through November limited equipment operation period (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, SW002, p. 74). Soil Map Units 32, 54, and 71 have a moderate to high compaction hazard rating (1% of the project area) where there will likely be small areas of soils within these units which may have high to severe compaction hazard ratings. Approximately 88% of the Project Area soils have a moderate compaction hazard rating; and approximately 8% have a slight compaction hazard rating. Soil Displacement. The use of large machinery in forestry operations may affect soil productivity by soil displacement (USDA Forest Service 2005b, pp. 45-46). Soil displacement, in most cases, is the result of horizontal movement of soil from one place to another by mechanical forces such as a blade, wheel slippage or dragging logs. Displacement has negative effects on productivity because it removes the area of highest concentration of organic matter and nutrients from soil and significantly reduces soil biological activity. When properly done, forest management activities such as disking, plowing, or stockpiling of topsoil for future gravel pit or mine reclamation are not considered detrimental. Methods used to minimize this include operating heavy equipment when soils are dry to reduce slippage, operating over intact forest floor and downed woody debris, constructing as few firelines, roads and decks as possible and redistributing topsoil back over areas where it has been removed. Soil Rutting and Puddling. Soil puddling or soil deformation (most commonly observed in forest management as vehicle tire/track rutting) is most sensitive on soils with low inherent load bearing strengths and when soils are wet. Soils high in clay content have low load bearing strengths. Less than well drained soils in or near natural drainages, springs, seeps, areas subject to frequent flooding, and near open bodies of water can remain wet throughout the year.


November 2012 55

Soil rutting and puddling is closely associated with soil compaction in both its cause and its effect on soil productivity. Puddling also tends to alter soil drainage (its hydrologic functioning) through reduced and often rerouted surface and subsurface flows. In addition, it provides an avenue for accelerated erosion and sedimentation to streams. Soil Nutrients (organic matter). The most effective way of managing soil organic matter and insuring this threshold will not be exceeded is through effective management of the forest floor and woody debris. Leaving organic debris for purposes of soil productivity is currently being practiced. A large portion of the total nutrient supply of a forest ecosystem is contained in the forest floor (duff layer), and decaying woody debris. Organic debris consists of humus, litter, and all sizes of dead woody material that lie on or in the soil. Humus is the extensively decayed and disintegrated organic detritus that is in direct contact with the mineral soil. Litter contains recognizable plant debris (leaves, needles, small twigs less than 1 inch diameter). Woody material is decaying wood greater than 1-inch in diameter. The largest proportion of plant nutrients is stored in the leaves, needles and small branches of trees. These materials are important not only because they are the reservoir for soil organic matter and short and long-term nutrient supply, but they also serve to improve soil infiltration, aeration and retention of soil moisture, and provide the needed habitat to support essential soil microbial activity for the forest ecosystem. Fire Effects on Soil. Prescribed fire may affect soils positively or negatively. Beneficial effects include enhancement of nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduction of soil acidity. Negatively, soil heating can kill soil biota, alter soil structure, consume organic matter, and remove site nutrients. Soil erosion and nutrient leaching may occur later during rainstorms causing additional nutrient losses. Negative effects are principally associated with high severity burns (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 46). High severity burns, as often occur with wildfires, can adversely affect long-term soil productivity. Excessive nutrient loss from the site through atmospheric volatilization and deep leaching, loss of soil organic matter and even soil structure and reduced infiltration rates can be seriously compromised further leading to accelerated erosion rates. The effects on soil from fire are strikingly different when fire is properly managed. Light to moderate severity burns would result in little to no detectable change in the amount of organic matter in surface soils. These burns would not change the structure of mineral soils because the elevated temperatures are of brief duration. Light to moderate severity burns would expose soil on less than 20% of the area and vegetative recovery usually takes one year or less. Soil biota is reduced but recovers quickly (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, p. 46). In addition, light to moderate severity fires accelerate the recycling process by releasing nutrients in the soil, thereby stimulating nutrient uptake by vegetation. Even though prescribed fires release some nitrogen gases (N2) mainly from forest floor material, nitrogen budgets are not significantly affected since post-burn nitrogen input to these ecosystems tends to restore the nitrogen balance rapidly from atmospheric input of nitrogen by lightning, rain, and dust (Beasley et al. 1987; Ku and Lawson 1993). In addition, nitrogen is regained through increased levels of nitrogen fixation by native legumes and soil bacteria; both stimulated by properly managed prescribed burning. Prescribed fires may also help in reducing rates of soil acidification by releasing calcium and other basic cations that are immobilized in litter layers (Masters et al. 1993). Research and monitoring in the Ouachita Mountains indicate that soil quality and long-term productivity may be improved under shortleaf pine-bluestem ecosystem restoration where burning is prescribed. Shortleaf pine-bluestem restorative treatment measures include repeated prescribed burning at 3-5 year intervals. Masters et al.

(1993) found pH to increase slightly on harvested and burned areas when burned on a 3-4 year cycle. Liechty et

al. (2005) found that pine-bluestem stands that had been established 20-years earlier, on the same or similar soils as in the Project Area, had increased levels of soil pH, mineralizable Nitrogen, total Nitrogen and Carbon, Calcium, and organic matter as compared to the pine-hardwood control stands.


November 2012 56

Herbicide Use Effects on Soil. Herbicides may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, p. 46; USDA Forest Service-FEIS Vegetation Management, 1990, pp. IV-95 through IV-96). Depending on the application rate and soil environment, herbicides can stimulate or inhibit soil organisms. Adverse effects can occur when herbicides are applied well above the label rate. Use of herbicides at the lowest effective rate required by mitigation measures does not reduce activity of soil biota (Fletcher and Friedman 1986).

Herbicides do not physically disturb the soil, so treated areas would still have intact litter and duff. This material serves to minimize erosion, and nutrient loss from leaching. Use of herbicides will not disturb the soil surface, so treated areas will have intact litter and duff that minimizes the potential for accelerated erosion. Nitrogen loss from erosion and leaching will also be minimal and should not exceed 14 lb./acre. The overall nitrogen budget over a timber rotation period is positive and results in a long-term nitrogen buildup. Overall, the risk to reduced long term soil productivity from herbicides is minimal. The herbicides selected for use with the Project would not be directly applied to the soil. Proper application procedures and timing are critical in ensuring minimal effects to the soil. Imazapyr is a soil active herbicide with relatively low soil mobility. Triclopyr Amine is not soil active and is non-mobile in soil. Some brand names of Triclopyr Amine, because of their carrying agent, may show some mobility and, therefore, may contaminate ground water if used in grossly excessive application rates or if it is accidentally spilled in a stream or drainage channel. Triclopyr has a moderately short half-life, averaging only about 30 days. Glyphosate is very stable in the environment. The chemical binds to many soil types and clay materials, making it immobile in many soils. Glyphosate readily and completely biodegrades in soil even under low temperature conditions. Its average half-life in soil is about 60 days.

Soil Nutrients. Loss of soil nutrients can occur directly from soil erosion, soil displacement, or indirectly by biomass removal from harvesting timber, or from fire (see fire effects above). Biomass removal in the form of timber harvest can result in nutrient deficits. Nutrient depletion, however, generally is only a concern where soils are initially nutrient poor, where whole-tree harvest (total biomass removal) is used, or where stand rotations are short, i.e., on the order of 20-35 years (Jorgenson and Wells 1986). None of these factors apply in this analysis area or from the proposed management actions being considered. Monitoring on the Ouachita National Forest has not detected differences in soil nutrient status in stands managed under different intensities (Ku and Lawson 1993), suggesting that cumulative effects on nutrient levels are not substantial even under the most intensive management regimes. Beasley et al. (1987) studying soil nutrient levels of undisturbed and disturbed timber stands on the Ouachita Forest found that nutrient losses on disturbed soils quickly returned to control levels, generally by the second post treatment year. They concluded that any net loss of nutrients from our forest management actions was soon compensated for through atmospheric deposition of nutrients, which equaled or exceeded any losses. General field observation and expert opinion (Wheeler and Eichman 1991) also do not support the notion that typical management actions, such as those included in the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives, negatively affect soil productivity. Considering the design criteria required for the Project, monitoring results, general research results, expert opinion, and management experience, no discernible loss of soil nutrients are expected to result that would affect long-term productivity. Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects:

Erosion. Revised Forest Plan Forest-wide design criteria identify maximum allowable soil loss thresholds (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 74-75). In order to determine whether the proposed practices and connected actions meet these standards, the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE; see Table 3.4) was used to calculate soil loss resulting from proposed actions by several impacted soil units.


November 2012 57

For the Project Area, a worst-case modeling scenario was run to determine if it would meet the Revised Forest Plan standard. This situation consists of a clearcut harvest followed later by site preparation burning as a connected action on Soil Map Unit 134 within Stand 9 of Compartment 485. Map Unit 134 consists of Carnasaw-Zafra-Clebit complex, on 15 to 35% slopes. Erosion control measures for this soil map unit would include soil scarification, seeding, and water-barring to be employed at log decks and on temporary roads and primary skid trails.

More typical cases for harvest units in the Project Area are represented by a seedtree treatment for Stand 10 of Compartment 488 which is located partially in Soil Map Unit 134 (Carnasaw-Safra-Clebit complex) with slopes from 15% to 35%, and also commercial thinning (pine plantation) in Stand 8 of compartment 480 located in Soil Map Unit 119 (Littlefir-Carnasaw-Clebit complex) on 15% to 35% slopes. Soil erosion control measures to meet Revised Forest Plan allowable soil loss would include seeding and water-barring log decks and temporary and primary skid trails.

The above representative treatment units meet the Revised Forest Plan standard of staying within the allowable soil loss Forested T-factor (T is the soil loss tolerance factor. It is defined as the maximum amount of erosion at which the quality of a soil as a medium for plant growth can be maintained). These treatment units, along with other proposed treatment units of the same or less intense soil disturbing management actions on the same or less sensitive soil units, therefore, would remain within acceptable limits over the entire Project Area when erosion control measures are adequately implemented. Analysis of soils data and proposed harvest indicates that a number of stands where harvest activity would occur are characterized with some soil conditions identified as having a severe erosion hazard rating: Soil Map Units with severe erosion hazard rating generally are characterized as having slope in excess of 35 percent where soil loss tolerance thresholds (SW003) could be expected to be exceeded as calculated with the Forest Universal Soil Loss Equation. Harvest of trees rarely occurs on slopes greater than 35 percent due to limitations for logging equipment. Where harvest occurs on slopes greater than 35 percent, it would be located in small patches usually less than one acre in size. Erosion treatment on these small areas steep slope would include scarification, water-barring, and seeding log decks and temporary roads, plus seeding, mulching, and establishing low-density water-bars on primary skid trails.

Compartment Stand Harvest Method Soil Map

Unit

483 3 Seed Tree 137

484 28 Seed Tree 137

488 10 Seed Tree 137

482 2 Commercial Thin 78





479 4 Commercial Thin-Plantation 137




479 9 Commercial Thin-Old Growth 137


November 2012 58

The 60 wildlife ponds proposed for development in the Project Area would be approximately 1/8 to 1/4 acre in size. The resultant soil exposure would be temporary. Ponds would be constructed on gently sloping sites and, after construction, act as a barrier to downstream movement of sediment. Planting grasses, clover, and other herbaceous vegetation would reduce the time required for pond site stabilization to less than four months. Ponds would be constructed/excavated in the upper, ephemeral (not intermittent or perennial) portions of stream channels in order to allow adequate accumulation/drainage of water from rain events to provide water for wildlife on a year-round basis. These structures will occur in higher elevations of the watershed beyond reach of any stream fish and will not constitute a fish passage barrier. These measures would limit potential soil erosion and sedimentation to acceptable levels. Compaction. Proposed harvest activity potentially could occur on the following soil mapping units having a predicted severe or high compaction hazard rating:

Compartment Stand Harvest Method Soil Map Unit

481 9 Seed Tree 101 (high)

481 9 Seed Tree 122 (severe)

482 11 Seed Tree 54 (moderate-high)



A high compaction hazard rating in the Project Area is primarily due to low proportions of rock content in the top 6-inches of soil. These conditions, when combined with heavy equipment operation, can result in unacceptable levels of compaction on moist or wet soils. On those soils with a high compaction hazard rating, logging generally would be limited to the drier periods of the year, namely April through November (SW002); soils with a severe compaction hazard rating, logging generally would be limited to July through November (SW001). Even during these drier periods, extra care would be taken to monitor soil conditions and suspend operations when soils become wet. Given this protective measure, soil compaction would be limited and is not expected to impair soil productivity.

Table 3.4: Universal Soil Loss Equation Soil Loss Analysis Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives

Soil Map Unit

Compartment & Stand

Proposed Harvest Treatment Total Soil Loss for

3-year Recovery Period (Allowable/Predicted

a in tons/acre)

134 C-488, Stand 10 Seed Tree Regeneration 12.00 / 11.19b

119 C-480, Stand 8 Commercial Thinning - Plantation 13.00 / 10.85b

134 C-485, Stand 9 Clearcut 12.00 / 11.27c

a Predicted total soil loss represents the worst case scenario across the outcomes of 4 modeled site preparation options: Option 1: water-bar and seed only; Option 2: scarify, water-bar and seed; Option 3: deep tillage, water-bar and seed; and Option 4: scarify, water-bar, seed decks and roads, and seed, mulch, and install low-density water-bars on skid trails.

b Based on erosion control measures consisting of seeding and installation of water-bars on log decks, temporary roads, and primary skid trails. For slopes greater that 35%, log decks and roads would be scarified, water-barred, and seeded, and skid trails would be seeded, mulched and low-density water-bars established.

c Based on erosion control measures consisting of scarification, seeding and installation of water-bars on log decks, temporary roads, and primary skid trails. For slopes greater that 35%, log decks and roads would be scarified, water-barred, and seeded, and skid trails would be seeded, mulched and low-density water-bars established.


November 2012 59

Compaction of soils is also of concern where frequent or occasional flooding might occur. Heavy equipment operations in these areas are limited to the drier periods of the year, namely July through November (SW001); though operations could occur outside this time period if conditions are warranted. Harvest stands with soil map units generally subject to this restricted operation period include:

Compartment Stand Harvest Method Soil Map Unit Flooding

481 9 Seed Tree 101 Occasional



482 11 Seed Tree 55 Frequent

487 2 Seed Tree 55 Frequent

480 24 Commercial Thin 55 Frequent










481 20 C Thin Plantation 55 Frequent

482 12 C Thin Plantation 55 Frequent

478 14 C Thin Old Growth 55 Frequent

These soil conditions and map unit designations for hazard soils (erosion, compaction, flooding) are identified utilizing current Forest soil mapping resources. This information will be reviewed in the field as sale preparation and administration progresses. It is possible that actual soil conditions and the precise location and extent of mapping units could be revised after consultation with a Forest Soil Scientist. Soil Displacement. The Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative would result in some soil displacement from log skidding, dozer-constructed firelines, log decks, temporary road construction, and pond construction. Where these actions are being dedicated to these uses for future management actions, soil displacement is acceptable. Where these actions are only proposed for this Project and not intended for future management needs, displaced soil would be redistributed over its original site. This is generally performed during erosion control mitigation work by back-blading areas where topsoil has been deposited. To minimize the potential for soil displacement during harvest activities within the unit, equipment operation would only be allowed during dry soil conditions and over an intact forest floor, and the front end of ground skidded logs would be elevated above ground during skidding. Where topsoil has been removed (displaced) from areas not dedicated to other uses, the soil would be bladed back over from where it came. These actions and mitigation measures would result in displacement having only a minimal impact to soil productivity. Nutrient Loss. Some short-term loss in nutrient capital is expected due to tree harvest and prescribed burning which results in some biomass removal, accelerated erosion, volatilization and deep leaching. This is expected to continue for two-years following project implementation. On the positive side, harvesting and prescribed burning would temporarily increase availability of nutrients resulting in improved vegetative growth during this same period.


November 2012 60

All timber harvesting would result in the removal of tree boles and possibly tops in plantation clearcutting and commercial thinning. The prescribed burns primarily would be dormant season burns of light to moderate severity. This means that, in addition to the targeted fraction of 10-hour and larger fuels planned for consumption, only the upper forest floor litter layer consisting of non-decomposed or semi-decomposed pine needles, leaves and small twigs would also be consumed. Most of the nutrient capital would remain on-site by leaving most of the underlying forest floor duff layer, which consists of more decomposed needles, leaves and twigs, intact and unburned. This remaining organic layer, along with the remaining trees, unconsumed slash and other large woody debris and other living vegetation, would serve to minimize the temporary loss of the nutrient capital. Implementing the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Herbicide Alternative, therefore, would result in no long-term effect on the soils nutrient capital. Fire Effects and soil nutrients. Any long-term negative effects to the soil would be related to high severity burns or very short (less than three-years) frequency of the burns. Typical burn severity would be limited by established burning parameters and mitigation measures designed to protect soils and overstory trees and to minimize risk of escape. These parameters result in retention of enough leaf litter to protect soil from the negative effects listed above in most cases. Underburn frequencies would be three-years or greater, which would allow recovery of forest floors and soil biota and would not deplete soil nutrients. With standard prescribed burning planning and mitigation, negative effects to soil productivity from prescribed fire under the Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative are not expected. This is because the burns would be light to moderate in severity and cool enough to protect overstory trees, and the lower portion of the litter layer would remain in place over at least 70% of the burned area. The effect to long-term soil productivity as a consequence of those actions being proposed in the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives relates to the effects from erosion, compaction, displacement and the soils nutrient capital as noted above. By practicing a “light hand on the land” policy during all soil disturbance activities by adhering to mitigation measures common to all action alternatives and following all applicable Revised Forest Plan direction, soil productivity would be maintained for the Project Area, surrounding areas, and beyond. In addition, fuel loadings throughout most of the Project Area would be reduced through timber harvesting and prescribed fire, and the construction of temporary roads would allow increased access for fire suppression needs. These actions would reduce the probability of future high severity wildfire, which could impair long-term soil productivity. Cumulative Effects:

Cumulative Effects associated with the soil resource are, in substantial measure, included with the Aquatic Cumulative Effects analysis and adequately addressed by the correlating modeling, including time and space bounds. Soil compaction is, for the most part, confined to certain identifiable soil types/mapping units and forest stands within the Project Area, and Revised Forest Plan standards and State Best Management Practices provide adequate mitigating measures to minimize adverse effects. Soil disturbing activities are included with the sixth-level watershed analyses in the Aquatic Cumulative Effects modeling. As indicated in section 3.4.3 these analyses result in a low risk assessment for sediment increase. No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects:

Erosion. The No Action Alternative would result in the least amount of direct erosion. Only the undisturbed natural erosion would be expected to continue. This, however, does not consider the potential indirect effects of accelerated erosion rates that could occur in the event of a wildfire. Under this scenario the No Action Alternative would represent the worst situation, as existing high fuel loadings along with more limited fire suppression equipment access into this area would equate to the most acres that would be expected to burn at the


November 2012 61

high severity level.

Compaction and Displacement. This alternative would result in no additional compaction or displacement as no heavy equipment use is planned.

Nutrient Loss. This alternative would result in no direct nutrient loss. However, in the event of a wildfire the nutrient loss could well be the more excessive of all alternatives considered. With a no action alternative, a wildfire would be expected to impact the most acres at a high severity level. The excessive amount of nutrient loss under this scenario would then show this alternative to be the worst of the alternatives analyzed.

Cumulative Effects:

Considering only the direct effects, there would be no change to the existing condition and long-term soil productivity would continue to be maintained. However, when also considering the indirect effects, this No Action Alternative would result in the highest probability for a devastating high severity wildfire that could impair long-term soil productivity. As a result, the No Action Alternative should be considered the worst alternative in terms of maintaining long-term soil productivity. Also, see Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Human Heal and Ecological Risk Assessment reports for glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr herbicides (SERA 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). This analysis is tiered to these assessments. 3.4.3 Water Resources and Quality

3.4.3.1 Present Conditions The Project Area contains 17,897 acres of which 16,555 acres are publicly owned lands that are part of the Ouachita National Forest. Within the Project Area, tributary streams that drain into the Fourche La Fave River and eventually to the Arkansas River include: Brogan Creek, Barnhart Creek, and Bear Creek. The primary beneficial uses for these streams and tributaries are watershed protection and preservation and propagation of aquatic life. Also contained within the Project Area are 22 existing ponds, with primary beneficial use being water supply for animals. These ponds are not considered adequate or adaptable for game fish management. There are no ground sources (wells) or surface source for drinking water in the Project Area (GIS data map in Project File). There are no “section 303(D) impaired water bodies” within the Project Area. The closest listed feature is a segment of the Fourche La Fave River, downstream from Lake Nimrod, located 15 miles east of the Project Area (ARDEQ 2004; http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/pdfs/303d_list_public_notice.pdf; District GIS files). 3.4.3.2 Effects Analysis Analysis Tool and Bounds. Forest monitoring has demonstrated that harvesting and stand improvement activities, with protection of streamside areas, did not have significant effects on water quality (Clingenpeel 1989). Sediment is an appropriate measure to determine the effects of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Coats and Miller 1981). “Sediment increases can adversely affect fish productivity and diversity (Alexander and Hansen 1986), degrade drinking water, and affect recreational values. … the Forest has developed a process to estimate sediment yields and analyze the cumulative effects of proposed management actions on water quality. The process provides an objective method to systematically evaluate water quality conditions for watersheds within the planning area. The process also provides data that can aid in aquatic viability analysis at the community scale (Clingenpeel and Leftwich


November 2012 62

2004).” (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 60-61). This evaluation method developed for the Ouachita National Forest consists of an Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model (USDA-Forest Service 2005d). The Model employs analysis at the sixth-level United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed level (http://nas.er.usgs.gov/hucs.asp). The Project Area is located primarily in two sixth-level HUC areas: 111102060205 and 111102060301. The Aquatic Cumulative Effects model (ACE Model) includes analyses for existing land use and road/trail features, and for an array of proposed management activities in context of area and land type, time of implementation, alternative treatments, past activities, other present activities, and proposed private actions. The ACE Model also identifies potential threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species. Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects: A direct effect of management activities on water quality occurs when an activity places a pollutant directly into a watercourse. Road maintenance and/or construction, fireline construction and reconstruction, and timber management activities such as construction of skid trails, temporary roads and log landings could result in increases in erosion and sedimentation. Roads contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management practice (Gucinski et al., 2000). With the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives, 4.6 miles of new road construction are proposed. However, 3.4 miles of existing road would be decommissioned. This results in less than 2 miles of additional permanent status road construction. New roads (single lane) normally require a cleared width of approximately 30 feet. Such roads may require stream crossing structures and draining features such as cross-drain culverts, dips, and lateral or wing ditches. Construction of new roads would be permanently incorporated as Forest system roads, and environmental protection measures would be applied. However, the permanency of these roads establishes a potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects attributable to on-going traffic on the roads. Temporary roads (23.4 miles proposed) are of short duration, usually no more than a few months. They are of minimal width, usually about 14 feet. Erosion potential is minimized by careful location of the roadway and utilization of effective erosion control measures. When use of temporary roads is completed, the roadbeds are revegetated. Temporary roads are closed promptly after their use is completed. Direct effects include clearing of trees or brush to establish the roadbed and increased erosion due to uncontrolled water runoff. Maintenance to existing roads with Action Alternatives (see Road Work map, Appendix “B”) would contribute to reduced sedimentation. While it is impractical to eliminate all soil from entering a stream, it is possible to limit it from directly entering streams through design and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). A BMP is a “practice, or a combination of practices determined to be the most effective and practical means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals” (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 125). BMPs are basically a preventative rather than an enforcement system. BMPs are a whole management and planning system in relation to sound water quality goals, including both broad policy and site-specific prescriptions. Within the Revised Forest Plan, design criteria are synonymous with BMPs. Monitoring is used to determine implementation and effectiveness of management activities. Reviewing individual BMPs and combinations of BMPs across the Ouachita National Forest has shown that management activities such as temporary road crossings or streamside management areas buffers in combination with timber harvest do not have a significant adverse effect on beneficial uses (Clingenpeel 1989, Clingenpeel 1990, Neihardt 1994, USDA-Forest Service 1994, Vestal 2000). Based on results of research and monitoring efforts and mandatory implementation of Revised Forest Plan standards, adverse direct effects resulting from these proposed management actions would be unlikely.


November 2012 63

Indirect effects are those impacts from management activities that do not have a direct connection to the stream-course. The indirect effects would include increased runoff and peak flows as a result of vegetation removal and compacted surfaces which result from road and landing construction and from harvest activities. The disturbed surfaces resulting from the above activities and increased flows could cause increases in erosion and sediment delivery to channels. Miller, Beasley and Lawson (1985b) demonstrated in harvest treatment areas that peak flows and sediment yield did not increase significantly. “The introduction of herbicides into the water is treated as an indirect effect because Forest standards do not permit direct application. Herbicide monitoring across the Forest has detected only trace amounts of herbicide in streams”. (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 60). The effect of nutrients released to streams as a result of management activities is also an indirect effect. Beasley, Miller and Lawson (1985b) statistically found no effect from selection harvesting and only a temporary effect for one year after clearcutting. There was no effect from selection harvesting. The effect of nutrients released to streams would not likely result in significant impact to water quality. Low-intensity prescribed burning results in little or no additional increases in water flow, but effects could be comparable to wildfires or harvesting as the prescribed fires intensify and consume more forest floor and vegetation layers (Baker 1988). Local research in the Ouachita Mountains has demonstrated that increases in water yield can occur during the first 1 to 2 years after timber harvesting. Miller et al. (1988), found no overall difference in annual water yield between harvest cut and no harvest cut basin areas in any of the three years following harvest. Because water yield typically returns to that of undisturbed conditions within a relatively short period, it is unlikely that there would be adverse effects on water yield. “Miller, Beasley, and Lawson (1986) identified that peak flows and increases in water yield were not significant for large storm events as a result of vegetation management. Increases in summer base flows were identified for one to three years after harvest.” (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 61).

Based on results of research, monitoring efforts, and mandatory implementation of BMPs, an adverse indirect effect resulting from these proposed management actions would be unlikely. Also, see Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment reports for glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr herbicides (SERA 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). This analysis is tiered to these assessments. Cumulative Effects:

Analysis of cumulative effects is a requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A cumulative effects analysis should consider incremental impact of actions when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis includes all actions regardless of who undertakes the actions. A cumulative effect can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time.

In 1989, the Ouachita National Forest began long-term monitoring stream surveys to determine cumulative effects from silvicultural activities using paired watersheds and Basin Area Stream Survey methods. Examination of all physical, chemical and biological characteristics resulted in the finding that no single factor was indicative of adverse cumulative effects resulting from silvicultural activities (USDA-Forest Service 1994, Williams et al. 2001, 2002, 2003).

With respect to models, sediment is the best measure to determine effects of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Coats and Miller, 1981). Increases of sediment adversely affect fish productivity and diversity (Alexander and Hansen, 1986). Increases in water yields as a result of harvesting methods could also indicate cumulative effects. Water yield models do not characterize all


November 2012 64

effects of management activities such as road construction. Often, increase in water yield is less than natural variability. Changes in water nutrients could model cumulative effects. However, nutrient fluxes within streams as a result of management activities are minor. For purposes of this analysis, an aquatic cumulative effects model was used that predicted sediment yields as the surrogate for determining cumulative effects for water quality and associated beneficial uses. The objective of this analysis is to determine possible cumulative effects of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses.

Local research has shown that effects of increased sediment as a result of timber harvests are identifiable for up to three years (Miller, Beasley and Lawson, 1985a,b). Two years prior and the year of implementation bind the time-frame of the ACE Model. This captures the effect of other management activities that may still affect the analysis area. Proposed actions are constrained to a single year. This will express the maximum possible effects that could occur. Past activities that have a lasting effect such as roads and changes in land use are captured by modeling sediment increase from an undisturbed condition. Even though, by the time prescribed burning, scarification or wildlife treatments are conducted, any sediment contributed from road construction or harvest actions would be stabilized or returned to or near normal conditions (USDA-Forest Service, 2005d, p. 5). The objective of this analysis is to determine possible cumulative effects of management activities on water quality as well as its associated beneficial uses.

Table 3.5 displays current watershed risk levels, potential to adversely affect aquatic beneficial uses, and the distribution of private versus Forest Service land jurisdiction.

Table 3.5: Current Watershed Risk Levels, Potential to Adversely Affect Aquatic beneficial Uses,

and the Distribution of Private versus Forest Service Land Jurisdiction

Watershed USGS 6th Level HUC

Beginning Watershed Risk Level

Potential to Adversely Affect

Private Land (acres)

National Forest (acres)

Total Acres*

111102060205 Low Low 16,050 17,263 33,313

111102060301 Low Low 11,266 12,614 23,880

* The bounded area for the effects analysis for water resources

As noted from Table 3.5 each watershed has an initial risk level of low which means that the probability is low for adverse effects to aquatic species. If the results of alternatives remain within this range there should be no adverse effect on water quality with respect to beneficial uses (fish communities). In these cases, Forest Service objectives are to maintain or improve aquatic health through implementation of Revised Forest Plan standards and Arkansas State BMPs. Table 3.6 identifies sediment delivery source.

Table 3.6: Sediment Delivery Source


Sediment Delivery

Coefficient

Current Source of Sediment

(tons per year)1

Committed Source of Sediment

(tons per year)

Reduction of Sediment from Road Closure2 (tons per year)

Undisturbed Source of Sediment

(tons per year)1

111102060205 0.098610303 3,670.6 159.2 403.6 605.5

111102060301 0.110373373 2,823.7 474.6 250.0 571.8

1 Current sources of sediment are roads and land uses 2 Road Closure does not preclude administrative use by Forest Service

Table 3.7 summarizes sediment increases associated with each alternative. For both the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative the risk level would remain low.


November 2012 65

Calculations for estimates of sedimentation are included with the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model analyses in the Project file. The Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives propose repeated prescribed burning with burn interval typically every 3 to 7 years. In Audin [ed] (2008), Kolka reports that “From the few studies that do exist, it appears that prescribed fire (or wildfire in the case of Neary and Currier 1982) in the East doesn’t alter infiltration or percolation rates, doesn’t lead to significant increases in surface runoff and, hence, doesn’t lead to higher sediment transport or greater TSS [total suspended sediment] in surface waters (Knighton 1977; Van Lear et al. 1985; Van Lear and Danielovich, 1988; Swift et al. 1993; Elliot and Vose 2005a,b). Studies in Louisiana that have prescribed burning on a biennial basis for 20 years indicate short term increases in sediment produced through interrill erosion on irrigated runoff plots (Dobrowolski et al. 1992). The caveat is that all these studies are results from prescribed burns which tend to be less destructive to upper soil layers, forest floor and vegetation than wildfires.” Cumulative adverse impact on water resources due to repeated prescribed fire is unlikely. No Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects As previously noted, roads contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management practice. Stream crossings and some water diversion features serve as direct conduits for erosion from the road or road ditch directly into the channel. Roads also provide an indirect source of sediment to the stream network. The No Action Alternative, while it does provide for routine road maintenance, it does not provide any additional road treatment activity that would reduce sediment contributions.

Cumulative Effects Existing trends likely would persist within the Project Area, creating a potential adverse effect on floodplains or water resources as a result of implementing the No Action Alternative. Implementation of the No Action Alternative most likely would maintain baseline sediment rates absent events such as severe wildfire. The risk level associated with the No Action Alternative is low from the ACE Model analysis for affected sixth-level watershed areas. 3.4.3.3 Floodplains, Frequent Flooding Areas, Streamside Management Areas, Riparian Areas,

Wetlands, and Municipal Watersheds, Public Drinking Water Source 3.4.3.3.1 Floodplains, Frequent Flooding Areas, Streamside Management Areas, and Riparian Areas Within the Project Area 1,917 acres have been identified as Management Area 9: Water and Riparian Communities (Appendix “B”, Management Areas map). These water, riparian and streamside management

Table 3.7: Summary of Sediment Increase


Predicted Sediment (tons)1 Percent Increase2 Risk for Aquatic

Biota Proposed Action

No Herbicide

No Action

Proposed Action

No Herbicide

No Action

111102060205 734.8 734.8 309.0 679 679 609 Low3

111102060301 1093.6 1093.6 221.4 712 712 559 Low3

1 Per year for first 2 to 3 years 2 Cumulative to an undisturbed condition in the watershed 3 Indicates minimal adverse effects from sediment to aquatic beneficial uses and only requires the application of Revised Forest Plan standards and Arkansas State Best Management Practices


November 2012 66

areas are, in most cases, designated as unsuitable for timber production and/or subject to protective restrictions relative to equipment access or other activities connected to proposed management treatment (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 73-97, 103-108). Frequent or occasional flooding soil areas are usually considered synonymous with local floodplains, referring to the fact that they are subject to periodic but very short duration flood conditions. There are approximately 685 acres of frequent or occasional flooding soil conditions in the Project Area, the majority of which fall into designated streamside management areas. There are no “floodplain” areas in the Project Area as defined by Executive Order 11988, May 24, 1977, Floodplain Management and Forest Service Manual Chapter 2520 Watershed Protection and Management, which associates such areas with coastal ecosystems. Also, there are no floodplain areas, as identified in the USGS National Hydrology Database (GIS data maintained by Forest). Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Impacts concerning compaction and erosion are addressed in Section 3.4.2, Soil Productivity. Measures designed to protect soils are summarized in Section 2.4. In many instances, management activities are prohibited in streamside management areas that comprise Management Area 9: Water and Riparian Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, 9.02/Table 3.10, p. 104). SMAs in loblolly pine plantations have the highest densities of pine with basal areas often ranging upward of 200 square feet per acre. Such high density areas need to be thinned to promote forest health and to encourage hardwood development. Thinning of streamside management areas within the proposed 80-acre clearcut area would occur for the purpose of reducing vulnerability to southern pine and/or ips beetle and/or restore native vegetation as allowed by the above-referenced Revised Forest Plan standard. Thinning would consist of removal of as much of the non-native loblolly pine as possible. No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: It is unlikely there would be direct or indirect effects to riparian areas or areas subject to flooding under a No Action circumstance. Except for instances related to wildfire, emergencies or safety, the Forest Service would not engage in road or fireline construction or other activities that directly affect riparian or frequently flooding areas. These areas would continue to function as physical buffers between the upland and channel ecosystems and would continue to provide habitat for riparian species. There is a potential for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects in the event of wildfire for which the risk of occurrence would be expected to be higher with this alternative. 3.4.3.3.2 Wetlands “Wetlands”, as defined by Executive Order 11990, are areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support (and that under normal circumstances do or would support) a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands, which fall within regulations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, are referred to as “jurisdictional wetlands”. The indicators of wetlands, identified and described by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (US COE 1987) in the Wetland Delineation Manual, are used as a basis for determining the presence of wetland by most scientists and engineers. Other definitions of wetlands are also utilized by some scientists, land use planners, and watershed or water quality managers (e.g., the Cowardin system which provides more in-depth identification or classification of wetlands). There are no defined “wetlands” or “jurisdictional wetlands” areas within the Project Area. For purposes of the analysis under the Revised Forest Plan, wetland potential is considered synonymous with hydric soils as delineated by the Forest soils database. There are no hydric soils identified by the Forest within the Project Area.


November 2012 67

3.4.3.3.3 Public Drinking Water Source There are no designated source areas in the Project Area for public drinking water source (USDA-Forest Service 2005a Design Criteria 9.27, p. 108 and Appendix E, p. 170). Tributaries of the Project Area flow to the Fourche La Fave River which is utilized downstream from the Project Area as the water supply source of the Plainview Water Department, Danville Waterworks, and the Ola Waterworks (see Source Water Maps in Project file). Following Forest design criteria and implementing best management practices would protect these source waters. Danville Waterworks, Plainview Water Department and Ola Waterworks have been notified of the Project (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, 9.27, p. 108). 3.4.4 Wildfire Hazards & Fuels Accumulation 3.4.4.1 Present Conditions Based upon fuels analysis conducted on the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District, the current fuel loading in the Project Area would be expected to average 4.0 to 6.0 tons per acre. Generally, fuels are distributed evenly across the Project Area and consist of scattered snags and limbs, saplings and shrubs, grasses and forbs, and pine and hardwood leaf litter. Management of national forest system lands is to be accomplished with consideration for the goals and principles of the National Fire Plan (http://www.fireplan.gov/), which is a continuing program of efforts that would help protect communities and natural resources, and most importantly, the lives of firefighters and the public. It is a long-term commitment based on cooperation and communication among federal agencies, states, local governments, tribes and forest users. The reduction of risks associated with wildfire includes identification of at-risk communities, assessment of wildland-urban interface areas, and efforts to move federal lands to, or toward, more favorable fire regime and condition class status. (http://www.fireplan.gov/resources/glossary/a.html and http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/11-23-en.pdf). Communities in close proximity to the Project Area are identified in the following Table 3.8. The following Tables 3.9a and 3.9b describe existing Fire Condition Class for the Project Area, Table 3.10 indicates anticipated beneficial effects with improvement to FCC.

Table 3.8: At-risk Communities

Community or Area Description Location

Township, Range, County

Rover Rural Town T3 & 4N, R23W, Yell Co.

Pleasant Hill Rural Community T2 & 3N, R24W, Yell Co.

Onyx Rural Community T2N, R23W, Yell Co.

Plainview Rural Town T4N, R22W, Yell Co.


November 2012 68

Table 3.9a: Existing Fire Condition Class

Burn Unit Acres Fire Regime Condition Class

Barnhart East 1,308 Mostly 3 with some 1 and 2

Barnhart West 2,217 Mostly 3 with some 2

Bogus Ridge 1,036 Mostly 3 with some 2

Brogan 1,576 Mostly 3 with some 1 and 2

Fourche Mountain Turkey Area East 1,090 3

Fourche Mountain Turkey Area West 1,962 1 and 3

La Fave South Bank 1,284 3

Long Mountain 1,605 Mostly 3 with some 2

Norris Hollow 1,053 3

Straight Rock 1,117 Mostly 3 with some 1 and 2

Wildcat Creek 2,119 Mostly 3 with some 2

Wildcat Hollow East 1,574 Mostly 3 with some 2

Wildcat Hollow West 2,235 3

Table 3.9b: Fire Condition Class Description and Potential Risks

Fire Condition Class

Description Potential Risks

1

Fire regimes are within the natural (historical) range, and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition, structure, and pattern) are intact and functioning within the natural (historical) range.

The risk of losing key ecosystem components from the occurrence of fire remains relatively low. Through time or following disturbance, sites are potentially vulnerable to invasion by non-native species. Smoke production, hydrology, soils, insects, and disease function within their natural range.

2

Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) range. Risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased). This results in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation and fuel attributes have been moderately altered from their natural (historical) range.

A moderate risk of losing key ecosystem components has been identified on these lands. Populations of non-native invasive species may have increased, thereby increasing the potential risk for these populations to expand following disturbances such as wildfires. Smoke production, hydrology, and soils have been moderately altered from their natural range. Water flow typical less. Smoke and soil erosion following fire typically greater. Insect and disease population have been moderately altered from their natural range.

3

Fire regimes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from natural frequencies by multiple return intervals. Dramatic changes occur to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been substantially altered from their natural (historical) range.

The risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical ranges by multiple return intervals. Vegetation composition, structure and diversity have been significantly altered. Consequently, these lands verge on the greatest risk of ecological degradation. Invasive species may be common and in some cases dominant species on the landscape. Any disturbance would likely increase both the dominance and geographic extent of these invasive species. Smoke production, hydrology, and soils have been substantially altered from their historical range. Insect and disease population have been substantially altered from their natural range with typically higher mortality or defoliation.


November 2012 69

3.4.4.2 Effects Analysis Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects:

Proposed management activities would place additional fuels on the forest floor. Timber harvest operations could contribute an additional 7 to 8 tons per acre of fuel. Pre-commercial thinning treatments could contribute an additional 10-15 tons per acre of fuel. Seedling release could contribute an additional 7 to 8 tons per acre of fuel. Wildlife pond construction could also produce a small temporary increase in the availability of fuels.

Prescribed fire would be used in the management of national forest land in the Project Area to accomplish multiple objectives. While a primary benefit of prescribed fire is reduction of fuel loads to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, other purposes are accomplished with the use of prescribed burning, including: ecosystem restoration, preparation of sites for regeneration, controlling understory vegetation, wildlife habitat enhancement, and improving overall forest health. The entire Project Area would receive periodic prescribed burning for the purpose of improving fire condition class and reducing the risk of wildfire (see Burn Units map, Appendix “B”). The Project Area has been divided into 13 burn units ranging in size from 1,053 acres to 2,235 acres. Each burn unit would be treated with controlled broadcast fire approximately every 3 to 7 years. This recurring schedule would extend until the area is re-examined and subsequent decision-making is completed for continued management activities (normally in 10 to 15 years). Specific burn unit treatment would be subject to review of biological, cultural, scenic, recreation, air quality, weather conditions, environmental planning, and Forest Service policy considerations associated with prescribed burning and affected forest resources. Burn plans for prescribed burning require approval of the designated responsible official, usually the District Ranger.

As much as possible, prescribed burning would utilize existing established firelines and natural breaks such as streams and roads. Approximately two miles (about two acres) of new fireline is expected to be established for

Table 3.10: Effect on Condition Class Status and At-risk Communities−Action Alternatives

Existing Fire Condition Class

Burn Unit acres Expected Effects:

Condition Class and At-risk Communities

1 and 3 Fourche Mtn Turkey Area West 1,962

Maintain beneficial status of Condition Class 1. Create substantial areas with Condition Class 2 and Class 1 characteristics. Occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands and small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain.

2 and 3

Barnhart West 2,217

Create large islands of Condition Class 1 and occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands. Small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain. Create substantial areas with Condition Class 2 and Class 1 characteristics. Occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands and small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain.

Bogus Ridge 1,036

Long Mountain 1,605

Wildcat Creek 2,119

Wildcat Hollow East 1,574

3

Fourche Mtn Turkey Area East 1,090

Create substantial areas with Condition Class 2 and Class 1 characteristics. Occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands and small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain.

La Fave South Bank 1,284

Norris Hollow 1,053

Wildcat Hollow West 2,235

1, 2, and 3

Barnhart East 1,308 Maintain beneficial status of Condition Class 1. Create large islands of Condition Class 1 and occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands. Small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain. Create substantial areas with Condition Class 2 and Class 1 characteristics. Occasional small enclaves of Condition Class 2 lands and small remnants of Condition Class 3 lands may remain.

Brogan 1,576

Straight Rock 1,117


November 2012 70

prescribed burning. Fireline construction would be designed and accomplished in accordance with Forest design standards (e.g., Revised Forest Plan standard 9.24, p 107, minimizing firelines and design criteria).

As indicated in Table 3.10, it is expected that there would be improved fire condition class and reduced hazard of wildfire to at-risk communities as the result of prescribed burning associated with the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives. Severe weather conditions involving high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds could pose wildfire hazards in areas where proposed management treatments have added fuels to the forest floor. Prescribed burning would serve to significantly reduce wildfire hazards and improve associated condition class. Overall, prescribed fire would improve fire condition class (see Table 3.10). Without the implementation of prescribed burning there would be a significant potential for devastating wildfire occurrence. A program of prescribed burning as included with the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives would substantially reduce accumulated fuels from management activities and natural fuel buildup (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 176, 181). Prescribed fire is the most practical means to reduce dangerous accumulations of combustible fuels under southern pine stands (USDA-Forest Service 1989a). The Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives provides for continuing maintenance of favorable condition class status for national forest lands and long-term benefit of reduced wildfire risk relative to local communities and inhabited areas. Cumulative Effects: For a discussion of cumulative effects refer to cumulative effects presented in sections addressing air quality, soil productivity, water resources, vegetation, and wildlife and fish. No Action Alternative As indicated in Section 3.4.1.6, prescribed burning within the Project Area would be limited under a No Action situation. Wildfire hazard eventually would revert to higher risk conditions. Fire control difficulties likely would occur without the implementation of prescribed fire that would reduce the accumulated fuels from management activities and natural fuel buildup. Prescribed fire is the most practical way to reduce dangerous accumulations of combustible fuels under southern pine stands (USDA-Forest Service, 1989a). If no repetitive prescribed burning practices were implemented, fire hazard would increase significantly in the Project Area. The “edge effect” preferred by large species of wildlife would decrease and eventually there would be population decline. Prescribed fire stimulates the production of fruit and seeds. Available quantity and quality of forage for wildlife would decrease in the absence of repeated prescribed burning implemented on the landscape. 3.4.5 Vegetation (species composition, age and habitat diversity, early seral conditions, mature

growth, hard mast production, forest fragmentation, non-native invasive species, carbon

storage, stand vigor and health)

3.4.5.1 Present Conditions

Age Class and Species Diversity. The Project Area is part of the Wildcat Hollow Project Land Type Associations (See section 3.4.7.1 for LTA descriptions). The potential natural vegetation consists of mesic oak-hickory forests, dry-mesic oak-hickory forests, shortleaf pine-oak, pine and pine-oak forests and grass forbs communities. Species richness (variety of different tree species present) and evenness (relative abundance of different tree species) are similar on aspects of the same orientation, but are different when north and south aspects are compared. North to northwest aspects and upper slope conditions are cooler, moist, receive less direct solar radiation, and are dominated by hardwoods. Many of these species are very adaptable and occur on both aspects. (Forest Type map and Age Class map, Project file).


November 2012 71

Based on recent forest inventories, the current acreage of the various age classes and the percentage of the Project Area they comprise are tabulated by forest type in Table 3.11. Forest types 51+ years of age represent 12,999 acres or 79% of the forested conditions in the Project Area. Early forest stage habitat consisting of herbaceous ground cover/grasses/shrubs is very limited, especially in high basal area older stands where sunlight is limited and shade intolerant plant species are suppressed. Forest floor plants that produce soft mast such as blueberries and blackberries, and seeds and nectar from light-demanding forbs, composites, legumes and grasses constitute important wildlife foods, but are rarely abundant in older, shaded stands (Fenwood et al. 1984). Soft mast producing tree species such as dogwood, Cornus

florida, and farkleberry, Vaccinium arboreum, are common throughout the Project Area. Early Seral Conditions (Revised Forest Plan, WF001). There are approximately 400 acres of early seral stage habitat (0-10 year age class) in the pine forest type in the Project Area. Also in the Project Area, there are 46 acres of closed roads, 81 acres of utility right-of-way, and 12 acres of permanent wildlife openings. This total area of 539 acres for existing early seral condition comprises approximately 4% of the total suitable acres (suitable for timber production− USDA-Forest Service 2005 p 145). Mature Growth (Revised Forest Plan, WF006). There are approximately 4,219 acres of mature-growth, 80 years or greater in age, pine and pine-hardwood forest types, totaling nearly 32% of the total pine/pine-hardwood forest type. There are 184 acres of mature-growth that is 100 years old or greater in age of hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types, totaling 5% of the hardwood/hardwood-pine forest type in the Project Area. Old Growth Restoration. On the Ouachita National Forest 70,379 acres, comprised of 35 units, have been designated as Management Area 21: Old Growth Restoration. The emphasis for these lands is the restoration and perpetuation of pine-grass old growth forests, woodlands and other old growth conditions associated with frequent fire. Inclusions of existing hardwood stands, designated as unsuitable for timber production, are to be managed for old growth characteristics. There are approximately 990 acres within the Project Area designated

Table 3.11: Current Age Class Distribution for Forested Land by Forest Type

Age Class (years) Pine Acres

Pine-Hardwood Acres

Hardwood-Pine acres

Hardwood acres

Total Age Class

acres percent

0-10 400 0 0 0 400 2.43

11−20 230 0 0 0 230 1.41

21−30 1,595 95 0 28 1,718 10.43

31−40 463 0 163 15 641 3.89

41−50 301 0 0 176 477 2.90

51−60 63 59 71 11 204 1.24

61−70 422 468 260 306 1,456 8.84

71−80 3,574 1,089 719 791 6,173 37.49

81-90 2,314 227 332 207 3,080 18.71

91-100 1,160 243 211 13 1,627 9.88

101+ 238 37 20 164 459 2.78

Tota

l acres 10,760 2,218 1,776 1,711 16,465 100

% 65.4 13.4 10.8 10.4 100


November 2012 72

as MA-21, the Barn Hart Old Growth Unit (Management Area Map, Appendix “B”). The Barn Hart Old Growth Unit contains a core area of 104 acres with the remaining 886 acres classified as replacement stands (see USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p.41). 850 acres are stands of the pine-hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types. Hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types total 140 acres. Of the forest stands in the Barn Hart Old Growth Unit, 81 percent are 61 to 100 years of age and 19 percent are 11 to 40 years of age. There is no early seral forest type in this MA-21 area. Retention and Recruitment of Hardwoods. There are approximately 3,487 acres of hardwood and hardwood-pine stands representing 21% of the timber resource within the Project Area. These forest types would be managed for retention (leave) and recruitment (addition) of hardwoods. Hardwood Mast Production (Revised Forest Plan, WF003). There are approximately 3,105 acres of 50+ year old hardwood and hardwood-pine stands totaling 18.8% of the timber resource within the Project Area, or 89% of the total hardwood and hardwood-pine forest type. Stand Vigor and Health. Trees in most Project Area pine stands are crowded or densely stocked. This condition results in stress, reduced vigor and health, and increased susceptibility to insects and diseases. Some of the older mature scattered pine trees have died. Hardwood stands, especially those near ridgelines, are stressed from periodic drought and are also overstocked resulting in reduced vigor and health with increasing susceptibility to infestations by insects such as the Red oak borer Enaphalodes rufulus. Forest Fragmentation. Forest fragmentation is associated with areas of a greater landscape scale than the Project Area. The intense modification and division of forested land connected with forest fragmentation does not occur within an area the size of a typical Ouachita National Forest watershed-level area. It is noteworthy that 43% of the Ouachita National Forest is designated as unsuitable for timber harvest. Within the Wildcat Hollow Project Area there are 3,998 acres (24% of the Project Area) of Forest land identified as unsuitable for timber production; national forest lands classified as unsuitable for timber production would remain substantially undisturbed, except for periodic prescribed fire. Carbon Storage. Management of forests specifically for carbon sequestration is not well developed but some ecological principles related to forest management are emerging (SOCCR 2007). Pan et al. (2011) concluded that forests alone account for the most significant terrestrial carbon sink. This study found that global forests have annually removed 2.4 billion tons of carbon and absorbed 8.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or about one-third of fossil fuel emissions annually from the period 1990-2007. The forest of the Project Area provides an important ecosystem function by supplying a persistent source of carbon sequestration. The value of the forest as a carbon sink is an important consideration, and keeping the forest as forest is a foundational concept for management of the Ouachita National Forest. Non-Native Invasive Species. An invasive species is identified as “[a] species that can move into an area and become dominant either numerically or in terms of cover, resource use, or other ecological impacts. An invasive species may be native or non-native” (USDA-Forest Service 2005a p. 132; USDA-Forest Service 2005b p. 172). Non-Native Invasive Species (NNIS) can be categorized as animal or plant. For this Project, invasive plant species known to be on the Forest have been considered. NNIS can also be insects, pathogens, and aquatic pests. The Forest annually employs gypsy moth traps to survey for this species, which prefers to feed on oaks. Another non-native species is the red imported fire ant, which can disturb roots and buds, and can prey upon small vertebrates, native scavengers and the eggs of ground-nesting birds. The fire ant population in Arkansas is moderate and fire ants cannot tolerate cold temperatures (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, p. 172); therefore, the red imported fire ant will not be considered in this Environmental Assessment. The Regional Forester’s Invasive Exotic Plan Species List was developed in 2001. This list was condensed into a list specific for the Ouachita National Forest in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service, 2005a, p. E-92-95). In 2004, the Forest Service developed the USDA Forest Service Southern Region Strategy for Non-


November 2012 73

Native Invasive Species (USDA-Forest Service 2004b). These efforts helped organize invasive species into two categories. Category One species are invasive and persistent throughout the entire Southern Region (R-8) and pose a threat to the integrity of natural plant communities, and by extension, to the animals dependent upon those natural communities. Category two species are plants suspected to be invasive or are known to be invasive in limited areas of the Southern Region. Several non-native invasive plant species have been detected throughout the Project Area. The most prevalent are found along roadways and other openings and are sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), mimosa/silktree (Albizia julibrissin) and fescue grass species (Lolium spp.), widely used for erosion control and as a local forage grass. Also found along roadways, openings and under dense canopies is Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera

japonica). Shade tolerant, this vine has become well established in many Streamside Management Areas, especially along Forest Road 795/796 and adjacent right-of-ways where it often forms dense arbors high into tree crowns and threatens to replace ground vegetation along drainages where many forest Sensitive species occur or may occur. Several site-specific areas within the Project Area have been identified as areas with high concentrations of invasive species. 3.4.5.2 Effects Analysis Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects: Age Class and Species Diversity. Approximately 897 acres (7.1% of all suitable land in the Project Area) would move to the early seral or early forest stage, habitat category (0-10 year age) after timber harvest, namely, clearcut and seed tree treatments. Commercial thinning would occur on 4,329 acres, mostly in the 21-40 age classes. The 81-100 year age class would remain dominant and would increase to approximately 10,602 acres, or 64% of the forested acres in the Project Area. Timber harvest methods would reduce the pine basal area to an average of 10 to 15 square feet per acre in the modified seed tree with reserves harvest areas and 50-80 square feet per acre of pine for commercial pine thinning (50-90 square feet per acre for MA-21 replacement stand thinning). Most hardwood larger than 18 inches dbh (diameter at breast height) would be retained. In addition to even-aged harvest, temporary roads, log landings, and decommissioned and closed roads would result in establishment of approximately 1,062 acres early forest stage habitat. The Project Area would be prescribed burned for the purposes of reducing accumulated fuels, site preparation, control of understory species, and to enhance wildlife habitat conditions. Approximately 897 acres would receive site preparation and follow-up release by herbicide (Proposed Action Alternative) or by chainsaw and/or other hand tools (No Herbicide Alternative). Firewood permits may be allowed. Site preparation and release activities would cause a reduction in selected hardwood stems, but would not result in a reduction in species diversity. Stands receiving site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release would provide additional habitat for herbaceous and grass species that produce fruits and seeds. Site preparation and release by selective methods make it possible to leave individual stems, or clumps of mast producing or other desirable hardwoods. Site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release would be conducted so that, in pine management types, a 10-30% hardwood component would be maintained or developed in treated stands (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, VM004, p. 79). During the regeneration of pine stands, large overstory hardwoods, where possible, would be retained throughout the stand at the rate of 5 sq. ft. of basal area per acre (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, FR002, p. 80). In MA-21, all snags and den trees would be retained with timber harvest, site preparation, and wildlife habitat treatments; standing snags would be felled only when necessary for safety reasons. The reduction of accumulated fuels would yield additional understory production augmented by the implementation of prescribed burns. Early Seral Conditions. With the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives early forest stage habitat created for the Project Area would include:


November 2012 74

Seed Tree Harvest 817 acres Clearcut Harvest 80 acres Log landings (in commercial thinning harvest) 73 acres Temporary Roads 40 acres Closed or Decommissioned Roads 52 acres

These 1,062 acres of additional early forest stage habitat provide a total of nearly 8.5% of suitable acres in early seral habitat. Prescribed fire would reduce the dead or dormant vegetative components of forest floor herbaceous plants, grasses and fuels accumulation. Site preparation, control understory species burns, and release activities would provide additional habitat for herbaceous plants and grass species. This condition would exist for approximately three years before hardwood component would start to shade out the herbaceous and grass species. Mature Growth. Over the next 10 years after implementation of the Project, mature-growth (80 years and older) pine, and pine hardwood would increase from the current 4,219 acres to 8,145 acres which is 56% of the Project Area forested lands. There are currently 184 acres of mature-growth (100 years and older) hardwood and hardwood-pine. This would increase to 408 acres (2.5% of forested land) within the next 10 years. Prescribed fire occurs primarily during the dormant season and has little direct effects on mature timber. Standing snags occasionally would be lost as a result of fire, but can also be created during the process. Timber harvest and site preparation activities would cause some reduction in mature pine growth but would not eliminate it from the forest community in the Wildcat Hollow Project Area. Site preparation and release by selective methods make it possible to leave individual stems or clumps of mast producing or other desirable hardwoods in these pine stands. Residual trees would benefit from the recycling of nutrients released from forest leaf litter and woody debris by prescribed fire. Commercial thinning of pine plantations would open the canopy allowing hardwood seedlings to develop. No adverse effects on mature growth are expected. Old Growth Restoration. As discussed previously, the 990-acre Barn Hart Old Growth Unit contains a core area of 104 acres with the remaining 886 acres classified as replacement stands (Project file map). With the emphasis for these lands being restoration along with perpetuation of pine-grass old growth forests and woodlands, management actions in replacement stands include commercial thinning to maintain total stocking of 50-90 square feet basal area on 576 acres. Midstory treatment, using chainsaws or herbicide, also would be applied on 480 acres of stands to be commercially thinning. The entire old growth unit would be burned on an irregular, one- to four-year cycle with varying timing, season and burning intensity. The core area assures perpetuation of old growth and would be managed under long rotation (160 years). The core area is not subject to artificial regeneration. Thinning and midstory removal would serve the purpose of shaping these stands toward open conditions, and prescribed burning, as described above, would maximize ecological condition diversity and mimic the role of stochastic events. Effects to vegetation are expected to be beneficial to establish and maintain the Management Area 21 (Old Growth Restoration) in the Project Area. Hardwood Retention and Recruitment. Harvest in managed pine stands would be in compliance with Revised Forest Plan design criteria VM004 (p. 79) regarding maintaining or developing hardwood component. Prescribed fire would have little effect on most hardwood species except for those stems in the smallest size classes. Most hardwood species are adapted to repeated exposure to fire and readily re-sprout if top-killed. Site preparation and release would reduce hardwood stems, but not eliminate any species. These hardwood stems would begin to recover approximately three years after release. As indicated in Table 3.11 there are currently 3,487 acres of forest type classified as hardwood or hardwood-pine; this represents about 21% of the Project forested area. Hardwoods that are retained (maintained) and recruited (added) would provide a continuous source of foods (browse and hard and soft mast) and structural habitat components (cavity trees, snags, logs) for wildlife, which could, in turn, increase and/or maintain wildlife populations. Prescribed fire has been shown to be important in


November 2012 75

the successful germination and competition of oak seedlings in forests, especially when used in combination with timber harvest activities that reduce overstory basal area and shading (Kuddes-Fischer and Arthur 2002; Cooper et al. 2000; Crow et al. 1994). Nutrients released from leaf litter and other woody debris during prescribed burns is made available for use by residual stems and hardwood regeneration. The presence of hardwoods also provides for scenic diversity. Hard Mast Production. The amount of hardwood/hardwood-pine forest types 50 years of age and greater would increase from 3,105 acres to 3,281 acres over the next 10 years (19% to 23% of forested land). Wildlife habitat improvement would occur in much of these forest types. Proposed treatments would not reduce this acreage but would decrease the standing basal area and rather quickly increase the volume of tree-crowns, a major factor in improved mast production, on treated acres. Vigor and health of stands would be enhanced and quantity and quality of mast potentially elevated as trees become healthier and crowns expand. Hard mast production would not be adversely affected in the long term by implementation of management activities associated with the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives. Low to moderate intensity prescribed fire would have little impact on mast production. Site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release in pine forest types would have little impact on overall hard mast production. Stand Vigor and Health. Proposed commercial thinning and proposed pre-commercial thinning of pine stands would be conducted to regulate the distribution of growing space, available water, and nutrients for the benefit of residual crop trees. Release, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed burning may cause an increase in herbaceous and grass species in the understory. Implementation of periodic prescribed burning would start to move stands vegetation closer to an historical range of Fire Condition Class 1. Proposed management activities would be implemented in the manner that the desired conditions for Terrestrial, Riparian, and Aquatic Ecosystems are met (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 6-26). The partial removal of the overstory and midstory after regeneration harvest treatment would result in increased growth response in the understory. Likewise, the residual crop of trees would also respond with more vigor and become more resistant to insect and disease with a more efficient allocation of available water and nutrients, and growing space.

Table 3.12: Projected Age Class Distribution for Forested Land by Forest Type

10 Years after Implementation

Age Class (years)

Pine Acres

Pine-Hardwood Acres

Hardwood-Pine acres

Hardwood acres

Total Age Class

acres percent

0-10 897 0 0 0 897 5.44

11−20 400 0 0 0 400 2.43

21−30 230 0 0 0 230 1.40

31−40 1,515 95 0 28 1,638 9.95

41−50 463 0 163 15 641 3.89

51−60 301 0 0 176 477 2.90

61−70 63 59 71 11 204 1.25

71−80 342 468 260 306 1376 8.36

81-90 3,234 1,054 719 791 5,798 35.21

61-100 2,112 227 332 207 2,878 17.47

101+ 1,238 280 231 177 1,926 11.70

Total 10,795 10,795 2,183 1,776 1,711 14,465

100 65.6 65.6 13.2 10.8 10.4 100


November 2012 76

Forest Fragmentation. Forest fragmentation would not occur with the implementation of Proposed Action Alternative or No Herbicide Alternative treatments. Forest fragmentation occurs when large, contiguous forests (areas considerably larger in scale than the Project Area) are divided into isolated smaller patches by intensively modified land use such as residential and commercial development, and agriculture. It is important to distinguish between a large forested area that is fragmented by agriculture or urban development and a smaller forested landscape, such as the Project Area, that is composed of a mixture of mature and regenerating stands. Natural stochastic events (e.g., windstorms, insect infestations, wildfire, and ice storms) would occur and contribute to the diversity of that mosaic whether or not man-induced disturbances such as timber harvest and connected activities occur. Where harvest does occur, the resulting temporary change in habitat would not result in loss of habitat or alter the use as forest resource. The stands proposed for treatments are embedded in a forested mosaic within the Project Area that is itself embedded in a forested area of a much larger scale−the 1.8 million acres of the Ouachita National Forest. To the degree that harvested stands can be surrounded, even partially, by similar habitat lessens the potential effects of isolation on wildlife and plant species (Harris 1984). Prescribed fires would be of low to moderate intensity and highly unlikely to cause forest fragmentation. Site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release by selective methods make it possible to leave individual stems or clumps of mast producing or other desirable hardwoods in these pine stands. Site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release would not cause forest fragmentation. Even-aged clearcut and seed tree harvest on 897 acres would not constitute fragmentation and represents only about six percent of the total forested Project Area. Clearcut and seed tree units are subject to restrictions set forth in the Revised Forest Plan (FR005, FR009) as to area size, stand age, and spacing of treated areas, and regeneration is carefully monitored to assure continuing forested use. All national forest land within the Project Area that are timberland or woodland would continue to be the same land use. Carbon Storage. With the Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives there would not be a loss of forest. Forest health, and stand vigor would be strengthened for the long term. Old growth and mature forest are effective in carbon sequestration but the rate of storage declines with maturity (Bonan 2008; Anwar 2001). Harvest and regeneration of younger to middle-aged forests for long-lived forest products (e.g., lumber) promote carbon storage (Ryan 2008). Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives objectives such as insuring reforestation, promoting efficient harvest, increasing forest health, and reducing the risk of wildfire are effective management for maintaining or increasing carbon sequestration. Trees and wood material are carbon sinks, accumulating carbon as they grow and acting as stable carbon stores. Carbon storage continues even when trees are converted to wood products. When trees die or are consumed by fire, stored carbon is released back into the carbon cycle through decay or combustion. In the U.S., forests (vegetation, soils, harvested wood) account for about 85% of the total terrestrial sequestration of CO2 (Perlin 2001). The vegetation of the Project Area would continue to contribute to carbon storage and maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Trees and other vegetation utilize CO2 during photosynthesis and reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another beneficial effect associated with the forest results as CO2 flows into the leaves and tiny amounts of water vapor are released that cools the land surface. In forest conditions, carbon in trees make up approximately one-third of carbon stores, and the remaining two-thirds of carbon storage is below ground. Harvest activities would not adversely affect carbon storage dynamics for the Project Area. Older trees have had more time to store carbon, and older forests probably have more carbon stored than younger forests. However, trees in younger age classes store more carbon due, in part, to the quantity of trees per unit area. Younger trees assimilate carbon at a faster rate since they add biomass more quickly than older trees (Anwar 2001). Over the long term, the efficient utilization of biomass and regeneration/re-growth can sequester more carbon by not harvesting at all (Sampson and Hair 1996). Herbicide with Timber Stand and Wildlife Habitat Treatments. Selective elimination of brush, saplings, and other trees associated with timber stand improvement activities−site preparation, release, and midstory reduction and wildlife habitat improvement−midstory removal and overstory development−would utilize a combination of chainsaw or other hand tool cutting and herbicide application with the Proposed Action Alternative; mechanical cutting only would be used with the No Herbicide Alternative. The herbicide triclopyr (amine) would be used with the Proposed Action with application would not to exceed typical rate commonly


November 2012 77

used in Forest service programs (2 lb. a.e./acre). Methods of application could include directed foliar spray, cut surface, frill girdle (hack and squirt), or stem injection. Herbicide and/or hand cutting would selectively remove some hardwood component from about 5,810 acres but will not eliminate any species from the Project Area. This treatment will allow new seedlings to become established and receive necessary sunlight and nutrients for growth. Increased sunlight would also benefit vegetation beneficial to wildlife. The effects of these herbicides are set forth in detail in Human Health and Ecological Assessment reporting prepared by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2011b). This analysis is tiered to this reporting as well as an associated SERA Risk Assessment Worksheet for triclopyr (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml).

Non-Native Invasive (Plant) Species (NNIS). Both the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative would involve some level of ground disturbance which opens areas to potential invasion by non-native plants, noxious weeds, or both. Weeds compete with native plants for resources (i.e., sunlight, moisture, soil) and degrade habitats that rare plants may occupy or colonize. Best Management Practices can reduce the possibility of introducing or spreading noxious weeds or non-native plants during implementation of Project activities such as timber harvest, road construction/maintenance, fireline construction/maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, log landings, and pond construction. These activities could increase the population and spread of non-native invasive plant species by destroying individual stems which would result in prolific sprouting. They may also provide seedbeds for NNIS germination. Mechanical equipment could also dislodge seeds and transport them to unaffected areas. While prescribed burning prior to treatment is known to assist in NNIS control, it could also release dormant seeds and cause population increases. Prescribed burning may contribute to the control of NNIS or impede their spread, but in some cases may enhance habitat conditions for these undesirable species (Erickson and White 2007). Management activities, such as the removal of overstory, midstory, or understory by hand tools should not spread NNIS, but increased light levels and reduced shade indirectly may allow spread if a source population occurs nearby. With the Proposed Action Alternative, populations of NNIS would be eradicated or reduced by herbicide application treatment on as much as five percent (828 acres) of the Project Area over the next 10 to 15 years. Designated populations of NNIS across would be treated with a combination of prescribed burning, mechanical cutting, and herbicide applications. Treated areas would be monitored and follow-up treatment of herbicides may be needed to control sprouting. Some areas of exposed of exposed mineral soil may be disked and seeded with native warm and cool season grasses and forbs to discourage NNIS establishment. Grasses recommended by the Forest Botanist include: warm season-little blue stem, switch grass, Indian grass or any native warm grass or forb; cool season-annual ryegrass or any native cool season grasses or forbs. Herbicides that would be used with the Proposed Action to treat NNIS include glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr. Application rates would not exceed typical application rates commonly used in Forest service programs (2 lb. a.e./acre). Methods of application could include directed foliar spray, cut surface, frill girdle (hack and squirt), stem injection, or basal bark. The effects of these herbicides are set forth in detail in Human Health and Ecological Assessment reports prepared by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA 2011a,b,c). This analysis is tiered to these reports as well as associated SERA Risk Assessment Worksheets (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml). With the No Herbicide Alternative, any control of non-native, invasive plant species would be by mechanical means, hand tools, or by prescribed fire. Some NNIS areas could be disked and seeded in native seasonal grasses. Cumulative Effects: Bounds. For the purpose of cumulative effects analysis for impact on vegetation resources, the analysis area and time frame were deemed to consist generally of the Project Area for the most recent entry period, the last 10 years, planned activities in the Project Area other than the Proposed Action, and “present” activities as defined in the Forest Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model (see sections 2.7 and 3.4.3). Therefore, cumulative effects as


November 2012 78

relating to the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Herbicide Alternative are the incremental impact, if any, of the Project actions in combination with these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Past activities in Project Area consist of timber harvest, site preparation, prescribed fire, and routine forest activities. The Project Area presently lacks early seral habitat conditions and understory species diversity. There are no identified future actions beyond the management treatments of the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Herbicide Alternative for the Project Area. Age Class and Species Diversity. With the introduction of fire suppression this century, forests of the Ouachita Mountains have developed more vertical structure than was present historically, primarily due to the growth of hardwood midstory (Henderson and Hedrick 1991). Most stands of the Project Area show a relatively even-aged pine structure (trees close to the same age and size) and an uneven-aged hardwood structure (stands contain trees with a minimum of three age and size classes). Thinning and hardwood reduction treatments along with prescribed burning would reduce vertical forest structure. The effects on biodiversity, by reducing vertical structure, are expected to be positive. Recent research on the Ouachita National Forest has shown that pine thinning, midstory reduction, and prescribed burning increases within-stand diversity of understory plants, birds, and small mammals (Lochmiller et al. 1994; Masters and Wilson 1994). Because dense midstory hardwood in second-growth pine stands is still the predominant condition in the Ouachita, creating some of this open-forest condition would increase biodiversity across the Project Area. As noted in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 33) periodic prescribed fire would improve Fire Condition Class:

As more acres are restored to Condition Class 1 in ecological communities adapted to low-intensity periodic fire (Fire Regime 1), the woodland condition would prevail over a larger part of the landscape. In this condition, surface fuels are the primary component contributing to fire behavior. This would represent a change in current fuel profiles where surface fuels, aerial and ladder fuels can all contribute to fire behavior. The woodland types would include a more “grassy” fuel component (Fuel Model 2) compared to the closed canopy forest fuel type (Fuel Model 9). In the woodland condition, total fuel loading would be less than in the forest condition (as much as half the current average fuel loading in tons per acre). There would not be as much of a woody live and/or dead fuels component to contribute to either flaming or smoldering fire behavior. In prescribed burns and wildfires, the grassy component would burn more easily, faster, and produce fewer emissions (both in concentration and duration) as compared to current fuel conditions. Fire intensity would be less in the woodland condition and there would be less likelihood (risk) of stand replacement burns. Suppression efforts would be less costly while providing a higher degree of safety to both the public and firefighters.

Site preparation and release would selectively remove hardwood stems but would not eliminate any species from the forest community. The removal of these hardwood stems would add to the diversity of herbaceous and grass species. Early Seral Conditions. Early seral habitat would be provided primarily by regeneration harvest. With the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives, 817 acres would receive a seed tree cut and 80 acres of non-native loblolly pine would be clearcut. Early seral habitat conditions also would be established with log landings (73 acres), temporary roads (40 acres), and closed or decommissioned roads (52 acres). Plants and animals associated with this type of habitat would be present in the Project Area and should be more abundant with availability of additional suitable habitat. The creation of early forest habitat with the management activities of the action alternatives would diminish within 10 years; no other management treatments that would develop early seral conditions in the Project Area are anticipated during this time period. It is possible that some early seral habitat could result from the occurrence of natural events, such as wildfire, high wind, ice, etc. Mature Growth. The pine and hardwood acreage designated for mature-growth would be available to provide habitats that are suitable for plants and animals associated with this condition. There would be no hardwood


November 2012 79

forest type eliminated because of the implementation of the management activities of the Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives. Old Growth Restoration. Thinning, midstory reduction, and prescribed fire are the only activities planned for the 990-acre Barn Hart Old Growth Restoration Area, and these management activities, in accordance with the Revised Forest Plan, are designed to establish and perpetuate pine-grass old growth forests and woodlands. The core area of 104 acres would have a rotation age of 160 years. Deviation from the objectives for this Management Area of establishing open conditions, maximizing ecological diversity, and mimicking the role of stochastic events could occur with unexpected intervening events such as catastrophic wildfire, storms, or insect/disease outbreak. Adjacent lands are national forest stands that will be managed to promote the desired conditions for old growth restoration. Retention and Recruitment of Hardwoods. Although overall tree density of both hardwood and pine would be reduced in the Project Area, the proportion of hardwood to pine would be maintained. In pine stands where hardwood is less abundant no hardwood would be cut. Hardwood and hardwood-pine stands thinned for wildlife habitat improvement purposes would offer an additional habitat condition currently not available in the Project Area as would temporary openings. More-open conditions would allow for germination of seed for future replacement stems. Hard Mast Production. The availability of hardwood trees throughout the Project Area would be conducive to production of acorns and nuts for hard mast dependent wildlife species. Site preparation and release treatments would reduce some individual hard mast stems for a short period in time. The wildlife habitat improvement treatments would focus on maintaining or enhancing hard mast production. Hard mast species would not be eliminated from the Project Area. Forest Fragmentation. Forest fragmentation would not occur with the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or No Herbicide Alternative treatments. There are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions known within the area of influence of the Project that would make permanent changes within the landscape nor create a change in land use or ownership. Stand Vigor and Health. The objective of increasing the vigor and health of the Project Area would be met with the implementation of Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives treatments. Carbon Storage. Refer to discussion of Direct and Indirect Effects above and also Section 3.4.12. Herbicide with Timber Stand and Wildlife Habitat Treatments. Herbicide usage would occur only with the Proposed Action Alternative. Eradication of non-native invasive plant species would be accomplished with glyphosate, imazapyr, or triclopyr. Timber stand improvement activities (site preparation, release, midstory removal) and wildlife habitat improvement treatments (midstory removal and overstory development) would require application of triclopyr. The current Forest Service risk assessment uses a conservative half-life of 10 days on vegetation for glyphosate (SERA 2011a, p. 101), 30 days for imazapyr (SERA 2011b, p. 46), and a conservative foliar half-life of 15 days for triclopyr−TEA (SERA 2011c, p. 201). By adhering to Revised Forest Plan design criteria associated with use of herbicide (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, HU001-HU018, pp. 87-89) cumulative effects should be minimal. Herbicide monitoring across the Forest has detected only trace amounts of herbicide in streams (USDA–Forest Service. 1993b). Non-Native Invasive Species. Timber harvest and other ground-disturbing activities of the Proposed Action and the No Herbicide Alternatives have the potential to afford existing invasives additional opportunities for expansion where soils are disturbed, appropriate amounts of sunlight occurs, and if a nearby seed source is available. Erosion control includes the use of weed-free mulch and seed where needed. Normal activities such as camping, off-road vehicle use, and road maintenance could also be a contributing factor for NNIS increase. Future proposed management activities are likely to be similar to those proposed during this entry period. The


November 2012 80

Proposed Action Alternative is expected to eliminate large patches of NNIS during this entry period and to significantly control the expansion of NNIS outside the Project. The No Herbicide Alternative would not cumulatively contribute as much beneficial impact as the Proposed Action due to the absence of herbicide use. Non-herbicide treatments such as burning and mowing would not effectively eradicate NNIS or curtail the spread of NNIS. No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects:

Age Class and Species Diversity, Stand Vigor and Health. Stand and habitat treatments would not occur with the No Action situation. The Project Area would continue to mature with increasing competition for available water, light, space and nutrients. Diversity of plants would decline as seral condition between stands diminish and become more homogeneous. Early Seral Conditions. Early seral conditions would decline and eventually disappear except where created by natural events. Plant and animal species associated with this habitat type would decline in the Project Area. Mature Growth, Old Growth Restoration, Retention and Recruitment of Hardwoods, Hard Mast

Production, Forest Fragmentation. The pine and hardwood mature growth would increase. Hard mast production would remain the same. Wildfire or acts of nature may cause an occasional opening but forest fragmentation would not be expected to occur. Treatments to promote hardwood health or encourage recruitment would not occur. Carbon Storage. Vegetation in the Project Area would continue to serve as carbon sink. The rate of sequestration would at some point decline as the forest matures (Bonan 2008). The No Action Alternative would pose a greater risk for wildfire and disease and insect outbreaks, and these natural causes likely would cause a decline in carbon sequestration function for the Project Area. Non-Native Invasive Species. With No Action there would be no ground-disturbing activities other than regular road maintenance, so there would be no direct effects to any NNIS by activity. Nor would it create indirect effects or other habitat conditions favorable for NNIS species requiring abundant sunlight. The indirect effect of no activity would be natural development of conditions for NNIS that require habitat with less direct sunlight. Some routine road maintenance, such as blading open system roads, would continue to occur for safety considerations. Indirectly, disturbed soils in road ditches associated with blading activity could allow additional avenues of NNIS expansion. Openings resulting from wildfire, which would be more likely with No Action, could facilitate the spread of NNIS. Openings also could result from natural events such as ice storms, high winds, etc. Camping, off-road vehicle use and road maintenance could also spread existing populations. Cumulatively, there should be no effects to NNIS unless they are allowed to spread outside the Project Areas into new areas due to lack of treatment.


November 2012 81

3.4.6 Wildlife and Fish;

Management Indicator Species (MIS);

Proposed- Endangered- Threatened-Sensitive (PETS) Species 3.4.6.1 Project Level Management Indicator Species (MIS) The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ouachita National Forest 2005 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 66, 93, 165) identifies a total of 24 Management Indicator Species (MIS) (see Table 3.13). Selection of these species was based on criteria set forth in planning regulations that implement the National Forest Management Act. MIS are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (see e.g., Tables 3.14 and 3.16) and they are a focus for monitoring (36 CFR 219.19, various subsections). Information found in “Management Indicator Species Selection Process Record” (USDA-Forest Service 2005e), FEIS for the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005b), and “A summary and analysis of data pertaining to management indicator species for stream fishes, lake and pond fisheries, and terrestrial vertebrates for the Ouachita National Forest” (USDA-Forest Service 2003a) and “Fiscal year 2009 Monitoring and evaluation report for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2010b) have been used in MIS species discussions. For the Project Area, 12 of the 24 Management Indicator Species are considered to be potentially affected (Table 3.13) and will be addressed in the MIS effects analysis.

Activities planned for the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Herbicide Alternative, such as pond construction and placement of nest boxes, would occur on small, specific sites. These areas would be well spaced across the Project Area and result in positive effects for wildlife. In addition, firewood gathered in specific areas following various silvicultural treatments would reduce forest floor structural diversity by removing some dead and down material; however the amount of biomass removed would be insignificant. These activities are not controversial, do not significantly impact or alter terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems, and occur on very small areas of land.

Table 3.13: Potentially Affected Terrestrial and Aquatic Management Indicator Species

Common Name Scientific Name Selected for Project? White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus Yes

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Yes

Eastern Wild Turkey Meleagris gallapavo Yes

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis No

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Yes

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea Yes

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Yes

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides No

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Yes

Bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus No

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus No

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Yes

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Yes

Redfin darter Etheostoma whipplei Yes

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Yes

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis Yes

Johnny darter (within leopard darter range only) Etheostoma nigrum No

Orangebelly darter Etheostoma radiosum Yes

Channel darter Percina copelandi No

Pirate perch Aphredoderus sayanus No

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus No Northern Studfish Fundulus catenatus No

Northern hog sucker Hypentilium nigricans No

Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus No


November 2012 82

Most proposed treatments (seed tree and clearcut harvests including associated road work, commercial and pre-commercial thinning, midstory removal, site preparation and release by herbicide or hand tools) would occur in pine and pine-hardwood forest types and result in reduced basal areas. Wildlife Habitat Improvement midstory removal and overstory development would occur in hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types and result in reduced basal areas. Prescribed fire and associated fireline construction and maintenance would occur throughout the Project Area.

Revised Forest Plan design criteria includes WF010 (p. 79) that provides, “Where there is no existing water source, provide at least one wildlife pond per 160 acres where needed to accomplish wildlife objectives”. There are 22 existing ponds in the Project Area, and 60 new ponds are proposed, for a total of 82 pond water sources. The size for proposed ponds will vary on a site-specific basis, and can range from ⅛ to ½ acre in size. Building small ponds will allow them to be ephemeral, meaning that they will dry-up during some parts of the year (Dodd and Cade 1998). These ponds can be an important component of habitat for many species of terrestrial and semi-aquatic species, especially where lack of free water (seeps, streams, rivers, large impoundments) can be a critical limiting factor of otherwise usable habitat (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, p. 66). These ephemeral ponds will therefore be devoid of any fish species and will create ideal breeding habitat for numerous species of amphibians, while also providing a water source for other terrestrial organisms when the pond is holding water (Trauth et al. 2004, Guldin 2004a). The Wildcat Hollow Project Area has numerous permanent water sources, including the Fourche La Fave River and many seasonal streams, such as Wildcat, Brushy, Brogan and Barnhart Creeks, that will have pools of water remaining during the dry months of the year providing fisheries habitat. The annual biomass produced by naturally reproducing populations of amphibians far exceeds the biomass from a small pond fishery available to terrestrial predator species, thus providing a critical component of the terrestrial food chain. Therefore, the resultant mix of permanent water sources and ephemeral ponds will create a diverse habitat matrix that will support numerous terrestrial and aquatic species. The proposed ponds for the Project will substantially contribute toward meeting the goals for Forest wildlife habitat management.

For the purpose of cumulative effects analysis for impact on wildlife and fish resources, the analysis area and time were deemed to consist generally of the Wildcat Hollow Project Area for the most recent entry period, the last 10 years, planned activities in the Project Area other than the Proposed Action Alternative, and “present” activities as defined in the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model (also, see sections 2.7 and 3.4.3). Therefore, cumulative effects as relating to the Proposed Action Alternative is the incremental impact, if any, of the project actions in combination with these other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Terrestrial MIS potentially affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action are shown in Table 3.14 with annotations. Each species is addressed in detail in the following sections.

Table 3.14: Potentially Affected Terrestrial Management Indicator Species

Life Form Scientific Name Common Name Primary Reason for Selection

Bird Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite To help indicate effects of management on meeting public hunting demand, and to help indicate effects of management on the pine-oak woodland community

Bird Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler To help indicate effects of management on the early successional component of forest communities

Bird Meleagris gallopavo Eastern Wild Turkey To help indicate effects of management on meeting public hunting demand

Mammal Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer To help indicate effects of management on meeting public hunting demand

Bird Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker To help indicate effects of management on snags and snag-dependent species

Bird Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager To help indicate effects of management on mature forest communities


November 2012 83

3.4.6.2 Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat conditions are an important issue for Management Indicator Species populations. Table 3.15, Response of Selected MIS to Alternative by Decade of Implementation, depicts the potential of various habitat conditions within the Project Area to support the number of individual animals per square mile based on known habitat requirements for the selected species (i.e., habitat capable of supporting a given number of deer or other MIS for which coefficients have been developed). Habitat capability is calculated using the Computerized Project Analysis and Tracking System (CompPATS) model. Numbers of animals the habitat can support at baseline levels reflects current capability before project implementation. Numbers of animals the habitat can support the decade following implementation are the result of the addition or subtraction of coefficients that result from each proposed activity multiplied by the number of acres included in the specific activity. For example, an activity such as timber harvest may have beneficial habitat effects to one species while having negative effects on habitat conditions for another species. These habitat capability estimates provide a tool for comparison of likely results of the Proposed Action Alternative, No Herbicide Alternative and No Action Alternative upon MIS. Habitat capability shown for the No Action Alternative indicates current capability of the Project Area (baseline) and what the capability is expected to be 10 years without further action. Estimated capability levels upon implementation (baseline) and 10 years following implementation are shown for the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives. A comparison of all alternatives’ habitat capability indicates that without managing forests, population levels and stable viability for some species would be unlikely (Dickson and Wigley 2001). Coefficients utilized to determine changes in habitat capability were developed with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the Oklahoma Division of Wildlife, along with input from various professional biologists and specialists.

3.4.6.2.1 Northern Bobwhite Quail

The Northern Bobwhite was selected as an MIS to help indicate the effects of management on meeting public demand as a game species and to help indicate effects of management on the Ouachita shortleaf pine-oak forest and woodland communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005b). The hunting of this important game bird has significant economic impacts in the Southeastern U.S. (Burger et al. 1999).

Table 3.15: Response of Selected Terrestrial Management Indicator Species

To Alternative by Decade of Implementation*

Alternative Management Indicator Species

White-tailed Deer

Pileated woodpecker

Prairie Warbler

Wild Turkey

Northern Bobwhite

Scarlet Tanager

Individuals per square mile― Proposed Action Alternative

Baseline (upon implementation) 34.03 13.63 142.50 9.95 105.51 24.71

After 10 years 17.84 30.93 17.97 5.76 28.23 28.45

Individuals per square mile― No Herbicide Alternative

Baseline (upon implementation) 34.03 13.63 142.50 9.95 105.51 24.71

After 10 years 17.84 30.93 17.97 5.76 28.23 28.45

Individuals per square mile ― No Action Alternative

Baseline (current conditions) 15.28 30.55 8.44 5.73 18.91 28.09

After 10 years 13.64 32.39 3.26 5.96 11.53 28.78

* For information pertaining to Ouachita National Forest MIS population data and trends see USDA-Forest Service 2003a and USDA-Forest Service 2007b)


November 2012 84

Population and Trend Information Forest-wide population information has been derived using bobwhite call counts, data collected on Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes from 1966 to 2006 (Sauer et al. 2007), bobwhite Habitat Capability Model in CompPATS, trend data for quail brood surveys (AGFC Website 2010) and Landbird Point data (1997-2010). These inventory tools collectively indicate a declining bobwhite population and approximately stable habitat capability (USDA-Forest Service 2011a). Breeding Bird Survey data collected from 1966 to 2006 indicate a 40 year decline of 3.5% for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau, 3.0% for Arkansas, and 3.0% range-wide (Sauer et al. 2007). Regional and range-wide declines for Northern Bobwhite are primarily attributed to the loss of agricultural land and changes in agricultural practices (Dimmick et al. 2004). The population decline in the Ouachita Mountains is attributed to a reduction in available early forest stage cover habitat conditions (Thompson and DeGraff 2001). Currently, early seral conditions that Northern Bobwhite requires are not abundant within their current range. In a Neotropical Migrant and Resident Landbird Survey Report for the Ouachita National Forest, Northern Bobwhite counts hit a high of 51 birds for the Forest in 2003 and have declined each year since (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). Twenty-five (25) Landbird Monitoring Points occur on the Fourche Unit of the District and have been monitored annually from 1997 to present with Northern Bobwhite rarely detected; indicating suitable nesting habitat is not readily available. Populations of bobwhite and their associated habitat are declining on the Forest and throughout the Southeast U.S. (Sauer et al. 2007; La Sorte et al. 2007), and they are considered to be a species of “Local Viability Concern” and a “Bird of Conservation Concern” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see USDA-Forest Service 2005b). Creation of early seral habitat through silvicultural practices reached a low in 2009 since 2004, and habitat creation has not yet reached the Revised Forest Plan objective of 5,500 acres per year (USDA-Forest Service 2011a). Action alternatives provide a mechanism by which early forest stage cover and its attributes are made available to the Bobwhite. Enhanced habitat capability would assist in promoting population growth and recovery, presence and viability within the Project Area and on Forest. The No Action alternative would not enhance habitat capability and the ability of population levels to increase. Viability, presence, and desired population levels within the Project Area would be in question and would not contribute to Forest-wide population levels or stability.

Two potential threats that may impact Northern Bobwhite (and Wild Turkey, Prairie Warbler, and Bachman’s Sparrow) populations involve two non-native invasive species–the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invict), and the feral hog (Sus scrofa). Fire ants are becoming more common throughout the Forest and are most prevalent in disturbed habitats, such as early forest stage cover conditions, the favored nesting habitat of this game bird. In addition to direct attacks on eggs and nestlings, fire ants have the potential to affect the availability, biomass, and diversity of invertebrate insect prey important to growth and development of juvenile birds (Tucker et al. 2010, Harveson et al. 2004, Mueller et al. 1999, Allen et al. 1995). Feral hogs are spreading across Arkansas and are known to occur on the JWF District (AGFC Website accessed 2010). Feral hogs graze on grasses and forbs that may provide seeds for this bird and have been documented to prey on invertebrates, ground nesting bird eggs, and birds (Hayes et al. 2009, Wilcox and Van Vuren 2009). Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat Northern Bobwhites require a diverse, heterogeneous habitat that includes open areas of herbaceous vegetation for foraging, grassy areas for nesting, heavy brush or woody cover, and bare ground with little litter cover (Roseberry and Sudkamp 1998; Rosene 1984). They also readily use early pine and pine-hardwood forest conditions for foraging, hiding, nesting, and rearing young. Bobwhites tend to be associated with early successional plant communities. Abundant herbaceous plants, seed crops, fruits, and insect prey items found in this cover condition are important in their life history (Dimmick et al. 2004, Rosene 1984). However, the appropriate seral stage for the Northern Bobwhite also depends on the primary productivity of the site and the


November 2012 85

plant community at ground level (Spears et al. 1993). In other words, if appropriate ground cover is available beneath open, older forested conditions (such as pine-bluestem conditions), it may be used by this species. Northern Bobwhites in the Southeast are disturbance-dependent and adapted to ephemeral, early forest cover stage habitats. Much of the early forest stage cover loss and associated Bobwhite population decline throughout the South are attributable to advanced natural succession associated with lack of disturbance, both naturally and due to human intervention. Disturbance is not just desirable, but essential for maintenance of Bobwhite populations (Cram et al. 2002, Burger 2001). The infrequent occurrence of stochastic events (random, natural events such as insect infestations, ice storms, tornados) does not provide this habitat condition on a reliable basis and not at the desired levels. Additional acres of this forest cover type are created through resource management activities such as those proposed in the action alternatives. Future Landbird Point Monitoring activities and other methods of detection that note an increase in Bobwhite occurrence would indicate management activities have had a positive effect on creating suitable habitat for this and other species that use and require early seral conditions. Stands selected for harvest/treatment should be chosen carefully to ensure the needs of plants and animals associated with mature forest types are not compromised (Hunter 1999). Three studies conducted in the Ouachita Mountains reported that the amount of early forest stage cover was significantly related to stand overstory characteristics with the greatest production of ground cover and soft mast from midstory in stands with the lowest tree density (Perry et al. 1999, Masters and Wilson 1994; Fenwood et

al. 1984). Vegetation data gathered from pine stands throughout the Ouachita National Forest in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when clearcut harvest was utilized and early forest stage cover was more abundant, showed forage production (woody stems, grasses, forbs, legumes) is highest during the first four years post-harvest (up to 1,708 pounds per acre) and then tapers to approximately 469 pounds per acre from age 11-20 years, and to 153 pounds per acres in stands 51+ years and beyond. Other researchers have found similar results and note that fire is important to maintaining herbaceous and grassy plants dependent on early successional conditions (Klaus et al. 2010, Masters and Waymire 2000).

Early forest stage cover is defined as those timber stands or similar habitat between 0-10 years of age (years 0-5, grass/forb phase; years 6-10, shrubby phase). Currently, in the Project Area there are 400 acres of forest type in the 0-10 year age class (see Table 3.9). Nearly 19% of stands in the Project Area are in the 11-50 year age group, and almost 79% are over 51 years in age. The availability of functional, early forest stage cover spatially distributed over the Project Area essentially does not exist at this time. Early forest stage cover, by definition, also currently exists on approximately 139 acres (rights-of-way, closed roads, and permanent wildlife openings). These existing acres (539) total about 4% of suitable acres, falling short of the Forest Plan’s goal to maintain 6% to 14% of suitable acres in grass/seedling-shrub/seedling habitat to insure the availability of this habitat condition now, and seral stage habitats in the future (USDA-Forest Service, WF001, Page 78, 2005a). Additional area associated with timber harvest (clearcut 80 acres, seed tree: 817 acres), maintenance of permanent openings (12 acres) along with 165 acres of closed, decommissioned, and temporary roads, and log landings would provide early forest stage cover conditions to support associated wildlife and plant species. Total acres of grass-forb habitat for the Project Area, including existing and proposed conditions, would amount to approximately 12.7% of suitable acres. Effects Analysis: Northern Bobwhite Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Seed tree harvest, clearcut harvest, commercial thinning, timber stand improvement, pine,

pine/hardwood midstory removal, wildlife habitat improvement-overstory development and midstory

development, and pre-commercial thinning of young stands.

The majority of these treatments would occur in pine and pine-hardwood (oak) forest types with resulting reduced basal areas (tree stem density in the overstory and/or understory). Wildlife habitat improvement, overstory development and midstory removal, would occur in hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types.


November 2012 86

Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on adult birds or mobile chicks, but existing nests with eggs could be damaged or destroyed if operations occur during nesting season. However, the majority of stands that would receive treatment do not currently offer suitable nesting habitat because they are too dense and the presence of nesting birds is unlikely. Bobwhites may be temporarily displaced during resource management activities and females may abandon nests.

Indirect Effects: Habitat conditions for retained hardwood soft and hard mast producing trees would be enhanced (Perry and Thill 2003; Perry et al. 1999). The reduction in the density of trees and associated shade would provide much better nesting and brooding habitat due to increased food and cover plant development (Dimmick et al. 2004). Additionally, hunter safety would be enhanced by increased visibility. Herbicide application would inhibit re-sprouting of targeted vegetation, thereby prolonging the desirable effects of these harvests and silvicultural treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Given the amount of time that has passed since the last entry into the Project Area, there is likely little overlap or accumulated effect of the creation of early forest stage habitat created at that time in addition to that which is proposed. An increase in Bobwhite use and hunting opportunities would result from near optimum habitat conditions created in clearcut and seed-tree harvested stands. Additional beneficial effects would result from other management activities incrementally applied to these same acres (e.g. prescribed fire, herbicide application). These harvests and follow-up silvicultural treatments would help achieve and extend the early forest stage cover goal established by the Revised Forest Plan and would ensure future early seral stage conditions on the landscape. Beneficial effects of proposed activities are ephemeral but may persist up to and beyond five years. Long-term outlook includes similar silvicultural activities within this Project Area and adjacent national forest lands that are separated both spatially and temporally with little overlap in benefits for species dependent upon early seral conditions. However, there will be additive benefits as more stands of older, thinned, well-spaced timber provide suitable early seral habitat (pine-bluestem condition) and connectivity to early seral habitat patches on a larger spatial scale than just this Project Area.

The response of herbaceous biomass to proposed treatments, in declining order, would be clearcut, permanent openings, seed-tree, commercial thinning, timber stand improvement, pre-commercial thinning and wildlife habitat improvement in pine forest types and wildlife habitat improvement in hardwood forest types. Site preparation and release (hand tools or herbicide) in pine and pine-hardwood forest types Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on adult birds or mobile chicks from site preparation or release activities (hand tools or herbicide). Existing nests with eggs may be damaged or destroyed if operations occur during the nesting season. The majority of stands to receive site preparation treatment would typically not have time to develop suitable herbaceous conditions between harvest completion and implementation. Stands to receive release treatments are older and well established and would have already developed pine and hardwood woody structure and an herbaceous understory. However, woody stems are often dense and do not offer appropriate nesting habitat. A reduction of woody stems, particularly hardwood stems, would reduce shade and enhance herbaceous ground cover. Bobwhites may be temporarily displaced during resource management activities and females may abandon nests.

Indirect Effects: Habitat conditions for nesting and brooding would be improved. Herbicide application to felled stems would prevent re-sprouting of targeted vegetation and prolong use of these resulting habitat conditions, especially when combined with prescribed fire and/or mechanical treatments (Jones et al. 2004, Welch et al. 2004).

Cumulative Effects: Beneficial effects would be ephemeral and persist for five years or longer but when combined with an active prescribed fire regime, the positive habitat effects would be much longer lasting. Long-term outlook includes similar activities within this Project Area and adjacent watersheds separated by time and space with little overlap. Silvicultural activities on adjacent and nearby industrial timberland may provide connectivity between suitable habitat patches on public and private land. Hunting conditions, safety, and visibility would be improved.


November 2012 87

Prescribed Fire Direct Effects: Direct effects of dormant or growing season burns are unlikely to affect this bird, except for rare occasions, because adults are highly mobile and chicks are born precocial (with a compliment of feathers) and are active and mobile soon after hatching (Martin et al. 2010). Nests with eggs could be destroyed.

Indirect Effects: Fire helps maintain, restore, and enhance early forest stage ground cover conditions important to this bird (Burger 2001, Cox and Widener 2008, Dimmick et al. 2004, Jones and Chamberlain 2004, Klaus et

al. 2010, Palmer et al. 2004).

Cumulative Effects: Habitat conditions would be improved throughout the Project Area, especially in areas where silvicultural treatments precede burn implementation (additive beneficial impacts). Beneficial effects from burns are ephemeral and would persist for about five years, depending on burn intensity. Long-term, prescribed fire would likely occur over the entire Project Area multiple times with benefits separated by time due to their ephemeral nature. Hunting opportunities would be enhanced where fire was applied in concert with other stem-reducing activities.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: Nests with eggs may be destroyed or abandoned by mobile adults when roads or firelines are constructed in nesting habitat during nesting season. Bobwhites may be displaced during construction and periods of high activity, such as during forest product removal.

Indirect Effects: Roads and firelines, when closed, may provide additional early seral habitat, travel ways, nesting and/or foraging habitat, and dusting sites.

Cumulative Effects: Insignificant because of the small amount of acreage impacted over the Project Area. Additionally their establishment and periods of use are often separated by considerable lengths of time. Benefits and habitat opportunities are ephemeral along road and fireline corridors due to their narrow footprint and the almost immediate effect of shading. Hunter access and visibility would be enhanced along these corridors.

Herbicide (Site preparation, Release, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Timber Stand Improvement, Non-

native Invasive Plant Species) Direct Effects: Direct effects of herbicide application on birds or nests with eggs are not likely because the primary target in these applications would be felled hardwood brush cut surfaces (stumps or girdle furrows) located in dense forest stands. Neither hardwood brush nor dense stands are preferred nesting habitat due to a lack of grass and herbaceous plants important for nest construction and concealment. Adults and fledglings are highly mobile and would not be directly impacted. Indirect Effects: Herbicide application has the potential to temporarily negatively impact foraging and nesting opportunities in small, specific treatment areas by reducing the availability of seeds from woody plants and broadleaf herbaceous species contacted by herbicide. This is particularly true during treatment of NNIS plants where beneficial plants may be intermingled. Treatment of individually targeted plants would reduce this potential impact to non-target vegetation, and some but not all proposed herbicides affect grasses. Cumulative Effects: Northern Bobwhite would benefit from enhanced nesting and foraging habitat opportunities in treated areas. Herbicides would extend the life of treatments by inhibiting re-growth and canopy closure of treated species, while providing open habitat conditions conducive for native grass and herbaceous plant growth. Future entry cycles may also use herbicides that would provide similar results, but these events would be separated in time and most likely by space as treatments occur in stands different from those treated this cycle. No cumulative effects from herbicide are expected due to the small amount applied, its application to specific targets (cut stump surfaces/girdles/individual plants where possible), and its non-toxic effects on birds (when


November 2012 88

applied in the concentrations recommended by manufacturers). Non-application of herbicide would not provide the potential benefits or negative aspects previously described. The Proposed Action would have an overall positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for this species

by increasing foraging opportunities.

The No Herbicide Alternative would have an overall positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for

this species. No Action Alternative Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on quail.

Indirect Effects: The retention of the overstory without disturbance would have several effects on quail. As crowns continued to develop and increase in volume, mast production in the form of acorns would also increase until crown closure and competition for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients limited productivity and stressed trees. Hardwood and pine habitats would become homogeneous with little diversity. Shade-tolerant species such as red maple would flourish in the mid and understory with significant root development already established while waiting for the opportunity to occupy the overstory in tree-fall gaps or when stand replacement events such as wildfire, insect infestation or ice storms occurred. Such replacement would result in loss of hard mast (Zaczek et al. 2002). Other shade tolerant midstory species such as dogwood, serviceberry and farkleberry would provide soft mast, but over time the volume would decline as availability of sunlight decreased with overstory closure. Herbaceous and grassy ground cover would fade and essentially disappear, resulting in loss of brood range and associated seeds and berries and insect and spider populations important to poult growth and development (Dimmick et al. 2004, Masters and Wilson 1994; Fenwood et al. 1984). The additive beneficial impacts of fire, herbicide and road and fireline corridors and associated early seral habitat often used for nesting cover and travel ways would not occur.

Cumulative Effects: Reduction or elimination of disturbance regimes such as timber harvest in pine forest types (plus exclusion of fire) would cause early successional pine-grass/forb conditions to revert to thick hardwood midstory that would eventually become a closed forest canopy with little herbaceous vegetation (Reice 2001; Engstrom et al. 1984). Early forest stage cover foraging sites, brood rearing, and bugging habitat would occur only through natural (stochastic) events such as wildfire, drought, ice damage, insect infestation, etcetera, and the habitat benefits associated with action alternatives would not occur. Overall habitat diversity within the Project Area would decline. On a landscape scale the Project Area would contribute diversity in the form of blocks of older, undisturbed habitat opportunities.

The No Action Alternative would have an overall negative effect on the forest-wide population trend for this

species by lack of creation of foraging opportunities. 3.4.6.2.2 Prairie Warbler Population and Trend Information Prairie Warbler densities vary in pine and pine-hardwood forest types according to Phase II research results (a scientifically based, replicated stand-level ecosystem management research program) provided by the Southern Research Station (USDA-Forest Service 2003a). Surveys showed this species to be very abundant in early forest stage cover, with densities of 42.3 birds per 100 acres (40 ha), 25.5 per 100 acres in shelterwood treatments, and 0 birds per 100 acres in mature untreated control stands, clearly indicating a preference for early seral forest conditions. Based on Phase II research and forest-wide database information, this species is estimated to have declined from 75,000 individuals in 1990 to 43,000 individuals in 2002 in pine and pine-hardwood forest types (USDA-Forest Service 2003a). These data are in agreement with the BBS survey data for the Ozark-Ouachita Plateau, which show a declining population trend for this species in the region (Sauer et al.


November 2012 89

2002, 2007 and La Sorte et al. 2007, USDA-Forest Service 2010b). This decline is considered directly related to the reduction in acres of early forest stage cover habitat in pine forest types, which also impacts Northern Bobwhite, Bachman’s Sparrow and Wild Turkey populations. Habitat capability would be enhanced through the implementation of clearcut and seed-tree harvests. There is no Forest-wide or District data available for this bird species in hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types. The Prairie Warbler is a Partner’s in Flight species of Continental Importance and has been designated a “Watch

List Species” considered moderately abundant or widespread with declines or high threats (Rich et al. 2004). It has also been designated a species of “Local Viability Concern” (USDA-Forest Service 2005b) and a “Bird of Conservation Concern” by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fourche Unit Landbird monitoring points were examined for this species with Prairie Warblers detected 19% of the time. The Ouachita 5-year review of 2005 Forest Plan states “[t]he landbird point count data for the warbler show a slight increase in numbers for FY 2010 over the previous 4 years, but throughout the Prairie Warbler range, a downward trend is indicated.” Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat The Prairie Warbler was selected as an MIS to help illustrate the effects of management on the early successional component of Forest communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005b). A Neotropical migrant (belonging to, or designating, a region of the earth's surface which comprises most of South America, the Antilles, and tropical North America) member of the bush-nesting, bush-gleaning insectivore guild, it selects early forest stage habitats such as regenerating old fields, pastures, clearcuts, and utility rights-of-way habitats. These areas are similarly preferred by Northern Bobwhite and Bachman’s Sparrow. Prairie Warblers may occupy small patches of habitat and are among the earliest warblers to colonize scrubby, early forest stage cover. Habitat conditions for nesting occur in the later stages of early forest cover, when vegetation has grown out of the grass/herbaceous phase. Breeding typically occurs from late April to early July with the peak from mid-May to early-June. Nests are generally placed 2-10 feet above the ground in saplings or shrubs in the crotch of several branches, though sometimes nests may be constructed well out onto a small branch. This species is rarely found in closed canopy situations (Dunn and Garrett 1997; Hamel 1992; James and Neal 1986) and is unlikely to be present unless early forest stage conditions are present (Alterman et al. 2005). James and Neal (1986) reported that this migrant begins leaving Arkansas in July with last observations usually made in early-to-late September. 99% of the Prairie Warbler population breeds in the Eastern Avifaunal Biome (which contains Bird Conservation Region 25, which includes the Ouachita Mountains), and 26% of the population overwinters there (Rich et al. 2004). Effects Analysis: Prairie Warbler The early forest cover habitat needs and effects of alternatives on this species are analogous to those for the Northern Bobwhite and Bachman’s Sparrow. See Sections 3.4.6.2.1. and 3.4.6.4.3. 3.4.6.2.3 Eastern Wild Turkey

Population and Trend Information Data sources used to estimate turkey numbers include Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) spring harvest data and poult surveys, BBS data, and habitat capability modeling. Over the past decade, the number of turkey poults per hen on the Ouachita National Forest has varied from a low of 1.36 in 2009, to a high of 3.5 in 2000 (AGFC 2009, 2010, USDA-Forest Service 2003a, 2010c). Ouachita Mountain spring turkey harvests have shown some fluctuations through the years, having increased from 1,631 birds in 1994 to 4,017 birds in 2003 and then decreasing to approximately 2100 birds in 2010, exhibiting an overall declining trend (USDA-Forest Service, 2011). Long-term turkey harvest, habitat capability modeling, and BBS data indicate overall positive trends for the turkey population. Habitat capability remains above the level set in the Revised Forest Plan and


November 2012 90

this sustained high level would indicate that the problem with fluctuations in turkey numbers could be due to factors other than insufficient habitat (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). Although there are variations in poult production and habitat capability from year to year, this species is not likely in danger of falling significantly below desired population levels and it is not of viability concern at this time (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, 2010c). Wild Turkey appear to be doing well in the Ouachita Mountain region, where population trends are stable. The Action and the No Action alternatives provide habitat conditions important to this bird. As discussed for Northern Bobwhite, the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis

invicta, and the feral hog, Sus scrofa have the potential to affect turkey populations. Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat Eastern Wild Turkey was selected as an MIS to help indicate effects of management on meeting public hunting demand (USDA-Forest Service 2005b). This species is a highly prized game animal of economic importance that uses a wide range of habitat types (generalist) with habitat diversity needs that include grass and forb openings (seeds, fruits, berries, insects) interspersed with older timber stands capable of producing hard (acorns) and soft (fruits/berries) mast. In fall and winter, Wild Turkeys require two conditions: food in the form of pine seed, acorns and fruits, and trees for roosting cover from inclement weather. Breeding and nesting habitat is characterized by small openings in forest patches along the edge of timber stands bordering fields (edge), roadside vegetation, and along utility rights-of-ways. In the Ouachita Mountains hens prefer establishing nests in stands of pine (68.1%) under mixed hardwood (23.9%), hardwood (0.9%), and open areas (7.1%). Successful nests are placed at lower elevations, on southwest aspects, on steeper slopes, in older stands. They are farther from roads and streams and patches with oak under-stories are avoided (Thogmartin 1999). Throughout the Wild Turkey’s range, brood-rearing habitat is characterized by herbaceous vegetation interspersed within a forested landscape. Herbaceous vegetation is a key element because it provides an ideal foraging environment, with abundant insect and spider populations that meet the protein requirements of poults (young birds) through the age of eight weeks (Dickson 2001; Porter 1992). Various successional forest conditions, ranging from early forest stage cover to mature growth, are required to meet the needs of turkey populations. Effects analysis: Eastern Wild Turkey Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Seed tree harvest, clearcut harvest, commercial thinning, timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat

improvement midstory removal, wildlife habitat improvement overstory development and midstory

removal, permanent wildlife openings, and pre-commercial thinning of young stands. Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on mobile adult birds or poults, but existing nests with eggs may be damaged or destroyed if operations occur during nesting season and in nesting habitat. Turkeys may be temporarily displaced during resource management activities and nests may be abandoned.

Indirect Effects: The major reduction in the density of trees and associated shade in stands treated by these methods would increase the herbaceous and grass species important for the food and cover requirements of Wild Turkey. A loss of some to all hard and soft mast production capability from hardwood trees could occur for an extended period of time where hardwood trees are removed during harvest and/or silvicultural activities to reestablish pine forest types (as in clearcut and seed-tree harvests and creation of permanent openings). Hens tend to select areas of sparse overstory and midstory with abundant ground cover that provides plenty of seeds, fruits and arthropod prey species. Commercial and non-commercial thinning sites and wildlife habitat improvement stands are examples of such areas. Nesting habitat and brood range, currently in short supply throughout the Project Area, would be created. Areas treated by these methods would not result in dense, residual stands of tree cover preferred in fall and winter. However, the majority of residual non-treated stands would provide adequate winter habitat well distributed in the Project Area. The response of herbaceous biomass to harvest, in declining order by method, would be clearcut, seed tree, and thinnings. A good mix of these


November 2012 91

harvest types would provide for excellent turkey habitat (Dickson 2001). Habitat conditions for retained hardwood overstory and midstory soft and hard mast producers would be enhanced by reducing competition for growing space, nutrients and water. Dogwood, blackgum and farkleberry fruits, and acorns from hardwood trees of mast producing age would provide important fall and winter cover and foods (Steffen et al. 2002, Dickson 2001, Lochmiller et al. 1994).

Cumulative Effects: These activities would provide improved habitat and hunting opportunities where they occur compared to current conditions. Beneficial herbaceous effects are ephemeral and would persist for approximately five years, but wildlife habitat improvement activities could provide enhanced hard and soft mast production for decades due to reduced competition for resources. With the planned long-term prescribed burning program, desirable habitat conditions will persist for a considerable time. Long-term outlook includes similar timber harvest activities in these and other stands within the Project Area, in adjacent and nearby watersheds, and industrial timberlands contributing to a diverse habitat mosaic. These treatments would be separated by time and space, generally with little overlap in benefits. Due to reduced stem density, hunting conditions in harvested areas would be enhanced for several years.

Site preparation and release (hand tools or herbicide)

Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on adult birds or mobile chicks from site preparation or release activities (hand tools or herbicide). Existing nests with eggs may be damaged, destroyed or abandoned if operations occur during the nesting season. The majority of stands to receive site preparation treatment would not have time to develop suitable nesting habitat conditions between harvest completion and the implementation of site preparation activities, although grassy patches used for nesting could occur. Stands to receive release treatments would have already developed pine and hardwood woody structure and an herbaceous understory but woody stems could be too dense to offer good nesting habitat. Prior to release, utilization of untreated stands would be unlikely. Turkey may be temporarily displaced during resource management.

Indirect Effects: Due to reduced stem density habitat conditions for nesting and brooding would be improved. Herbicide application to felled stems would prevent re-sprouting of targeted vegetation and prolong habitat available for use by this bird as would prescribed fire treatments.

Cumulative Effects: Treatments would contribute to forested conditions of varying densities in younger age classes and enhance habitat diversity within the Project Area. This would result in near optimum conditions for turkeys (Dickson 2001). Long-term outlook would include similar site preparation and release activities in this Project Area and adjacent areas, separated by time and space with little overlap in habitat benefits. However, this would create a dynamic mosaic of desired conditions on a much larger scale. The desire to retain a hardwood mast-producing component in pine forest types would be accomplished by selectively retaining existing hardwoods at the time of treatment to ensure future availability of mast. Hunting conditions and safety would be enhanced by greater visibility.

Prescribed Fire

Direct Effects: Direct effects of dormant or growing season burns on this bird are likely to be minimal because adults are highly mobile and poults are precocial and able to follow the hen within one to two days of hatching. Nests, eggs, and non-mobile hatchlings may be destroyed by growing season burns, but the benefits of improved habitat outweigh the nests lost, and in many cases females would likely re-nest (National Wild Turkey Website 2006). In September 2008 a letter supporting application of prescribed fire on the Ouachita National Forest was sent to Arkansas Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor from Dr. Earl Kennamer, Senior Vice President for Conservation Programs, National Wild Turkey Federation (Kennamer 2008). In May 2009, Dennis Daniel, Regional Biologist, National Wild Turkey Federation, submitted a letter in support of prescribed burning to local area newspapers in response to complaints and queries from the public (Daniel 2009).

Indirect Effects: Fire helps maintain, restore and enhance early forest stage ground cover plants especially after timber thinning in middle-aged to older pine stands. Many important wild turkey foods such as native legumes


November 2012 92

are fire adapted and promoted by fire (Dickson 2001). Fire also plays an important role in the development and maintenance of oak forests that provide important winter foods (acorns) used by turkeys (Van Lear and Brose 2002, Cooper et al. 2000, Crow et al. 1994) and fruit yields of woody plants consumed at other times of the year (Stransky and Hall 1979). Turkeys prefer to forage in southern pinelands; especially those burned within the past two years, because of an increase in insects they may prefer to nest there as well (Cox and Widener 2008).

Cumulative Effects: Habitat conditions would be improved throughout the Project Area. Beneficial effects from these burns would persist for approximately five years, emphasizing the need for recurrent fire. Habitat and hunting opportunities would be enhanced where fire was applied in concert with other “disturbance activities.” Long-term, prescribed fire would most likely be applied over the entire Project Area on a cyclic basis with benefits separated by time, due to their ephemeral nature, and space due to burning of designated burn units. Hunter visibility would be enhanced due to reduced stem density.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: See discussion for Northern Bobwhite. Section 3.4.6.2.1


native Invasive Plant Species)

Direct effect, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: See discussion for Northern Bobwhite. Section 3.4.6.2.1

The Proposed Action would have an overall positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for this species

by increasing foraging opportunities.

The No Herbicide Alternative would have an overall positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for

this species, but herbicide would help create better long-term foraging conditions.

No Action Alternative Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on turkey.

Indirect Effects: The retention of the overstory without disturbance would have several effects on turkey. As crowns continued to develop and increase in volume, mast production in the form of acorns would also increase until crown closure and competition for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients would result in limited productivity and stressed trees. Hardwood and pine habitats would become homogeneous with little diversity. Shade-tolerant species such as red maple would flourish in the mid and understory, with significant root development already established and waiting for the opportunity to occupy the overstory in tree-fall gaps or when stand replacement events such as wildfire, insect infestation or ice storms occurred. Such replacement would result in loss of hard mast (Zaczek et al. 2002). Other shade tolerant midstory species such as dogwood, serviceberry and farkleberry would provide soft mast, but over time the volume would decline as availability of sunlight decreased with overstory closure. Herbaceous and grassy ground cover would fade and essentially disappear resulting in loss of brood habitat and its bounty of seeds, berries and insect and spider populations important to poult growth and development (Dickson 2001, Masters and Wilson 1994; Fenwood et al. 1984). The additive beneficial impacts of fire, herbicide and road and fireline corridors and associated edge habitat often used for nesting cover and travel ways would not occur.

Cumulative Effects: Early forest stage cover foraging sites, brood rearing and bugging habitat would occur only through natural events such as wildfire, drought, ice damage, insect infestation, etcetera, and the habitat benefits associated with the Proposed Action would not occur. Overall habitat diversity within the Project Area would decline. On a landscape scale the Project Area would contribute diversity in the form of blocks of older, undisturbed habitat opportunities.

The No Action Alternative would have a neutral to slightly negative effect on the forest-wide population trend

for this species.


November 2012 93

3.4.6.2.4 White-tailed deer

Population and Trend Information Forest-wide data sources and monitoring techniques for this species include deer spotlight survey counts, harvest and population trend data from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, CompPATS deer habitat capability model, and acreage of early forest stage cover habitat available by year. Based on annual spotlight survey data collected between 2000 and 20010, average deer density has varied from a low of 27 deer per square mile in 2001 to 96 deer per square mile in 2008. Forest-wide, deer harvest has increased from a low of 7,394 in 2002 to over 21,000 in 2006 (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). White-tailed deer are habitat generalists, widespread, and an abundant species for which viability is not in question, and there are no indications of need to alter management practices. Forest-wide CompPATS habitat data show a decline in early forest stage cover due to a decline in acreage of harvest techniques that result in early forest stage cover. Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat White-tailed deer was selected as an MIS species based on its big game status, and because its population levels can be evaluated along with habitat trends (USDA-Forest Service 2005b). This opportunistic herbivore has a diet that includes annual and perennial forbs, fruits, hard mast, grasses, flowers and fungi. Food utilization studies of deer in the southern U.S. show that use of woody twigs, even in winter, is insignificant (Miller 2001). The quality and quantity of forage (grasses and herbaceous vegetation) have the greatest impacts on whitetail populations. The Ouachita Mountains are considered sub-optimal habitat for deer due to reduced soil fertility and productivity, particularly the level of soil phosphorus that is a useful predictor of potential physiological condition (Miller 2001). Phosphorus levels of browse in the Ouachita Mountains are considered low (Fenwood et al. 1984). Ouachita Mountain home range estimates for buck deer are 600 acres and 400 acres for doe, with seasonal fluctuations for both. In a five-year (fall) deer stomach (rumen) content study on the Ouachita National Forest, deer primarily fed on acorns (when available), muscadine fruits, sumac seed heads, greenbrier leaves, and various types of fungi (Fenwood et al. 1985, Rogers et al. 1990, Feldhamer 2002). Effects analysis: White-tailed deer Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Seed tree harvest, clearcut harvest, commercial thinning, site preparation with hand tools, timber stand

improvement-midstory removal with hand tools, wildlife habitat improvement-overstory development

and midstory removal with hand tools, release with hand tools and pre-commercial thinning of young

stands.

Direct Effects: Deer may be temporarily displaced from harvest areas during resource management activities.

Indirect Effects: When followed by related silvicultural treatments and fire, the time of persistence of these habitat conditions would be extended. The reduction in the density of trees and associated shade would result in improved habitat conditions for forest floor food and cover plants benefiting deer (Fenwood et al. 1984). These previously described food items are more important than browse (twigs, shoots, and leaves of shrubs, trees and vines) which constitutes only a moderate portion of a deer’s diet (Miller 2001). The response of herbaceous forage species to harvest, in declining order by method, would be clearcut, permanent openings, seed tree, then, thinnings. A good mix of these harvest methods would provide excellent deer habitat (Dickson 2001).

Cumulative Effects: These activities would provide improved habitat conditions and diversity in a region considered sub-optimal habitat for whitetails (Shea and Osborne 1995). Long-term, similar timber harvest activities in adjacent watersheds and on nearby industrial timberlands would contribute to a diverse and dynamic habitat mosaic on a landscape scale. Benefits would not likely be complimentary or additive due to spatial and


November 2012 94

temporal factors, but would contribute to diversity above the Project Area level, especially when industrial timberlands are also considered. Herbaceous growth benefits to deer habitat would be ephemeral and last approximately five years. With enhanced habitat diversity, hunting opportunities would be enhanced.

Site preparation and release (hand tools or herbicide). Direct Effects: Deer may be temporarily displaced from treatment areas during these activities.

Indirect Effects: Stands to receive site preparation treatment would be those where clearcut and seed-tree harvest had occurred. An increase in sunlight to almost complete openness would enhance herbaceous and grass diversity and growth, providing excellent foraging conditions for deer. Stands to receive release treatments would have already developed pine and hardwood woody structure and an herbaceous understory, but woody stems would be dense. Following treatment and stem reduction these stands would offer similar food items as site prepared stands, but the volume of food would not be as great and would decline more quickly due to crown closure by residual trees.

Cumulative Effects: These and other silvicultural activities would benefit deer by providing high habitat diversity through a mix of successional stages at the Project Area level. Beneficial effects of herbaceous growth would be temporary, but would persist longer on sites that received the greatest reduction in stem density. Long-term, similar activities may occur in adjacent watersheds and on industrial timberlands in the area. Prescribed Fire Direct effects: Deer may be temporarily displace during activities but would return to the area with the increase in vegetation and browse.

Indirect Effects: Prescribed fire would increase browse, forbs, grass and legume production, palatability, and nutrition (Masters et al. 1998, Masters and Waymire 2000). Fire also plays an important role in the development and maintenance of oak forests that provide important winter deer foods (acorns) (Van Lear and Brose 2002).

Cumulative Effects: Habitat conditions would be enhanced throughout the Project Area, especially in areas where silvicultural treatments preceded burn activity (additive beneficial impacts). Enhanced nutrient levels of grasses and forbs would peak about three years after fire application. Long-term, prescribed fire would most likely be applied over the entire Project Area on a cyclic basis with benefits separated by time, due to their ephemeral nature, and space due to burning of designated burn units. Hunter visibility would be enhanced due to reduced stem density.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: Deer may be temporarily displaced during construction and periods of high traffic volume during product removal.

Indirect Effects: Closed roads and fireline corridors provide additional edge habitat, travel ways, escape routes, and potential foraging areas and bedding sites. Typical forest open roads have very low traffic levels except during the fall deer season and generally would have little or no effect on deer activity.

Cumulative Effects: Insignificant due to the small acreages involved and the spatial arrangement of roads and firelines over the Project Area. Benefits to food availability are ephemeral due to the effects of shading. Long-term, these firelines and roads may be used repeatedly for resource management activities on a cyclic basis. Hunter access and visibility would be enhanced by these travel-ways.

Effect on forest-wide population trends and hunting opportunities: Neutral to slightly positive on population trends. Positive for hunting populations; negative on wheeled access.


November 2012 95



Direct Effects: Deer may be displaced during application of herbicide but this disturbance is of relatively short duration in any treatment area.

Indirect Effects: Use of herbicide in silvicultural treatments involves low concentrations (pounds per acre) of chemicals and specific application sites in the form of cut stumps and the furrows girdled into tree boles..

Cumulative Effects: Herbicides may be detected within treated areas for varying periods of time following application. The amount of time individual herbicides persist in the environment varies, but exposure to sunlight, dilution by association with rainfall, and interaction with microbes in leaf litter all contribute to the breakdown process. Herbicide use in silvicultural treatments would prolong availability of beneficial habitat conditions created through timber harvest and wildlife habitat improvement activities. Treatment of NNIS would allow native plants beneficial to deer to recolonize previously occupied habitats. Non-application of herbicide would not provide the potential benefits or negative effects described above. The Proposed Action would have a positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for this species.

The No Herbicide Alternative would have a positive effect on the forest-wide population trend for this species. No Action Alternative Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on this species.

Indirect Effects: The general discussion of habitat fate under this heading for turkey is applicable here because both turkey and deer require similar diversity of successional habitats within their home ranges.

Cumulative Effects: All forest types would age, with habitat becoming more homogeneous and less diverse. Dense stands would provide excellent escape and winter cover. The beneficial impacts of harvest, permanent openings, fire, herbicide application, construction of ponds, roads, and fire-line corridors would not occur. The Project Area would continue to be a source of hard mast. Early forest stage cover would occur only through natural events such as wildfire, ice damage, insect infestation, etc. Hunting opportunities would continue to be available, but the number of deer the habitat could support would decline.

The No Action Alternative would have a neutral to negative effect on the forest-wide population trend for this

species. 3.4.6.2.5 Pileated Woodpecker Population and Trend Information Population trend and habitat capability data for this bird are mixed. BBS data indicate a downward trend of 1.8% for the Ouachita Mountains in the period of 1966-2001 (Sauer et al. 2002) but an increase across U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4, including Arkansas and the Ouachita National Forest (La Sorte et al. 2007; Sauer et al. 2007). The 2000 - 2009 Forest Data show a slight decrease in the number of Pileated Woodpeckers observed and a slight increase in habitat capability (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). Phase II research data from the Winona Unit of the District indicated an upward population trend within pine and pine-hardwood forest types, primarily because the timber is aging, growing larger, and providing more suitable habitat conditions (USDA-Forest Service 2003a, 2010). Thinning and use of prescribed fire do not appear to contribute to significant trends in either direction. CompPATS program data, using all forest types Forest-wide, estimated habitat capability to be increasing with greatest values for stands greater than or equal to 41 years old. Landbird Point data indicate this woodpecker is fairly common and detected at about 50% of sites. The Pileated


November 2012 96

Woodpecker and its habitat appear to be secure within the forest, its viability is not in question, and there is no indication of a need to alter management direction. Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat The Pileated Woodpecker is a member of the cavity nesting, tree trunk probing, insectivore guild that is found in open, upland mature pine and pine-hardwood stands and dense mature to over-mature hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types (Hamel 1992; DeGraaf et al. 1991). This woodpecker was selected as an MIS to help indicate the effects of management on snags and snag-dependent species. A year-round resident of the Ouachita Mountains, this bird is a primary excavator of cavities important to obligate secondary cavity nesters (animals that do not themselves excavate cavities), and is a key indicator for the retention of a complete community of cavity nesting species that include other birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians (Bonar 2000, Trauth et al. 2004). This woodpecker usually excavates nest holes in dead trees (snags), decaying living trees, and dead limbs of living trees (Bonar 2000; Aubry and Raley 2002). Generally, snags greater than 15 inches diameter breast high (dbh) are selected for cavity excavation, but this bird prefers larger snags if they are available because of its large body size. Large snags occur in greater abundance in older, more mature timber stands (Bull et al. 1997). In Missouri, abundance increased with area covered by bottomland hardwood forests, density of trees at least 30 cm dbh, and density of snags at least 54 cm dbh (Renken and Wiggers 1993). The diet of Pileated Woodpeckers is about 70% insects, with ants, especially carpenter ants, insect larvae, and wood-boring beetles predominating. Pileated Woodpeckers primarily forage on the trunks of large trees but also are frequently seen on fallen logs in which abundant insect populations occur (Flemming et al. 1999). Meeting design criteria WF005 (snags), WF006 (mature growth) and WF007 (woody debris) in the Revised Forest Plan (p. 78) would provide preferred Pileated Woodpecker habitat in the Project Area and the Forest in general. Additional food items include other insects, fruits, hard mast (acorns), and seeds of sumac (Hamel 1992; DeGraaf et al. 1991). Pileated Woodpeckers are considered a predator of the Southern pine beetle (Kroll et al. 1980). Effects analysis: Pileated Woodpecker Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative

Seed tree harvest, clearcut harvest, commercial thinning, site preparation with hand tools, timber stand



stands.

Direct Effects: Felling/damaging large snags during the nesting season could result in loss of eggs or nestlings. Abandonment of nests and/or displacement of adult woodpeckers may occur during resource management activities, but mobile adult and juvenile birds would not be directly impacted.

Indirect Effects: Thinning harvests in older pine types may offer areas for nest establishment when snags and trees of suitable dbh are available. Not retaining large diameter snags during follow-up silvicultural activities would negatively affect nesting opportunities. The acreage of older, larger pine trees would be reduced following commercial timber sales, especially in clearcut and seed tree areas and where permanent openings were established and maintained. Clearcut and seed-tree harvested areas and pre-commercially thinned young stands would not offer suitable nesting habitat or adequately sized snags for decades, depending on site productivity. Areas where stem density was significantly reduced would result in elevated fruit and seed production and insect populations that could provide foraging sites for up to a decade. Treatment of some hardwood stands for midstory removal and overstory development of residual trees would provide long-term benefits to this bird by allowing residual stems to grow larger due to reduced competition, resulting in large numbers of snags. Not treating other hardwood stands would provide for a diverse mix of hardwood stands and stem densities.


November 2012 97

Cumulative Effects: Areas proposed for timber harvest are embedded in a matrix primarily composed of similar, older stands that would not receive treatment. Stands designated for treatment would provide habitat diversity within this maturing landscape, while non-treated stands would continue to provide habitat with high basal areas. Overlap of early forest stage habitat conditions between last entry and that following implementation of the Proposed Action, would not exist because of the amount of time between entries. Forest floor woody debris used as foraging substrate, especially large diameter stems (logs), would persist for years unless consumed by prescribed fire. Long-term, similar treatments and habitat responses are likely to occur during future management activities in this and adjacent watersheds, with additional habitat generated through stochastic events.

Site preparation and release (hand tools or herbicide). Direct Effects: None. Release activities occur in very young, dense, small diameter pine stands that have become established since last entry or earlier. They may contain residual hardwoods but do not offer suitable nesting habitat. Site preparation would occur in stands recently harvested by seed-tree or clearcut methods. Suitable nesting habitat would not occur in these stands.

Indirect Effects: Small diameter woody debris generated through release activities would not provide preferred or typical foraging substrate for this bird, which prefers large diameter logs and snags that have deteriorated to the point where invasion by insect prey is possible (Hura and Crow 2004). Larger diameter woody debris generated by site preparation could eventually provide habitat for insects and foraging substrate for this woodpecker, but not immediately. Increased forest floor light levels would enhance growth of herbaceous plant and grass species important in the production of soft mast and vegetative cover for various prey populations.

Cumulative Effects: Negligible. This species prefers woods with a tall canopy and a higher basal area but may also occur in open woodlands. Foraging in recently released or site prepared areas would likely be minimal and occur in areas adjacent to older forest along habitat edges

Prescribed fire

Direct Effects: Adult birds are highly mobile and would experience no direct effects. Growing season burns could directly affect nests with eggs and nestlings if the cavity tree in which they occur is damaged or felled due to burn-through, or perhaps abandoned if exposed to prolonged periods of smoke. However, it should be noted the Ouachita Mountains is a fire-maintained ecosystem to which its plants and animals are adapted.

Indirect Effects: Indirect effects may include the loss of large snags (and potential nest sites) felled as a result of burning activities, but snags are rarely consumed and if felled by burn-through would contribute to foraging substrate as logs. On rare occasions hot spots within prescribed burns may cause large tree mortality, eventually providing replacement snags that serve as vertical foraging substrate and potential cavity excavation sites. Prescribed fire would also enhance and encourage growth of herbaceous and woody ground cover responsible for berry and seed production and enhanced insect populations.

Cumulative Effects: In the long-term, the availability of existing snags will be impacted following recurrent fire implementation. Existing snags may be felled by burn-through while natural and fire caused mortality of trees provide replacement snags and eventually logs. Fire induced snags would be an important recruitment tool for providing additional nesting and foraging substrate because, in nature, these habitat attributes are patchily distributed on the landscape (Aubry and Raley 2002). Adjacent national forest lands would offer additional foraging and nesting habitat in pine and hardwood forest types due to the application of fire on different temporal and spatial schedules. Ground cover enhancement would be short-lived and fade within a few years. if prescribed fire is discontinued for some reason


November 2012 98

Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: Nests with eggs may be destroyed or abandoned if road or fireline construction results in the removal of snags containing nests. Mobile adults would not be impacted.

Indirect Effects: Woodpeckers may be displaced from nest sites if road construction and prolonged use occur adjacent to occupied snags during nesting season. Disturbance from fireline construction would be brief as equipment quickly passes through any particular area. Firelines receive minimal and infrequent use and have less disturbance impact than roads. Closed roads and fireline would provide flight corridors through dense timber.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects associated with these activities are insignificant due to the small acreages involved and their wide spatial arrangement over the Project Area. Long-term, these same roads and firelines may be used again reducing future disturbance. Herbicide (Site preparation, Release, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Timber Stand Improvement, Non-


Direct Effects: None. Herbicide will not be applied to snags or cavities containing nests with eggs, nestlings or adult birds.

Indirect Effects: Given the low risk of toxicity exhibited in invertebrates, no indirect impacts to this bird are expected from consumption of insects within treated areas. Logs and snags used as primary foraging substrate would not be treated. Indirect effects would most likely come in the temporary loss of some woody shrubs, and annual and perennial broadleaf herbaceous plant species that provide shelter and food sources for insect and spider populations that may contribute to this bird’s diet. Acute oral and dietary studies of the listed chemicals exhibit a range in analysis toxicity from practically nontoxic to slight toxicity to birds. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects from herbicide application are expected, due to the small amount applied, its application to specific targets (cut stump surfaces/girdling/individual plants where possible) and its non-toxic effects on birds and insect prey. Non-application of herbicide would not provide the potential benefits or negative aspects described above. The Proposed Action and the No Herbicide Alternative would have negative effects for nesting and foraging

due to harvest (reduction), site prep and prescribed burning of large stems and snags potentially available for

future foraging substrate and nest cavity excavation.

No Action Alternative Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on this species.

Indirect Effects: The retention of the existing forested conditions without disturbance would offer suitable nesting and foraging habitat. All timber would increase in size eventually providing snags of suitable size for cavity excavation and basal areas would remain high and less open than treated stands in other alternatives. Snags would be recruited as logs without potential loss due to consumption by prescribed fire. Hard mast production would increase until overcrowding and competition for nutrients, water and space occurred, and then level-off and/or decline. Age of timber would also factor in reduced mast production levels as trees move past their maximum reproduction potential. Soft mast from trees would be produced but at lesser levels due to shading from the overstory. Soft mast from herbaceous plants and shrubs would decline and eventually fade as openings were shaded except in tree-fall gaps and where stochastic events occurred. The additive, beneficial impacts of fire and harvest on soft mast production would not occur.

Cumulative Effects: Vegetative diversity within the Project Area would decline as differences within and between stands faded. Long-term, mature growth habitat conditions would occur in all forest types throughout


November 2012 99

the Project Area. The loss of disturbance (fire and harvest) could compromise the historic dominance of oak and hickory in hardwood stands, and allow for non-mast producing, shade tolerant hardwood species, such as maple, to proliferate and eventually dominate. This change in forest structure and composition would have significant impacts on wildlife species, including this bird, reliant on hard mast (acorns and nuts) (McShea and Healy 2002, Rodewald 2003, Vandermast et al. 2004; McDaniel 2005).

The No Action Alternative would have overall positive effects on this species. 3.4.6.2.6 Scarlet Tanager

Population and Trend Information Resident landbird survey counts from the Ouachita NF show a wide and fluctuating range from 65 individuals in 2001 to 150 individuals observed during forest breeding bird surveys in 2004 (USDA-Forest Service 2010b). La Sorte et al. (2007) recently reported estimates indicating small population increases, although Forest trends seem to be slightly decreasing while habitat capability remains somewhat stable (USDA-Forest Service 2010b) Phase II research has yielded empirical data indicating a non-significant upward trend in the pine and pine-hardwood mixed types (where resource management activities routinely occur) but also show the bird to be nearly as dense in clearcut areas as in control stands, indicating this species uses a wide variety of foraging habitats (USDA-Forest Service 2003a). Landbird Points previously mentioned for other species were also checked for the scarlet tanager. Scarlet tanagers were detected 12% of the time with 54 individuals counted from 1997 to 2010 (R8 bird). The availability of mature growth and old growth forest communities are important in providing suitable nesting and foraging habitat conditions for this bird. Forest-wide, this species appears to be secure and its viability is not in question. Indicator of Management Effects on Habitat The Scarlet Tanager is a Neotropical migrant bird that breeds in eastern North America and winters in South America. It was chosen as an MIS to help indicate effects of management on mature forest communities. This conspicuous species represents a whole community of forest dwelling Neotropical birds that share similar habitat requirements and geographic distributions. Preferred habitat is composed of older growth, uneven-aged forests with a well-developed but broken canopy and a well-developed woody and herbaceous understory. Rosenburg et al. (1999) and Hunter et al. (2001) indicate this species is abundant in mature hardwood stands and hardwood stands harvested by single tree selection in the central hardwood forests of the nearby Ozarks, but it is uncommon or not present in loblolly and shortleaf pine forests. However, in a study area that included the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas, this species did not show a preference between mixed deciduous/coniferous forest habitats. The most common tree species present on tanager-occupied sites in other areas were oaks (80%), maples (58%), and hickories (35%), indicating a preference for a high percentage of hardwoods in stands selected for nesting that is typical of non-commercial hardwood and hardwood-pine sites (Rosenburg et al.

1999). Forest-wide there are 440,000 acres of hardwood and hardwood-pine types containing these species of trees that would remain essentially untreated except for occasional, relatively small areas where hardwood stand overstory development and midstory removal would occur. These treatment areas would provide much needed hardwood stand diversity. Other bird species of conservation priority and viability concerns that are associates of the Scarlet Tanager and would benefit from suitable tanager habitat conditions include Wood Thrush, Worm-eating Warbler, Cerulean Warbler and Kentucky Warbler (Rosenburg et al. 1999, Rich et al. 2004, USDA-Forest Service 2003a, USDA-Forest Service 2005b). This species is insectivorous during the breeding season, with prey items that include caterpillars, moths, bees, wasps and beetles. Foraging primarily occurs in the mid-canopy. From late summer their diet includes many berries and other fruits that appear to be especially important for fat deposition before fall migration. Spring migration into Arkansas occurs in April through mid-May. Fall migrants begin leaving the state in mid-August


November 2012 100

through early September, with a few records of stragglers present into mid-October (James and Neal 1986). The nest is typically placed in a deciduous tree, occasionally a conifer, an average of 20-30 feet above ground, but higher if possible. Birds may produce more than one clutch per season, with average length of nest occupancy of one month that includes incubation, feeding, fledging. The Scarlet Tanager is a species negatively affected by true forest fragmentation (Rosenberg et al. 1999, Hamel 1992, DeGraaf et al. 1991). Effects analysis: Scarlet Tanager

Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative




stands.

Direct Effects: The felling of timber from mixed stands of older pine and hardwood may result in loss of eggs or nestlings, if present, but would have no effect on mobile adult birds. Direct effects on nests with eggs or hatchlings would be unlikely to occur in commercially harvested pine forest types because pine forests are not preferred nesting habitat. Direct effects to nests with eggs or nestlings could occur in hardwood stands receiving midstory and/or overstory treatments where stems may be felled. Potential losses can be mitigated by performing work in hardwood stands outside of the nesting season.

Indirect Effects: The reduction in trees in seed-tree and clearcut harvest areas would increase the herbaceous and grass species important for fruit, berry and seed production and insect and spider populations. Such areas would provide good foraging habitat during nesting season (insects) and as birds fatten for migration (fruits/berries/seeds), especially when located adjacent to their preferred, mature hardwood or hardwood-pine conditions. Wildlife Habitat Improvement midstory removal and overstory development in hardwood/hardwood-pine forest types would indirectly impact this bird in two ways. The removal of some but not all of the midstory would reduce the areas available for nest placement The spacing of overstory trees would enhance future development of older growth and old growth conditions readily used by this bird due to the well-developed but broken forest canopy conditions that result from this treatment.

Cumulative Effects: Early stage forest cover, with its foraging opportunities, would fade within a few years upon canopy closure and shading effect of young pines. This habitat type created during the last entry has long since faded and there would be no overlap in benefits. Treatments from the last entry and areas proposed this entry would also occur in different stands. Midstory-overstory Wildlife Habitat Improvement would occur in relatively few stands, leaving many areas within and adjacent to the Project Area untreated. This would create a mosaic of mature and maturing hardwood and hardwood pine stands. Similar treatments may occur in future entries and result in similar habitat opportunities.

Site preparation and release (hand tools or herbicide).

Direct Effects: None. These treatments occur in young stands or recently harvested areas that do not offer nesting habitat.

Indirect Effects: Released sites would offer some foraging opportunities. Site prepared areas would set the stage for abundant ground cover with increased foraging opportunities. However, these opportunities would fade in less than 10 years.

Cumulative Effects: Virtually none. Release and site preparation treatments produce relatively short-lived results that would create habitat conditions that would not overlap with similar past or future treatments.


November 2012 101

Prescribed fire

Direct Effects: Prescribed fire during the nesting season could temporarily displace adults or cause nest abandonment by adults. It would not be intense enough to destroy nests, eggs or nestlings because nests would be located well above ground level.

Indirect Effects: Where fire does occur the aforementioned beneficial impacts to fruit and seed production would be applicable, especially in pine forest types. Prescribed fire would have little effect on hardwood stands because of higher moisture levels in the soil, increased shading, reduced fire intensity, and reduced levels of fine fuels, other than leaves needed to carry fire.

Cumulative Effects: Foraging opportunities for this species would be enhanced throughout this Project Area and adjacent areas where fire had been applied. Long-term, the Project Area would be burned on a cyclic basis with similar benefits each time. Transportation System and Fireline Construction

Direct Effects: The felling and removal of timber during road building and fireline construction activities could result in loss of eggs or nestlings, if present, but would have no effect on mobile adult birds.

Indirect Effects: Birds may be displaced from nest sites, especially if road construction and prolonged use occurs adjacent to occupied nests. Fireline construction would occur quickly, receive little use, and would have less impact than open roads. Closed roads and firelines would provide flight corridors through dense timber and possibly areas to forage for fruits and insects.

Cumulative Effects: Insignificant due to the small acreages involved. For the long-term, these areas are likely to be used repeatedly to accomplish resource management objectives with long intervals between periods of extended use. Herbicide (Site Preparation, Release, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Timber Stand Improvement, Non-

native Invasive Plant Species) Direct Effects: None. Herbicide would not be applied to midstory vegetation at a height where nests would occur. Indirect Effects: Felled stems in midstory and overstory Wildlife Habitat Improvement treatments would have herbicide applied to girdled furrows and/or stumps. Given the low risk of toxicity exhibited in invertebrates, no indirect impacts to this bird are expected from consumption of insects or fruits/berries/seeds within treated areas. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects from herbicide are expected due to the small amount applied, its application to specific targets (cut stump surfaces/girdling/individual plants where possible) and its non-toxic effects on birds and insect prey. Non-application of herbicide would not provide the potential benefits or negative aspects described above.

The Proposed Action and the No Herbicide Alternative would have short-term positive effects on foraging,

neutral to slightly negative effect overall for this species based on nesting. No Action Alternative

Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on this species.

Indirect Effects: The retention of existing pine and hardwood forested conditions without human-caused disturbance would continue to offer nesting and foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Diversity of foraging conditions would decline as succession continued. Soft mast from trees would be available, but at reduced levels as shading increased. Soft mast from forest floor herbaceous


November 2012 102

plants and shrubs and insect populations associated with this vegetation would decline and eventually fade, except in tree-fall gaps and where stochastic events occurred. The additive beneficial impacts of fire, herbicide application and the creation or maintenance of wildlife openings and ponds would not occur. Without disturbance, pine and hardwood regeneration and recruitment would decline, with potential for change in forest composition if shade tolerant species are naturally released (Stambaugh et al. 2002).

The No Action Alternative would have positive effects for nesting and negative for foraging. 3.4.6.3 Fish and Fish Habitat MIS

See Section 3.4.6.1 for a general discussion of Project Level Management Indicator Species (MIS).

The Management Indicator Species Selection Process Paper for the Revised Forest Plan determined that 14 stream fishes were adequate to represent streams and rivers in the Ouachita National Forest and have been listed by Ecoregion (USDA Forest Service 2005e). Ecoregion categories, as originally identified in 1987 by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (ADPCE), now the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality−ADEQ) placed the lower half of the Fourche La Fave River in the Arkansas (River) Valley Ecoregion and the upper half in the Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion. Woods et al. (2004) redefined ecoregion boundaries and placed the entire length of the Fourche La Fave River in the Fourche Mountain subdivision of the Ouachita Mountains Ecoregion. Although in-stream substrate found in Project Area streams resembles that of Ouachita Mountains streams (gravel, rubble/cobble, boulders and bedrock), all streams within the Project Area drain into the Fourche La Fave River, which is a tributary of the Arkansas River. Therefore, fish MIS species selected for this project are those associated with both the Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion and Arkansas River Valley streams because of this connectivity. 3.4.6.3.1 Habitat Quality of Streams: Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion, Arkansas Valley Ecoregion and

Forest-Wide Six (6) species of fish representing a mixture of game and non-game fish have been selected as MIS for Arkansas River Valley streams. They were selected to help indicate effects of management activities on aquatic habitat and water quality in streams within this Ecoregion. Included in this group is the smallmouth bass, which was selected as a Forest-wide MIS to help indicate effects of management activities on meeting public fishing demand in streams. Natural history information has been taken from Robison and Buchanan (1988). Arkansas Valley Ecoregion stream occurrence data were taken from reference stream fish surveys conducted by the ADPCE (1987), the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission EORS Database (2007), fish samples reported in the AR Fish Database (2001), Robison (1984), and on 16 July 2010 site specific fish and macro-invertebrate surveys were conducted in Barnhart and Wildcat Creeks using Basin Area Stream Survey (BASS) methodology with the Forest Stream Ecologist. None of these fish are Arkansas endemics (McAllister et al. 2009, Robison et

al. 2008, Robison and Allen 1995) nor are any Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive species. All population and trend data were taken from “A summary and analysis of data pertaining to MIS for the Ouachita National Forest” (USDA-Forest Service 2008a) and “Fiscal Year 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest” (USDA-Forest Service 2010b) with additional information found in the “Management Indicator Species Selection Process Record” for the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005e). All water within the Project Area boundary drains from Barnhart, Brogan and Wildcat creeks into the Fourche La Fave River, becomes part of Lake Nimrod, and eventually flows to the Arkansas River. Project Area streams are for the most part intermittent and tend to pool or dry-up during hot summer months, a common phenomenon in the Ouachita Mountains (Homan et al. 2005). Because these streams may temporarily resume flow following rain events, the alternating dry and wet conditions constitute a pulsating environment (Rose et al. 2010) which undoubtedly affects fish species composition and presence in these upland waterways. In a few locations, the Fourche La Fave River directly borders Project Area forest stands, but elsewhere the river is separated from


November 2012 103

national forest land for a distance up to two miles by private ownership or U.S. Corps of Engineers administrative lands. Stream MIS potentially affected by the Proposed Action are shown in Table 3.16 with annotations. Each species is addressed in detail but grouped for effects analysis. Comments regarding comparisons of managed and reference or unmanaged streams are from long-term Basin Area Stream Survey data for the forest found in the Forest MIS Summary document (USDA-Forest Service 2008a, 2010b, 2011b).

Yellow bullhead. The yellow bullhead is a heavy-bodied, small-eyed catfish widely distributed and found throughout the state. This species occupies a variety of habitats but prefers clear, gravel and rocky-bottomed, permanent streams where it avoids strong current. This fish is also common in reservoirs. Although viability of this species is not in question, managed and unmanaged streams have seen declines in percent occurrence of bullheads in BASS samples possibly due to siltation of streams from travel-ways due to inadequate road maintenance (USDA-Forest Service 2011a).

Central stoneroller. The central stoneroller is a small non-game fish found throughout the Ouachita Mountains. It is often the most abundant species in small, clear, upland streams where it occurs in schools. Population densities in managed and unmanaged streams are similar in most sample years and appear stable with few exceptions. Central stonerollers are common across the Forest and although populations may fluctuate from year-to-year they appear to be stable. The conservation of this species is not in question (USDA-Forest Service 2011a).

Redfin darter. The redfin darter is abundant in Ouachita Mountain and Arkansas River Valley streams. Population densities of managed and unmanaged reference streams are similar. Populations of this species fluctuate from year-to-year, but are considered stable. There appear to be no adverse effects on redfin darters from forest management activities and the conservation of the species is not in question (USDA-Forest Service 2011a).

Green sunfish. The green sunfish is a highly adaptable game species capable of tolerating a wide range of ecological conditions and is found in a variety of aquatic environments. This fish is common in the Ouachita Mountains. Population densities have been shown to be similar in managed and unmanaged streams during most sample years. Populations of green sunfish fluctuate from year-to-year but appear to be increasing on the Forest. The conservation of the species is not in question (USDA-Forest Service 2011a).

Longear sunfish. The longear sunfish is a game species found most commonly in small clear upland streams with rocky bottoms and permanent to semi-permanent flow, but also occurs in a variety of other aquatic habitats. Populations of longear sunfish fluctuate from year-to-year but appear stable over time. Forest management activities appear to have no adverse effect on longear populations and there are no viability concerns for their population (USDA-Forest Service 2011a).

Table 3.16: Potentially Affected Stream and River Management Indicator Species

Common Name Scientific Name Primary Reason for Selection

Arkansas River and Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion Streams

Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis

To help indicate effects of management activities on aquatic habitat and water quality in streams within the Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion and Arkansas River Valley Ecoregion.

Central stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Redfin darter Etheostoma whipplei

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Forest-wide

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu To help indicate effects of management activities on meeting public fishing demand in streams


November 2012 104

Smallmouth bass. The smallmouth bass is an inhabitant of cool, clear mountain streams with permanent flow and rocky bottoms. It is more intolerant of habitat alteration than any other of the black basses and is especially intolerant of high turbidity and siltation. It is considered a key indicator species for the Ouachita Mountains by ADEQ. There appear to be wide fluctuations in populations of smallmouth bass with no apparent trends. Populations in reference and managed streams are comparable and the conservation of this species is not in question. Effects Analysis: Arkansas Valley and Ouachita Mountain Ecoregions Stream fishes Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative None of the activities in the Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives are expected to have any direct, indirect or cumulative effects on these stream fish species or their populations. These fish and their habitats are protected by adjacent Streamside Management Areas as defined in Management Area 9 design criteria in the Revised Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). These proactive measures have been deemed acceptable for the protection of Federally Endangered and Threatened aquatic species on Forest, (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a) and therefore would provide the same protection to these species when applied site-specifically within the Project Area. The Revised Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005a, p. 43) gives a “no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts” determination for mussels and fish with the management activity of herbicide and the determination of “no direct, indirect and cumulative” findings of timber harvest and regeneration, site preparation, transportation, road, firelines and other ground disturbing activities as discountable for aquatic species. The Proposed Action and the No Herbicide Alternative will have no effect on the population trends of these

species.

No Action Alternative This alternative would have no effects on aquatic MIS. No action would be taken, leaving only natural disturbances affecting aquatic communities in the Project Area. The No Action would be neither “detrimental” nor “beneficial” to aquatic MIS species. The No Action Alternative will have no effect to population trends to these aquatic species. 3.4.6.4 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive (PETS) Species & Habitats

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Ouachita National Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2007) is composed of 66 species of plants and animals known to occur or that may occur on Forest Service lands and for which there is a viability concern. In addition there are 14 plants and animals federally listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as Proposed, Endangered or Threatened (PET). Of these 80 species, 10 are Federally designated as Endangered, 4 are Federally designated as Threatened, and 66 are Forest Service designated as Sensitive. The Forest Service is to insure that approved projects do not result in a loss of viability or contributes to trends toward Federal listing of any Sensitive species and are to protect and recover any Proposed, Endangered or Threatened Species. Detailed information regarding Forest Service Sensitive Species can be found in the Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Each of the 80 PETS species of plants and animals applicable to the Arkansas portion of the Ouachita National Forest were considered during initial planning for the Wildcat Hollow Project. This list includes species identified as being federally Endangered, Threatened or Proposed for such designation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service with Sensitive species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is


November 2012 105

a concern. This review considered sources that include data gathered during on-the-ground, site-specific field surveys, review of the published scientific literature, review of the “gray literature” (studies and surveys which have been conducted within or adjacent to the Project Area but which have not been published in a refereed scientific journal), the ANHC’s Element Occurrence Records for Sensitive species EORS Database (ANHC 2007), AR Fish Database (2001) and conversations with knowledgeable individuals in the academic, scientific, and resource management communities. As a result of this extensive review process, all but 12 of the 80 species were eliminated from further evaluation for various reasons such as they would not occur within the Project Area based on known distribution and habitat needs and/or sufficient levels of surveys have been conducted with negative results with no further surveying deemed necessary. Selection/non-selection information for each species is presented in the PETS Checklist found along with the Biological Evaluation, Appendix “A” hereto. Special Habitat Designations

There are no designations of “critical habitat” (Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) or “essential habitat” (Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service) within, adjacent to, or affected by this Project Area. Critical habitats are those areas designated as critical by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, for the survival and recovery of (federally) listed species. Essential habitats are those areas designated by a Regional Forester as possessing the same characteristics as critical habitat without having been declared critical habitat by the Secretary of Interior or Commerce. Essential habitats are those necessary to meet recovery objectives for endangered, threatened and proposed species and those necessary to maintain viable populations of sensitive species (See Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2670, Definitions, 2670.5). Species Evaluated The remaining twelve (12) Endangered or Sensitive species are known, expected, or may occur within the Project Area and/or the area of its influence (Table 3.17). These species will be considered during analyses of effects. This group is composed of one (1) terrestrial vertebrate, one (1) terrestrial invertebrate, six (6) aquatic invertebrates, two (2) aquatic vertebrates and two (2) terrestrial plant species.

For a discussion of “determination of effects” please see the Project Biological Evaluation and PETS Checklist, Appendix “A”.

Table 3.17: PETS Species Evaluated

Common Name Scientific Name Classification*

Harperella (plant) Ptilimnium nodosum Endangered

Scaleshell Mussel Leptodea leptodon Endangered

Bachman's Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis Sensitive

Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana Sensitive

Ozark chinquapin (tree) Castanea pumila ozarkensis Sensitive

Kiamichi shiner (fish) Notropis ortenburgeri Sensitive

Longnose darter (fish) Percina nasuta Sensitive

Louisiana fatmucket mussel Lampsilis hydiana Sensitive

Ouachita creekshell mussel Villosa arkansasensis Sensitive

Purple lilliput mussel Tomolasma lividus Sensitive

Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura Sensitive

Southern hickorynut mussel Obovaria jacksoniana Sensitive

* Sensitive: USDA-Forest Service Designation


November 2012 106

3.4.6.4.1 Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum

Status: Endangered Harperella was first protected under the Endangered Species Act on September 28, 1988, and was first documented in Arkansas by V. Bates in 1990. Preferred habitat conditions and areas of occurrence for harperella are well documented. Typical habitat for this plant is directly in stream channels where gravels stay moist year round and peak flows are dispersed over a broad terrace. I t also grows well in cutoffs, adjacent small depressions and near small tributary inlets (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Bates’ (1992, 1993), descriptions of locations in the Ouachita Mountains included gravel beds, sandy stream margins, densely packed into silt pockets between boulders, wedged into shale crevices packed with captured silt and on sandbars. T. Witsell (2005) noted harperella in specific micro-habitats that included sunny and rocky margins of pools, exposed cobble and gravel bars, and exposed rocky channel bottoms at rifles where this plant is often rooted in sandy sediment filling the interstitial spaces between cobbles within the stream channel that are exposed in late summer. Potential and existing habitat conditions for this species frequently change with flood and scour events making them not readily quantifiable or predictable from one year to the next. Throughout the range of harperella, population numbers often fluctuate from year to year in response to factors such as rainfall levels, winter conditions, and drought. There is significant dynamism in the persistence of individual populations, with levels documented to have fluctuated as much as 30% in four years (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). Not all population estimates in Arkansas have been derived using standardized sampling techniques and are difficult to compare. A 2001 report by Hardcastle and Williams used repeatable methods to estimate populations on the Ouachita National Forest.

Harperella has been documented in several locations along the South Fourche La Fave River and the Fourche La Fave River (Bates 1993, 2000, Witsell 2005). There are no sites located specifically in the Project Area or even adjacent to the Project Area, but the occurrence of harperella in these potentially affected rivers is enough reason to perform an effects analysis. The 2005 Forest Plan (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, pp. 48-52) states that “the South Fork of the Fourche watershed reflects minimal impairment, “but at the time, the known harperella occurrences were located on private lands. Arkansas Heritage Commission Botanist T. Witsell ground-truthed potential sites for District Biologist, D. Saugey (retired), for harperella within the Project area and Witsell did not locate harperella determining that the habitat was unsuitable. Effects Analysis: Harperella Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative




stands.

Direct Effects: No harperella sites were found within the boundaries of the Project Area. The felling of trees will have no direct effect on this plant because the species does not occur outside of the protected stream corridor habitat and there is no felling of trees proposed within the stream corridor. In addition, skidder or logging activity would be restricted within stream corridors. If stream crossings are required to access timber, only designated crossings would be allowed, and these would be approved by Forest Service personnel. Indirect Effects: The Revised Forest Plan analysis summary shows timber harvest and regeneration site preparation activities to have discountable effects on harperella. Increased water yield and potential soil movement due to reduced basal areas will be lessened through the following: the buffering/filtering action of adjacent non-harvested stands, the interception and utilization of water by residual overstory and midstory


November 2012 107

vegetation within harvested stands, the existing ground cover vegetation, the existing layer of organic duff and buffering/filtering action of established Streamside Management Areas adjacent to all intermittent and perennial streams. Cumulative Effects: An increase in water yield to the South Fourche and Fourche La Fave Rivers may occur incrementally as acres are treated. The effects of runoff and the potential for elevated sediment levels from timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities will be short-lived due to the rapid re-vegetation of disturbed soils in the terrestrial environment once activities have ceased. Additionally, Forest Plan standards for erosion control will apply at the site-specific project level. Re-entry into this Project Area for timber, silvicultural/wildlife activities is anticipated for 10-15 years. Silvicultural/wildlife and harvest activities are considered to have discountable effects on harperella (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). Potential sedimentation from proposed timber, silvicultural and wildlife activities is predicted to have no or discountable effects on harperella habitat associated with this Project Area due to forest-wide Management Area 9 Standards (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). These Standards provide designated minimum widths for Streamside Management Areas to be applied at the site specific project level (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Table 3.9, p. 103) and Forest-wide Standard TE003 (p. 77) provides flexibility to provide wider SMAs if needed. These Standards have been designed to maintain or improve the stability and function of the riparian community through Streamside Management Area establishment on-the-ground that will also assist in streambank maintenance and stream channel stability. The application of these Standards across the entire Project Area will help protect water quality and aquatic habitats on which this species depends. Prescribed fire: Direct Effects: Prescribed fire will have no direct effect on harperella because this plant lives directly in stream channels. Indirect Effects: Prescribed fire will release nutrients into the residual leaf litter and soil with the vast majority of these nutrients utilized on-site by terrestrial plants. A reduced quantity of released nutrients will be available for assimilation into the aquatic ecosystem by harperella and other species. Cumulative Effects: The input of nutrients into the South Fourche and Fourche La Fave Rivers may occur incrementally over several years with prescribed burning. However, this periodic increase will not have detrimental effect on the species. Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: There will be no direct effects for harperella as a result of the proposed transportation system or fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). These rivers both occur on either private property or U.S. Army Corps of Engineer managed lands so actual plant sites are not typical on national forests lands particularly in this Project Area; therefore we would not directly affect the sites by destroying the plants. Indirect Effects: One indirect effect of transportation activities is the potential production of sediment. Sediment production will be minimized by using the proper road construction techniques and road substrate, such as gravel, where needed. Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system on harperella habitat are considered discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007, 2010b) because the plant occurs several miles outside the Project Area and is protected by


November 2012 108

stream side management areas. Roads closed are unlikely to be opened for general use until the next entry into the Project Area, potentially 10-15 years in the future. Erosion control would result from road decommissioning (3.4 miles), road maintenance (49.2 miles), and road reconstruction (8.5 miles). Temporary roads (23.4 miles) would be seeded, water-barred, and closed after use. Proposed management actions will cause minimal impacts with the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Where fireline is constructed, segments often tie-in with permanent stream systems and are areas of potential sediment introduction into aquatic systems. Where this situation occurs, the terminal portion of the fireline near a stream is constructed by hand to reduce soil disturbance. All portions of firelines, whether created by hand or equipment, are constructed with water diversion bars to reduce potential siltation of streams by deflecting rainfall runoff into unburned leaf litter where litter and vegetation act as filters for particulate matter. Cumulative Effects: There will be no cumulative effects for harperella as a result of the proposed transportation system or fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Additionally, the construction of ground-disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established they are built in the best possible locations. Therefore there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied, since those locations will likely be used again. Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system or fireline construction on harperella habitat are considered discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007, 2010b) because the plant occurs several miles outside the Project Area and is protected by Streamside Management Areas. Herbicide application Direct Effects: There will be no direct effects on harperella from herbicides during release, midstory, overstory and NNIS activities because harperella does not occur in upland stands where treatment will occur. The use of herbicides is prohibited in the immediate vicinity of Proposed, Endangered or Threatened plants (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 88, Standard HU010) or when weather conditions exceed the threshold for use that could cause drift (HU015, Table 3.8, pp. 88-89).

Indirect Effects: None. Treated vegetation will be exposed to rainfall and ultra-violet light that will result in the rapid degradation of these herbicides (USDA-Forest Service 2001a; SERA 1999, 2003). Streamside Management Areas, other vegetated stands and leaf litter will buffer aquatic systems by arresting movement of run-off water and reducing the potential entry of herbicides into the aquatic ecosystem. Herbicides will not be applied to vegetation in Streamside Management Areas, within 100 feet of perennial streams such as South Fourche or Fourche La Fave Rivers, or within 30 feet of intermittent stream channels (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 103, Table 3.9). Cumulative Effects: Herbicide application is expected to have no cumulative effect on harperella (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 50; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). Pond Construction

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


November 2012 109

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

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Despite the minimal impacts from increased sedimentation in aquatic ecosystems discussed in the previous section, the No Action Alternative would result in no additional sedimentation to adjacent waterbodies. Therefore, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative. 3.4.6.4.2 Scaleshell mussel

Leptodea leptodon

Status: Endangered

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

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


November 2012 110

Effects Analysis: Scaleshell mussel





stands. Direct Effects: Timber and silvicultural/wildlife activities will not occur in streams, nor will harvested timber be felled into streams. Direct impacts to mussels will not occur. Indirect Effects: The reduction in basal areas in harvested and/or treated stands will allow increased light levels to reach the forest floor promoting the growth of grasses and herbaceous vegetation. This, along with deciduous and pine leaf litter, will help absorb and filter potential sediment from runoff before it reaches stream channels. In addition, the presence of 30 feet and 100 feet wide Streamside Management Areas that act as runoff buffers between harvest units and stream channels will provide additional water quality protection in areas where soil disturbance may occur. Harvesting operations within these riparian areas would be limited (see section 3.4.2). The input of nutrients into streams as a result of harvest methods in the Proposed Action will have no significant impacts to water quality (Beasley et al. 1987). Cumulative Effects: Potential sedimentation from proposed silvicultural/wildlife activities is predicted to have no or discountable effects on mussel habitat within this Project Area due to forest-wide Management Area 9 Standards (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). These Standards provide designated minimum widths for Streamside Management Areas to be applied at the site specific project level (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Table 3.9, p. 103) and Forest-wide Standard TE003 (p. 77) provides flexibility to provide wider SMAs if needed. These Standards have been designed to maintain or improve the stability and function of the riparian community through Streamside Management Area establishment on-the-ground that will also assist in streambank maintenance and stream channel stability. The application of these Standards across the entire Project Area will help protect water quality and aquatic habitats on which this species depends. Prescribed fire: Direct Effects: Prescribed fires may occur anytime during the year but will have no direct effects on the scaleshell mussel, due to fire normally burning out before reaching the edge of the river, which is not on national forest land of the Project Area. Indirect Effects: Proposed low to medium intensity prescribed burns (a few high intensity burns may occur in site preparation areas) may augment stream nutrient levels, but like nutrient level increases from timber harvest, these are likely to peak the first year and then soon return to normal, preborn levels. Nutrients introduced into the perennial Fourche La Fave River from prescribed burning activities will be quickly diluted and will not concentrate due to continuous water flow. Because most prescribed burns do not consume the entire layer of leaf litter, much of the nutrient volume released is retained by the residual duff and absorbed at origin. Nutrients and potential sediments that move in runoff water are further reduced in concentration and volume through uptake and filtration by Streamside Management Area vegetation (riparian areas) before reaching stream systems (Ilhardt et al. 2000). Low intensity prescribed fires rarely kill or significantly alter streamside vegetation and as a result do not affect water temperature, bank stability and other factors relating to the aquatic system they buffer. Cumulative Effects: Prescribed burns will be applied in increments by subdividing the Project Area into manageable burn units. All units will not be burned within the same season or year resulting in minimal impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. Due to temporal and spatial variations, burns are unlikely to overlap one another to


November 2012 111

create cumulative inputs to streams with burns considered to have no effect on this species (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). Transportation System and Fireline Construction

Direct Effects: There will be no direct effects on the scaleshell mussel because roads and skid trails will not be constructed across the Fourche La Fave or South Fourche La Fave Rivers, nor are temporary crossings proposed for these rivers. Equipment used to remove felled timber (skidders/log trucks) will not be operated directly in the Fourche La Fave River or South Fourche La Fave River or along their banks and therefore individual mussels will not be harmed by vehicles. Where stream crossings occur elsewhere in this Project Area they will be planned and installed so as not to create barriers to passage of host fishes or to cause soil movement into the aquatic ecosystem (USDA-Forest Service 2005a: Standards TR001, TR003, TR008, TR009). Traffic levels resulting from implementation of the Proposed Action will be no greater than when past management activities have occurred. There will be no direct effect on this mussel because firelines and the equipment used to construct them do not enter stream systems. Indirect Effects: Proposed road decommissioning, maintenance, reconstruction, and closure will assist in the reduction of erosion and siltation into the Project Area. However, one of the indirect effects of the transportation system will be the potential introduction of sediment into adjacent stream systems. Sediment occurring in the Fourche La Fave River and South Fourche La Fave River has the potential to affect aquatic biota by altering the substratum and chemical and physical composition of the aquatic environment. More specifically, sediment directly affects freshwater mussel survival primarily by interfering with respiration (resulting in suffocation), feeding, and reproduction (USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2001b). The potential for sediment to be produced will be reduced by surfacing roads with gravel where needed, re-vegetating exposed soils outside the needed roadbed width, establishing hay-bale sedimentation traps in drains leading directly to streams, directing roadside diversion ditches so outlets empty onto non-disturbed soils, and by not establishing roads, skid trails and stream crossings (except as allowed by the 2005 Revised Forest Plan) within streamside corridors. Constructed fireline segments often tie-in with permanent stream systems and are areas of potential sediment introduction into aquatic systems. Where this situation occurs, the terminal portion of the fireline near a stream is constructed by hand to reduce soil disturbance. All portions of firelines, whether by hand or equipment, are constructed with water diversion bars to reduce potential siltation of streams by deflecting rainfall runoff into unburned leaf litter where litter and vegetation act as filters for particulate matter. Cumulative Effects: Ground disturbing activities such as the effects of the transportation system on the scaleshell mussel and/or its habitat are considered to be discountable (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). Insignificant effects are expected for fireline construction. The footprint of fireline on the landscape is small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. The construction of ground disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established they are built in the best possible locations. Therefore there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied, since those locations will likely be used again. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce disturbance of soils and impact to this mussel. Herbicide application

Direct Effects: There are no direct effects to mussels from herbicide application. Indirect Effects: There are no indirect effects to mussels or their habitats from the application of glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr in upland terrestrial habitats. Treated vegetation will be exposed to rainfall and ultra-violet light which assist in the rapid degradation of these herbicides (USDA-Forest Service 2001a; SERA 1999,


November 2012 112

2003). Streamside Management Areas, other vegetated stands, and leaf litter will buffer aquatic systems by arresting movement of run-off water and preventing entry of herbicides into the aquatic ecosystem. Herbicides will not be applied to vegetation in Streamside Management Areas, within 100 feet of perennial streams such as the Fourche La Fave River, nor within 30 feet of intermittent stream channels (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 103, Table 3.9). Objective HU014 of the Forest Plan states that “soil applied herbicides are not used within 30 feet of undefined channels, nor are they used on soils less than 20 inches deep to bedrock or on other soils with more than 35 percent rock content that are 20-40 inches deep to bedrock. Objective HU011 states that no application will occur within a 300-foot buffer of any source waters without a site-specific analysis (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Cumulative Effects: The risk characterizations for triclopyr at an application rate of at 2 lb. a.e. per acre (proposed rate for the Project) indicate acute and chronic risks to aquatic animals (fish and invertebrates) are low. At the highest application rates considered in testing (10 lbs. per acre), risks to aquatic animals remained substantially below the level of concern and risks to aquatic species are low over the entire range of application rates that may be used in Forest Service programs (SERA 2011c. Similar findings for imazapyr and glyphosate indicate that available data are sufficient to assert that no adverse effects associated with the toxicity of this product can be anticipated in aquatic animals from the use of this compound in Forest Service programs (SERA 2011a, b). The concentrations of any herbicide entering the aquatic ecosystem would be rapidly reduced by the mixing and diluting actions of flowing water. These herbicides are considered to have no cumulative effects on the Scaleshell mussel (USDA-Forest Service 2005c, p. 47; USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2005a, 2007). No Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Despite the minimal impacts from increased sedimentation in aquatic ecosystems discussed in the previous section, the No Action Alternative would result in no additional sedimentation to adjacent waterbodies. Therefore, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative. 3.4.6.4.3 Bachman’s Sparrow

Aimophila aestivalis

Status: Sensitive

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


November 2012 113

A total of 75 Land-bird Monitoring Points are surveyed annually within the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District and represent all available habitat conditions on District. During the period 2000-2011, Bachman’s Sparrows were not recorded even though a number of these points are located in or adjacent to early seral stage habitat. Specifically, points located within or adjacent to this Project Area (Points 14 and 15) did not report this species in 2009, 2010 or 2011 (Fourche Unit BBS records). This trend is widespread throughout the southeast (LaSorte et al. 2007). Additional surveys are not needed to provide more definitive information to improve the determination of effects (see Biological Evaluation/PETS Checklist, Appendix “A”) to this Sensitive species because the Proposed Action is expected to have “beneficial impacts” to habitat conditions without “impacts to individuals”. District land-bird points are permanently documented and monitored annually by university-level research scientists and trained Forest Service employees. Effects Analysis: Bachman’s Sparrow Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative




stands.

Direct Effects: Timber, silvicultural and wildlife activities are not likely to directly affect adult birds or nests with eggs or nestlings because stands to be harvested or receive timber and/or silvicultural/wildlife treatments do not offer suitable nesting habitat at the time of treatment. Adults are highly mobile, and if located within a stand to be treated can easily move to another location. There could be a loss of nests, eggs, or nestlings if located within the treatment area. Creation of openings will occur in older stands proposed for harvest or in non-harvested stands too old to provide nesting habitat and there will be no direct impacts. Indirect Effects: The reduction of basal areas in treated stands will allow increased light levels to reach the forest floor promoting the transition to more suitable nesting and foraging habitat due to growth of grasses, herbaceous vegetation and the production of fruits, seeds and associated insect prey. Peak beneficial vegetative response to clearcut harvest and follow-up treatments will likely occur two to four years post treatment then rapidly decline. The magnitude of these beneficial responses will vary by treatment and residual basal areas with greatest benefits occurring in clearcut and seed-tree harvests, commercial thinning of old growth and mature growth pine resulting in open conditions, and the least from thinning of younger, more dense stands (Blair and Feduccia 1977, Fenwood et al. 1984, Masters et al. 1996, Askins 2000, Masters and Waymire 2000). Permanent openings, if periodically maintained and allowed to re-vegetate naturally, will offer small areas of foraging habitat spatially arranged over the Project Area but are not likely to benefit reproduction due to small size. Cumulative Effects: Early forest stage cover and older, open forested conditions generated through past management are effectively absent in the Project Area. Proposed silvicultural activities offer incremental methods to introduce disturbance into portions of the Project Area, whereby resident species persist while providing for colonizing species that exploit disturbed areas, such as Bachman’s sparrow. Short-term, habitat conditions will be greatly enhanced and spatially distributed in the Project Area where clearcut and seedtree harvests and follow-up silvicultural treatments occur. These enhanced conditions generally fade within five years or less emphasizing the ephemeral nature of this cover type and the need to provide it on a continuing basis. Because these effects only persist for about one-third of an entry cycle (entry cycle = 10-15 years) similar silvicultural activities on nearby and adjacent public and private lands are key to keeping this habitat stage available. The thinning of older pine forest types resulting in a grass and herbaceous understory will provide more stable and longer lasting habitat for this bird. The cumulative effect of providing these two habitat conditions within the Project Area will benefit this species. Similar management activities will likely occur in


November 2012 114

this Project Area during future entries but the only common thread connecting them and maintaining any semblance of early forest stage habitat will be the periodic application of fire. Prescribed fire:

Prescribed fire has been demonstrated an important component in Bachman Sparrow’s natural history (Shriver and Vickery 2001, Tucker et al. 2004, Wood et al. 2004). Direct Effects: Harvested timber stands, where this bird would find suitable nesting habitat (clearcut/seed-tree), are typically not burned once forest regeneration has been established and at a time when grasses and forbs have become dominant forest floor vegetation. Prescribed burns may be conducted in older thinned stands at any time following harvest. Prescribed fires conducted during the non-nesting season will have no direct effect on adult birds, eggs or nestlings. Growing season burns, typically but not always, executed after the primary nesting period has occurred have been shown to not adversely affect the density of this bird but in fact are beneficial to the habitat (Tucker et al. 2004). Growing season burn occurring during the Bachman Sparrow’s nesting season could result in the loss of nesting females, eggs and/or nestlings. Indirect Effects: The application of prescribed fire would encourage the growth of herbaceous vegetation and grass species and the presence of associated insect prey by reducing leaf litter thickness and possibly reducing woody (brushy stage) stems (Haggerty 1998). These beneficial effects may be magnified when the application of fire occurs following timber harvest and/or silvicultural treatments. Cumulative Effects: Prescribed fire will occur over most of the Project Area and is an effective way to introduce and maintain a degree of disturbance in a variety of stand types. Burns will be incremental in nature with the Project Area subdivided into manageable burn units and not burned all within one season. Burning in increments will insure enhanced habitat conditions are available for an extended period of time and reduce the potential for catastrophic wildfire by creating a mosaic of burned and unburned fuels. The occurrence of wildfire could, depending upon timing, have negative impacts on this bird (Reice 2001). Benefits from prescribed fire are ephemeral and rarely persist on site for more than a few years. This further emphasizes the importance of prescribed fire in adjacent watersheds, which contributes to suitable Bachman’s Sparrow habitat and supplements the burns proposed within the Project Area. Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: There will be no direct effect on this bird, eggs or nestlings if road activities and fireline is constructed outside the nesting period. If roads or firelines are constructed during nesting season, there could be loss of eggs and possibly young nestlings due to their immobility. Indirect Effects: When roads are closed upon completion of management activities and re-vegetated, they may offer ephemeral nesting and foraging habitat. If fireline is located adjacent to early forest stage cover habitat it may enhance use by providing disturbed soil and growth opportunities for herbaceous and grassy cover during fireline re-vegetation.

Cumulative Effects: Insignificant. Insignificant because of the small acreage involved in road corridors and fireline construction. These activities are a minor source of disturbed habitat because it typically, but not always, occurs as a very narrow band adjacent to larger expanses of unsuitable nesting habitat. The construction of ground-disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce the disturbance of soils and decrease the potential for erosion in the Project Area. Constructed roads, skid trails and fireline may be used again during future activities.


November 2012 115

Herbicide:

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

Acute oral and dietary studies of the listed chemicals exhibit a range in analysis toxicity from practically nontoxic to slight toxicity to birds. These determinations were based on concentrations of herbicides in quail diets that would in all cases far exceed concentrations in field treatment applications. Direct effects: Direct effects of herbicide application on nests with eggs or nestlings are not likely to occur because the primary target of the majority of applications will be hardwood brush located in dense forest stands typically beyond the useful condition for this bird. Neither hardwood brush nor dense stands are preferred nesting habitat for this bird due to a lack of grass and herbaceous plants important for nest construction and concealment. Adults and fledglings are highly mobile and will not be directly impacted. Indirect effects: Herbicide application has the potential to temporarily negatively impact foraging and nesting opportunities in small, specific treatment areas by reducing the availability of seeds from woody plants and broadleaf herbaceous species contacted by herbicide. Treatment of individual targeted plants will reduce the potential impact to non-target, beneficial vegetation. Some but not all of these herbicides affect grasses. The alternative of this without using herbicide is that we could have a monoculture of a species that is not beneficial to wildlife. Cumulative effects: This bird will benefit from enhanced nesting and foraging habitat opportunities in treated areas throughout the Project Area. Herbicides will extend the life of treatments by inhibiting re-growth and canopy closure of treated species while providing open habitat conditions conducive for native grass and herbaceous plant growth. Future entry cycles may also utilize herbicides that will provide similar results, but these events will be separated in time and most likely by space as treatments occur in stands different from those treated this cycle.

Table 3.18: Summary of LD50 Values for Proposed Herbicide Active Ingredient

(Bobwhite and Mallard)

Active Ingredient

LD50* Toxicity Risk to Bobwhite and/or Mallard Risk Assessment

Glyphosate >2000mg/kg of body weight U.S. EPA/OPP (1993) classifies glyphosate as no more than slightly toxic to birds

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011a

Triclopyr 849mg/kg to 2055 mg/kg of body weight

U.S. EPA/OPP (1998b) has classified triclopyr as being slightly toxic to birds

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011b

Imazapyr >2150mg/kg of body weight All acute exposure studies in birds show that metsulfuron methyl has very low toxicity

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011c

LD50*: lethal dose for 50% of population tested


November 2012 116

No Action Alternative Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects on Bachman’s sparrow.

Indirect Effects: The retention of the overstory without disturbance would have several potentially detrimental effects on this sparrow. As crowns continued to develop and increase in volume, mast production in the form of acorns would also increase until crown closure and competition for sunlight, moisture and nutrients limited productivity and stressed trees. Hardwood and pine habitats would become homogeneous with little diversity. Shade-tolerant species such as red maple would flourish in the mid and understory with significant root development already established while waiting for the opportunity to occupy the overstory in tree-fall gaps or when stand replacement events such as wildfire, insect infestation or ice storms occurred. Such replacement would result in loss of hard mast (Zaczek et al. 2002). Other shade tolerant midstory species such as dogwood, serviceberry and farkleberry would provide soft mast, but over time the volume would decline as availability of sunlight decreased with overstory closure. Herbaceous and grassy ground cover would fade and essentially disappear resulting in loss of brood range and its bounty of seeds, berries and insect and spider populations important to poult growth and development (Dimmick et al. 2004, Masters and Wilson 1994; Fenwood et al. 1984). The additive beneficial impacts of fire, herbicide and road and fireline corridors and associated edge habitat often used for nesting cover and travel ways would not occur.

Cumulative Effects: Reduction or elimination of disturbance regimes such as timber harvest in pine forest types (plus exclusion of fire) would cause early successional pine-grass/forb conditions to revert to thick hardwood midstory that would eventually become a closed forest canopy with little herbaceous vegetation (Reice 2001; Engstrom et al. 1984). Early forest stage cover foraging sites, brood rearing and bugging habitat would occur only through natural (stochastic) events such as wildfire, drought, ice damage, insect infestation, etc. and the habitat benefits associated with action alternatives would not occur. Overall habitat diversity within the Project Area would decline. On a landscape scale the Project Area would contribute diversity in the form of blocks of older, undisturbed habitat opportunities. 3.4.6.4.4 Diana fritillary butterfly Speyeria diana

Status: Sensitive This butterfly is considered a forest species in open woodland condition by most researchers and has been detected in a variety of habitat conditions ranging from even-aged pine plantations, recently thinned stands, to more aggressively managed pine-bluestem habitat where midstory vegetation has been significantly reduced resulting in enhanced conditions for the growth of nectar producing plants. Female adults are generally found in moist, wooded ravines and valleys while adult males range widely in search of females. This butterfly is single-brooded with eggs laid singly and haphazardly near various species of violets in late summer and hatching in fall. Perhaps this wide dispersal of offspring maximizes survival in fire dependent ecosystems. Caterpillars overwinter without feeding until the following spring when they feed at night on newly leafed-out violets and complete their development (Glassberg 2002; Opler and Malikul 1998; Carlton and Nobles 1996). At least five of the eight species of violets in the state occur within the Ouachita Mountains and are found in a variety of moist to xeric habitats (Hunter 1988). This butterfly is attracted to sources of high quality nectar plants that typically occur in more open habitat conditions. Early forest stage cover is essentially absent from the Project Area and adjacent lands. Habitat conditions beneficial to Bachman’s sparrow will also benefit this species. There have been no intensive, site specific surveys for this species within the Project Area. Males, easily recognized by their color pattern, have on occasion been observed at locations within and adjacent to the Project Area during routine fieldwork activities (Saugey, Personal Observations). Published records by Carlton and Nobles (1996) and Moran and Baldridge (2002) resulted in the documentation of this species from 22 counties that included vast areas of the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains, including the Project Area.


November 2012 117

No additional surveys for this species were deemed necessary to analyze and disclose effects, or to provide additional protection adequate for maintaining viability of the species in the Project Area. The Project is expected to have “beneficial impacts” to butterfly habitat without impacts to individuals that need to be mitigated. Effects Analysis: Diana fritillary butterfly Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Seed tree harvest, clearcut harvest, commercial thinning, site preparation with hand tools, timber stand



stands.

Direct Effects: There would be no direct effects to this species unless felled trees and equipment use impact larvae and eggs on the ground. Adults are highly mobile. Indirect Effects: Timber and silvicultural/wildlife activities and the creation and maintenance of permanent openings will reduce basal areas and the shading effect of trees, thus allowing herbaceous plant growth that may include high-quality nectar producers for food, violets for egg deposition, and forage plants for larvae. Early forest stage habitat found in seedtree and clearcut harvest areas and beneath older timber stands with low basal area will quickly succeed to scrub and a closed canopy condition resulting in unsuitable butterfly habitat if not maintained by fire or other means (Weber et al. 2008). Cumulative Effects: Existing habitat conditions resulting from past management activities afford few opportunities for the growth of nectar-producing plants, except along non-shaded roadsides and in other small openings. Large tracts of suitable habitat will occur where early forest stage vegetation has resulted from setting back successional development. Whether or not this habitat is utilized may well depend upon connectivity (spatial distance) to suitable habitat conditions that currently harbor butterfly populations. The cumulative effect of this Proposed Action and the future application of similar activities on nearby and adjacent public and private lands are key to maintaining well distributed, connected habitats and viable Diana fritillary populations.

Prescribed fire: Direct Effects: Females lay eggs haphazardly throughout the landscape in late summer, which hatch in early fall. Eggs are not likely to be present during the application of winter prescribed fire based on typical burning activities on the Ouachita. Overwintering caterpillars are more likely to occur in the lower levels of leaf litter near the upper soil layer than in the upper portions of litter typically consumed by dormant season fire. Spring, growing season, burns may impact larvae (Huebschman and Bragg 2000). The effect of prescribed fire will not likely cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability because caterpillars are not known to occur in groups, and large numbers of animals are unlikely to be impacted at any given time or by any particular burn. The occurrence of prescribed fire, when considered on a landscape level, occurs in small, discrete locations as compared to the vast areas within the landscape not burned. Indirect Effects: The reduction of small diameter woody stems that produce shade and the resulting release of nutrients into the soil from the combustion of woody debris, leaf litter and dead herbaceous materials will enhance herbaceous plant growth. Benefiting species may include nectar producing plants used by adult butterflies and violets used by larvae and caterpillars. Cumulative Effects: The periodic use of fire has been shown to be a beneficial tool in maintaining fritillary and Monarch habitat and is perhaps the most consistent means of producing and maintaining optimal habitat (Rudolph and Ely 2000, Baltosser 2007). In particular, Diana fritillary appear to be fire-dependent (Rudolph et


November 2012 118

al. 2006a,b). Where fire follows silvicultural activities the beneficial impacts to butterfly habitat will be additive, especially where early forest stage cover conditions have previously been created, maintained or enhanced. Similar beneficial impacts of fire to plant/pollinator communities have been documented elsewhere (Potts et al. 2003, Campbell et al. 2007a, b). The effects of prescribed fire will occur over most of the Project Area during this 10-15 year planning period. Burns will be incremental in nature with the area subdivided into manageable burn units. Not all units will be burned within one season. Burning in increments will insure enhanced habitat conditions are available for an extended period of time. These benefits will be ephemeral and persist for approximately five years or less. A 3-7 year return period has been proposed for the application of fire in these terrestrial communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a) however the fire application interval may be longer due to natural and man-imposed constraints. When applied in increments over time portions of the Project Area receiving multiple burns may take on desirable characteristics of the pine-bluestem community that offers habitat conditions readily utilized by this butterfly due to the variety of nectar producing plants normally present. Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: Roads and firelines may be constructed at any time during the year. The effects of road construction on this species will be the same as firelines except the footprint of roads occupies a slightly larger space. They will have no direct effects on mobile, adult butterflies but may impact eggs or larva, though not in sufficient numbers as to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. Indirect Effects: Re-vegetated firelines, roadbeds and ditch-lines may offer seedbeds for native early forest stage cover plants beneficial to this insect. Cumulative Effects: Insignificant; the number and density of roads utilized during project implementation will be kept to a minimum in an effort to move open road density toward the desired condition of the various Management Areas. The incremental opening of roads will be balanced by the incremental closing of roads no longer needed for access or product removal. Beneficial effects of roads used/closed during resource management activities are minimal because they occupy an insignificant acreage on the landscape. Future road activities will most likely follow a similar pattern with no overall gain in road density through time. Fireline construction involving soil disturbance occupies a relatively small area on the landscape and will be established in small increments as different portions of the Project Area are burned in different years. The number of eggs/caterpillars impacted will be insignificant when compared to the potential beneficial impacts fire will have to butterfly habitat, especially where conditions are suitable for herbaceous growth. Future firelines may occur in the same locations as in previous years with the construction of ground disturbing firelines in new locations not a certainty. When possible and feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed to reduce the disturbance of soils. Herbicide:

The following herbicide active ingredients have been proposed for site preparation, release, silvicultural timber stand improvement, pre-commercial thinning, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, and control of non-native invasive species:, glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr. Given the great diversity of species of terrestrial invertebrates, the use of data from a single species (Bee−Apis mollifera) for the risk characterization obviously leads to uncertainty in the risk assessment. However, given the preponderance of scientific studies available this information is applicable and represents the best science resource to date (see Table 3.19). Bioassay studies of the listed chemicals proposed for use in the Project Area all exhibit very low toxicity to invertebrate species (bees). These determinations were based on concentrations of herbicides applied to bees that would far exceed concentrations applied in field treatment applications.


November 2012 119

Direct Effects: Given the low risk of toxicity exhibited in invertebrate testing no direct impact to the Diana fritillary is anticipated. Indirect Effects: Indirect effect of herbicide application would most likely come in the temporary loss of some woody shrubs, and annual and perennial broadleaf herbaceous plant species that provide shelter and food sources (nectar) for this butterfly species. While some butterfly habitats may be impacted by the treatment activities, maintaining or expanding suitable habitat would be “beneficial” in the long-term. Treatment of NNIS with herbicides that result in their successful demise should lead to the enhancement of native vegetation of benefit to this butterfly. Cumulative Effects: No long-term cumulative impacts are anticipated due to the limited scope of treatments in both space and time, and minimal direct and indirect effects.

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: Early forest stage cover habitat conditions required by the Diana fritillary are similar to those required by the Bachman’s Sparrow. Therefore, their responses to the non-disturbance proposed by this alternative are similar. See discussion for Bachman’s Sparrow. Section 3.4.6.6.4 3.4.6.4.5 Ozark chinquapin Castanea pumila ozarkensis

Status: Sensitive

Historically, this tree commonly grew to a height of 65 feet, had a diameter often reaching two to three feet, and was a reliable and important source of abundant hard mast crops. Historical accounts describe mast crops so abundant that nuts were loaded onto wagons using shovels and destined to be used as food by humans and livestock and sold commercially. The wood was highly prized because it is rot resistant and made excellent railroad ties and fence posts. Early logging practices and later the Chestnut Blight wiped out the Ozark Chinquapin with trees beginning to die from the blight in 1950s. Sprouts emerge from stumps and on occasion produce nuts but within four to six years the blight again strikes, killing the sprouts and starting the blight cycle all over again (Bost 2009). The chinquapin is listed as a Sensitive species because throughout its natural range this tree is susceptible to destruction by the chestnut blight. Despite its status, this fire-dependent tree is abundant and widespread in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas where it is found in successional and old growth vegetation types and typically occurs in dry deciduous and mixed hardwood-pine communities on rocky dry slopes and ridge tops. As described, this habitat condition will most likely be exposed to the effects of prescribed fire but rarely to silvicultural practices. In the past, this tree was commonly found in thin woods, edges of woods and mid-successional woods. On the Ouachita National Forest and elsewhere it occurs largely as stump sprouts and has been observed to reach its fastest growth rate where abundant sunlight reaches the forest floor. Fruiting trees and large individuals are rare (Hunter 1995; ANPS 1998; USDA-Forest Service 2005b, Appendix C; ANHC Website accessed 2010).

Table 3.19: Summary of LD50 Values for Each Proposed Herbicide Active Ingredient (Bee)

Active Ingredient LD50* Toxicity Risk to Bee - Apis mollifera Risk Assessment

Glyphosate >100 µg/bee Relatively nontoxic Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011a

Imazapyr >100 µg/bee Practically nontoxic Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011b

Triclopyr >72µg/bee (indefinite) Honeybees not sensitive to triclopyr Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. 2011

LD50*: lethal dose for 50% of population tested


November 2012 120

Effects Analysis: Ozark chinquapin

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





stands.

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

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

Cumulative Effects: Positive cumulative effects will occur due to additive, habitat enhancements that will begin with timber harvest and related follow-up silvicultural activities. Activities similar to those proposed in this Project Area have occurred in the past and will most likely occur in the future. Prescribed fire: Direct Effects: Prescribed fire may cause bole injury to this species depending upon the tree’s location, intensity of fire, and the season of burn. In the event of injury this tree will readily sprout from a well-developed root system. Individuals may be negatively impacted but the potential to detrimentally affect viability will be low and not likely to cause a trend to Federal listing. This species is known to occur in areas with past fire history (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

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

Cumulative Effects: Positive. The application of prescribed fire following timber harvest and related silvicultural activities will further reduce competition for water, nutrients and light, thus enhancing habitat conditions. Benefits from prescribed fire are ephemeral and rarely persist for more than a few years. Descriptions of occupied habitat as being “thin woods” and “rocky ridge tops” are more than likely found in areas where fire (natural and prescribed) has been a regular, repetitive component of the ecosystem that has reduced competition and allowed this species to persist.

Transportation System and Fireline Construction

Direct Effects: Fireline construction may occur in areas where this tree grows with the potential for damage or removal of individuals. Construction of roads has the potential to uproot individual trees. Although individuals may be impacted, their loss will not likely cause a trend to federal listing or detrimentally affect viability for this species. Existing roadbeds are highly unlikely to harbor this tree with reconstruction and maintenance to have no direct effects.


November 2012 121

Indirect Effects: Firelines and or roads constructed near this species may create openings in the canopy resulting in the availability of additional sunlight for growth.

Cumulative Effects: Insignificant effects. The footprints of firelines and roads on the landscape are small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. The construction of ground disturbing fireline is not a certainty. When firelines are initially established in the best possible locations there should be little or no future incremental increase in the acreage occupied because those locations will be used again. When feasible, permanent features such as roads and streams will be employed as firelines to reduce disturbance of soils and impacts to this tree. Herbicide Direct Effects: Direct effects to this tree are unlikely due to its rare occurrence in managed timber stands where most applications of herbicide will occur. This tree’s physical form is easily recognized allowing avoidance in hardwood stands where midstory, overstory and other silviculture activities will occur and in locations planned for Non-Native Invasive Species control. Furthermore, the Revised Forest Plan states under Objective TE008 that “Herbicides will not be applied to Ozark chinquapin, and stems of this species will be individually flagged or otherwise marked in the field by qualified personnel prior to herbicide application within the stand. Use of soil active, mobile herbicides should not be applied where they might move to the root system of this species” (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 77). A buffer of 30 feet would be required if trees are found and flagged in an application area if foliar application is used. Indirect Effects: This tree responds well to an increased level of light and a reduction in competition for water, space and nutrients when adjacent vegetation is reduced during herbicide or other treatments resulting in similar indirect effects. Use of soil active, mobile herbicides should not be applied where they might move to the root system of this species (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, p. 77). Cumulative Effects: Negative cumulative effects are not expected due to the rarity of the species on the landscape, unlikely occurrence within proposed treatment areas, and its positive response to management activities. Pond Construction

Direct effects: Pond construction is a ground disturbing activity that has the potential to uproot individual trees; however, each pond site is ground checked for the presence of the Chinquapin oak or any other PETS species. A lot of Chinquapin oak sites on the Fourche occur on rocky outcroppings, which are not potential pond building locations. If Ozark chinquapin is found within a proposed pond site, then the pond site would be moved to an area where no Ozark chinquapins occur. Indirect effects: So little canopy is removed in the construction of a wildlife pond, that little sunlight will be increased to the forest floor that might assist this species. Cumulative effects: Insignificant effects. The footprint of a 1/8 to ¼ acres pond on the landscape is small and the likelihood of damage to individuals is remote due to their rare occurrence. All pond locations are ground checked in advance for potential PETS.


November 2012 122

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects except for instances involving stochastic events. The potentially beneficial and/or detrimental effects of action alternatives would not occur. No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects except for instances involving stochastic events. The potentially beneficial and/or detrimental effects of action alternatives would not occur. 3.4.6.4.6 Aquatic Vertebrates

Kiamichi shiner and Longnose darter

Notropis ortenburgeri and Percina nasuta

Status: Sensitive

The Kiamichi shiner is a small, slim, silvery shiner that occupies small to moderate sized clear upland streams of moderate gradient and is endemic to the Ouachita Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Typical habitat includes pools over gravel, rubble or boulder-strewn substrates. This fish was originally described in 1927 with an amplified description in 1929 with little additional information published until 1988 by Robison and Buchannan (Robison 2001, 2005; USDA- Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). The longnose darter is a slender darter with a long head and an extremely long, pointed snout. It inhabits clear, silt-free upland streams. Large streams and small rivers with cobble and gravel bottoms are preferred. The longnose darter is found in the upper White River, the upper Little Red River and a few tributary streams of the western half of the Arkansas River (Robison and Buchanan 1988, NatureServe, 2011). Range-wide, private land-use conversion to industrial forests, poultry farms and cattle pastures where streamside buffers have not been maintained, have degraded water quality by increasing sediment and nutrient non-point pollution. In addition, impoundments, water diversion, gravel mining and fish barrier crossings can impact these rare species. A moderate proportion of secure populations and habitats are found within and significantly depend on National Forest units. The overall viability risk for these species is considered low and viability concerns are solely because of its restricted range and distribution on Forest (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). Both species have a Global and State status of G3and S2, meaning these species are considered vulnerable to extirpation or extinction and considered imperiled (NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011). The Kiamichi shiner has been documented as occurring on both the Fourche La Fave and South Fourche La Fave Rivers (Robison 2001, 2005). The longnose darter has been documented from the South Fork of the Fourche La Fave River (Robison 1992) and near Lake Nimrod by Buchanan in 1984. The former district biologist and current forest stream ecologist performed site specific surveys in July of 2010 and none were found present. However, for this BE presence will be assumed due to its occurrence in the above rivers. The need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETS species for this project was assessed using direction in Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Effects Analysis: Aquatic Vertebrates





stands.


November 2012 123

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

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


November 2012 124

application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a).

Indirect Effects: Fourteen miles of roads are selected to be decommissioned in this proposed action which after they are seeded and gated will minimize siltation and erosion in this watershed. There will be no indirect effects anticipated for the Kiamichi shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed transportation system or constructed fireline. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Also, with the Action Alternatives 3.4 miles of roads are designated to be decommissioned, 27.4 miles of road would be closed and used for administrative purposes only, and 2.4 miles of road would be open seasonally from October 1 to December 31. This will help eliminate excess siltation and erosion into streams. Cumulative Effects: There will be no cumulative effects anticipated for the Kiamichi shiner or longnose darter as a result of the proposed transportation system or fireline construction. The proposed actions will cause no impacts because the application of provisions within MA9 (Water and Riparian Communities), Forest-wide Normal Timber Harvesting Operating Standard TH001, and Transportation Standards TR003 and TR008 will provide for protection of water quality and protection of Streamside Management Area Communities (USDA-Forest Service 2005a). Herbicide

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects: Please refer to the scaleshell mussel for herbicide effects discussion. No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects except for instances involving stochastic events. Potentially beneficial or detrimental effects of action alternatives would not occur. 3.4.6.4.7 Aquatic mussels: Louisiana fatmucket, Ouachita creekshell, purple Lilliput, sandbank

pocketbook and Southern hickorynut mussels Lampsilis hydiana, Villosa arkansasensis, Toxolasma lividus, Lampsilis satura, and Obovaria

jacksoniana

Status: Sensitive

The Louisiana fatmucket has a moderately, elongate shell with color ranging from yellow to tan or brown and inhabits a broad regional range with several healthy populations in Texas, Louisiana and southern Arkansas. This species may be found in rivers, streams and reservoirs and has been taken in mud and mud/sand in low-flow situations and is one of several mussel species found in both standing and flowing water. Within the Project Area, and elsewhere in the Ouachita Mountains, this species is found in high gradient streams. It is important to note that there are some questions regarding the exact taxonomy of this species across its range (Harris et al. 2009, NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011). The Ouachita creekshell mussel has a small, thin shell colored yellowish, greenish, or brownish and is endemic to Arkansas and Oklahoma. This endemic species is sexually dimorphic and is associated with small-to-medium sized streams in the Ouachita Mountains. It is a little-known species, not so much from its rarity as form the lack of surveys of streams that it inhabits. This species is generally associated with riffles but may be found in some pool situations (Robison and Allen 1995, NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011).


November 2012 125

The purple lilliput mussel has a small, elongate to quadrate shell with brown to black external color. It inhabits small creeks to medium size rivers throughout the central and eastern United States, though it is listed as imperiled or critically imperiled in many of the states it occurs in. It generally occurs in clean, swiftly moving water throughout its range. It is most sensitive to habitat degradation and to the potential loss of glochidial host fish (NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011). The sandbank pocketbook is found in drainages in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. It is listed as imperiled in Arkansas and Louisiana and as critically imperiled in Texas. In Arkansas, it is found river drainages south of the Arkansas River in areas with a gravel, gravel-sand, or sand substrate and in areas with moderate flow (Harris and Gordon 1990, NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011). The southern hickorynut has a wide historic range, though it is rare in many places throughout this range. In Arkansas, however, the southern hickorynut mussel is not uncommon and there are multiple drainages that support viable populations. The southern hickorynut is generally found in medium to large rivers with a gravel substrate and low to moderate flow (Harris and Gordon 1990, NatureServe Explorer accessed 2011). The overall abundance and diversity of freshwater mussels have declined for the past several decades to the point where The Nature Conservancy has recognized 55% of North American freshwater mussels as extinct or imperiled, including species and populations that inhabit waterways in Arkansas and adjacent states (Harris et

al. 1997, 2009; Vaughn 1997, 1999; Davidson and Gosse 2003; Strayer et al. 2004; Jones et al. 2005; Noguchi et al. 2007; Galbraith et al. 2008). Hydrologic modifications such as impoundments or diversions, gravel mining, poor land-use practices, and improperly designed and placed stream crossings may act as fish barriers and restrict movement of fish species acting as hosts for glochidia (parasitic larval mussels). Restricting movement of host fish is a limiting factor that may impact numerous mussel species (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, Appendix C). The majority of upland stream areas of Barnhart, Brogan and Wildcat creeks and their tributaries above Roads 795, 796 and State Highway 27 do not provide suitable mussel habitat. Additionally, the lower reaches of these water bodies, where water is likely to occur throughout the year, limited, spotty suitable habitat. Within the Project Area where Forest Roads 795 and 796 intersect lower reaches of streams, concrete slab stream crossings probably constitute passage barriers for host and non-host fish attempting to move upstream for breeding purposes during spring. Likewise, the tributary to Brogan Creek that flows through the culvert beneath State Highway 27 has a considerable drop-off that most fish could not negotiate. New stream crossings and repairs to existing structures will follow guidance in the Revised Forest Plan. Although not within the Project Area, Nimrod Dam has restricted upstream movement of aquatic species since its construction in 1942 and has likely impacted populations of host fish species and others by limiting genetic exchange between above and below dam populations. A number of site-specific surveys have been conducted in the main stem of the Fourche La Fave River, two of its primary downstream tributaries, and the South Fourche La Fave River and as a result numerous mussel species have been documented (Harris 1992, 2001, Stoeckel and Moles 2002). These studies concentrated effort in larger streams more likely to harbor a diverse mussel fauna with small upland streams not examined. The former District Biologist checked internal Project Area stream segments for relics during site specific fieldwork and only Louisiana fatmucket relicts were extracted from gravel bars along Barnhart and Wildcat Creeks where permanent pools and gravel/cobble substrates existed. These two streams, in addition to Brogan Creek, were examined for mussel resources from the forest boundary up into headwater areas. For most of their lengths these primary Project Area drainages are intermittent much of the year and do not provide suitable habitat conditions for mussels. Only when stream segments reach an elevation of 300-400 feet AMSL do they lie within terrain where extensive and more permanent pools may form upstream from their confluence with the main-stem Fourche La Fave River. All three streams are very flashy and turbulent during wet periods of the year. Pooled areas may constitute flow refuges with more environmental stability during high flow periods and are maintained during the dry season by periodic rain events.


November 2012 126

Effects Analysis: Aquatic mussels





stands.

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

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

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

Prescribed fire:

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

Indirect Effects: Low intensity prescribed fire rarely kill or significantly alter streamside vegetation and as a result do not affect water temperature, bank stability and other factors relating to the aquatic systems they buffer. Some medium to high intensity fire may occur in site preparation areas but fire intensity tends to decrease closer to streamside zones, due to changes in vegetation and terrain. Minimal effects would occur because Management Area 9 Standards provide for conservation of riparian areas and protection of water quality from erosion and resulting sedimentation. Introduction of nutrients released from burned materials will periodically find their way to the aquatic environment following rainfall events. These nutrients will be diluted and quickly dispersed and will not act as a highly concentrated pollutant. Nutrients available for movement into the aquatic system will constantly be reduced through the uptake actions of terrestrial plants. Cumulative Effects: Insignificant effects because of no direct and minimal indirect effects. Transportation System and Fireline Construction Direct Effects: No direct effects should occur on these mussel species because individuals in the aquatic environment are not generally susceptible to individual mortality from transportation/fireline development activities. Mussels would not generally occur in these small ephemeral streams inside the watershed so the chance of them being crushed by equipment crossing is insignificant. Indirect Effects: The potential for erosion and subsequent siltation always exists when soils are disturbed. Indirect effects will be insignificant because Management Area 9 Standards provide for establishment and conservation of riparian areas and protection of water quality through well-established erosion control practices and Best Management Practices. Also, with the Action Alternatives 3.4 miles of roads are designated to be decommissioned, 27.4 miles of road would be closed and used for administrative purposes only, and 2.4 miles of road would be open seasonally from October 1 to December 31. This will help eliminate erosion and siltation in the future. Cumulative Effects: Insignificant effects because of highly unlikely direct or indirect effects. Herbicide application: Direct, indirect and cumulative effects: Please refer to the scaleshell mussel for herbicide effects discussion.


November 2012 127

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects except for instances involving stochastic events. 3.4.7 Scenery and Recreation Resources, Special Uses, Roadless Areas

3.4.7.1 Scenery

The Forest Service utilizes the Scenery Management System (SMS) to evaluate land management activities in the context of the integration of benefits, values, desires, and preferences regarding aesthetics and scenery. The Scenery Management System “provides an overall framework for the orderly inventory, analysis, and management of scenery. The system applies to every acre of national forest and national grassland administered by the Forest Service and to all Forest Service activities . . . .” (USDA-Forest Service 2000a, p. 12)

Scenic integrity generally refers to the degree of intactness or wholeness of the landscape character. Human alteration can improve, lower, or maintain the scenic integrity of a landscape. The existing landscape character being viewed is the frame of reference for measuring scenic integrity and the potential effects of management activities. Scenic integrity levels for the Ouachita National Forest include Very High, High, Moderate, and Low. During the revision process for the Revised Forest Plan, a broad overview of Forest scenery resource was developed by establishing Forest-wide Scenic Integrity Levels using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology (USDA-Forest Service 2005b, pp. 260-267). Scenic Integrity Levels establish the objective for management of the scenery resource and is called the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO). (See SIO map, Project file) Present Conditions Landscape character descriptions focus on key attributes found consistently throughout the mapped unit to succinctly convey “word-pictures” to the reader. They are based on the attributes of landform, water, cultural elements, and vegetation, although greater emphasis is usually placed on description of vegetation because vegetation is more easily changed than other attributes in a national forest setting (USDA-Forest Service 1995, p. 1-10). Shortleaf pine-oak and shortleaf pine and dry oak-hickory forest and woodlands dominate upper to middle, south-facing slopes, saddles, flatter ridgelines and lower north-facing slopes. Mesic hardwood forest (white oak, northern red oak, mockernut and pignut hickory) dominate steeper north-facing slopes. The lower north facing slopes are made up of a sub-mesic oak hickory forest (white oak, southern red oak, black oak, mockernut and black hickory). There are minor inclusions of oak woodlands on the steepest ridge tops. Once within the forest, vegetation density prevents most views beyond the immediate foreground, and no views are panoramic except where formal viewpoints have been established. Project Area: The existing landscape character for the Project Area consists of moderate to strongly rolling hills and lower elevation mountains with long low ridges interspersed by narrow valleys positioned in an east-west trending direction. Elevations generally range from 400-1,400 feet ASL (highest at Allen Peak 1,533 feet). Topography is generally equally divided among the 8-15%, 15-35%, and 35-60% slope classes.

Shortleaf pine-oak and shortleaf pine and dry oak-hickory forest and woodlands dominate upper to middle, south-facing slopes, saddles, flatter ridgelines and lower north-facing slopes. Mesic hardwood forest (white oak, northern red oak, mockernut and pignut hickory) dominate steeper north-facing slopes. The lower north facing slopes are made up of a sub-mesic oak hickory forest (white oak, southern red oak, black oak, mockernut and black hickory). There are minor inclusions of oak woodlands on the steepest ridge tops.


November 2012 128

Pine forest type accounts for 64% of the Project Area, are mostly in the 21-30 and 61 to 90 year age classes and have a uniform canopy height up to 70 feet. Mixed pine-hardwood and hardwood-pine forest types make up about 25% of the Project Area and are mostly in the 61-90 year age class with crown heights from 35-70 feet. The oak and hickory forest type accounts for 22% of the NF land in the Project Area and consists mostly of trees in the 61-90 year age classes that are 50-70 feet in height. Dead trees, standing and fallen, are common throughout the Project Area. (see Table 3.11: Current Age Class Distribution for Forested Land by Forest Type; also, Vegetation Type and Age Class Maps in Project file)

Creeks of the Project Area drain northerly to the Fourche La Fave River. There are no lakes or reservoirs within the Project Area; there are 22 existing ponds.

The visitor/viewer within the Project Area perceives a natural landscape having some evidence of human disturbance. Natural disturbances such as fire, wind, pests, or disease have not contributed significantly to vegetative patterns. Understory species include bushes, vines, briars, grasses, and various hardwoods (oak, hickory, dogwood, black gum, maple, etc.) from 5-20 feet in height. Generally, forest roads in the Project Area follow the natural terrain. Roadbeds of closed roads are dominated by grasses and other ground cover such as sericea lespedeza. Most streams in the Project Area flow over sections of bedrock, boulders, or cobble with well-defined pool and riffle sections. They are moderately entrenched and are wider than they are deep. Most have relatively few meanders and narrow floodplains and riparian zones.

Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) levels include medium and low (see Scenic Integrity Map, Project file). Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Forest lands in the Project Area were initially inventoried in the Revised Forest Plan by scenic class. Scenic classes are derived from physical location, constituent concern for scenic quality and diversity of natural and cultural features, capturing information from SIO maps prepared for the Revised Forest Plan and from existing VQO maps and landscape viewshed inventories. For low SIO areas landscapes appear moderately altered with noticeable human-created deviations. Medium level scenic integrity objective requires that management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The Forest visitor notices changes in the landscape, but they do not attract attention. The natural appearance of the landscape remains dominant. In high SIO areas human activities are not visually evident to the casual observer. Activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the existing landscape character.

Much of the Project Area is characterized with users of the Forest that include sightseers engaging in pleasure driving, hikers, anglers, picnickers, and hunters and fits most of the experiences described as the Forest’s niche: sightseeing along scenic Forest roads, fishing, hunting and nature-viewing. It is highly probable that visitors who access the Project Areas by walking within environs with closed roads would experience isolation from the sights and sounds of other people or human activity. People-related encounters or interaction would most likely occur along Forest roads. Scenic opportunities are somewhat limited within these sections of the Project Area. Most of the forest is of a closed-in view shed, meaning that vistas are not present, and trees and understory are normally of such density that the seen area is usually limited to the immediate foreground (no more than 300 feet). Access to the Project Area is primarily by Forest roads (See maps, Appendix “B”). Some roads in these parts of the Project Area are closed to motorized vehicles or; these roads are much like trails in that they provide a greater sense of isolation for the forest visitor/viewer. Visibility down- or up-stream and toward elevated ridges would often be within the foreground range. Effects Analysis The scenic resource is affected by management activities that alter the appearance of what is visible in the landscape. Short-term scenic effects are usually considered in terms of degree of visual contrast with existing or adjacent conditions that result from management activity. The scenic landscape can be changed over the long-term by the alteration of the visual character. Management activities that result in visual alterations inconsistent with the assigned SIO, even with protection design measures, affect scenery. Management activities that have the greatest potential of affecting scenery are road construction, large-scale and long-term vegetation management, insect and disease control, utility rights-of-way, and mineral extraction. Other management activities that also can impact the scenic resource at a lesser degree are threatened, endangered, or sensitive


November 2012 129

species habitat management, prescribed burning, fire suppression, land exchange, old growth forest management, recreation, administrative site facility construction, and wildlife management. It is possible that management activities could benefit scenic opportunities. For instance a more-open forest may promote a pleasing park-like view. Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

Direct effects to the scenic character of the forest would occur largely in the form of changes in forest vegetation resulting from proposed timber harvest and associated road work, site preparation, stand improvement, and midstory reduction activities that would result in a loss of midstory and understory vegetative screening.

Harvest treatment would result in a direct effect of logging or thinning residue (slash) such as treetops and branches accumulating on the ground. Slash would eventually decay resulting in reduced long-term effect to scenery. Harvest areas would be treated in accordance with the Scenery Treatment Guide−Southern Regional National Forests (USDA-Forest Service 2008).

An indirect effect of timber harvest activity would be enhanced viewing depth and contrasting tree density.

Travel-ways within the Project Area are dominated by a mostly closed view of the forest. Closely spaced trees and dense midstory and/or understory vegetation greatly limit depth of view. Providing some diversity of visibility with the development of more-open forest conditions was considered by the ID Team to be consistent with Scenic Integrity Objectives. Beneficial scenery enhancement would result from the indirect effects of harvest treatments along Forest roads by providing a more-open view of the forest which currently is limited by closely spaced trees and dense midstory and/or understory.

Prescribed burning would temporarily reduce the amount of understory vegetation, allowing for greater viewing depth into the forest. Burning would create the direct effect of a charred appearance on tree trunks and the forest floor. These effects would diminish in three to six months due to re-growth of vegetation on the forest floor, as well as natural leaf shedding. This “green up” would restore a more natural appearance in the landscape.

Proposed stand improvement would result in a short-term direct effect on visual quality as the vegetation becomes brown and dies off. Over time the visual quality would increase as the leaves drop to the forest floor and decompose or are removed during prescribed burning as mentioned above.

By implementing the proposed management activities it is expected that there would be an increase in the vigor and health of the forest that would reduce the direct and indirect negative effects to visual quality that could result in alteration of the landscape due to tree damage or mortality caused by insects and disease. Because some of the management treatments target hardwoods, an indirect effect could be a loss of spring and fall colors. Changes in color and texture could possibly result from exposed soil in roads and skid trails; however this indirect effect should be expected to be short-term considering expected revegetation from natural conditions and/or restoration measures.

With the implementation of controlled burning the potential direct and indirect detrimental effects to visual quality resulting from catastrophic fire are diminished. Prescribed burning substantially diminishes the potential for crown fires that could result in dead overstory trees and large burn scars on remaining live trees. Low intensity prescribed fires tend to create short-term color change.

Most private lands likely would continue to be used as rural agricultural and forested lands with similar usage patterns observed in the past.

In view of design standards directed by the Revised Forest Plan and protection measures discussed herein, no cumulative effects are expected from implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Herbicide Alternative. The changes in the landscape on national forest land would continue to appear natural to most


November 2012 130

observers. The bounds for scenery cumulative effects analysis are the Project Area and the time-frame(s) discussed in Section 2.7. No Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

By not implementing the proposed activities, there would be no direct alteration on scenic quality. Mature and over-mature trees would decay and die creating contrasts in form, line and texture. Most changes in this landscape would appear natural to the observer.

Scenic integrity may be compromised by not implementing harvest activities in this area. Densely stocked stands result in reduced vigor or health, which cause susceptibility to insects and disease. Infestations could result in tree death, negatively impacting visual quality.

In the event of a wildfire, crown fires, or those that sweep through the canopy, there would be a visible change to the landscape. Snags would appear as black, brown, and gray “skeletons”. Other trees would show burn scars. Burn scars on tree trunks or “torched trees” remain visible for a long time. Understory vegetation would quickly green up, however the standing burned vegetation would remain.

The changes in the national forest landscape would continue to appear natural to the observer except for changes resulting from natural causes such as tornado and ice damage. 3.4.7.2 Recreation Present Conditions

Recreation opportunities are categorized into six classes with mixes or combinations of activities, settings, and probable experience opportunities arranged along a spectrum, or continuum. This continuum is called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). Each class is defined in terms of the degree to which it satisfies certain recreation experience needs. The ROS classes Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Roaded Natural (RN), and Rural (R) are present in the Project Area (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, pp. 139-140; also see USDA-Forest Service 1974, Vol. 2, ROS Users Guide).

There are no designated wilderness areas in the Project Area. Approximately 860 acres of the 2,403–acre Fourche Mountain Walk-In Turkey Area (Management Area 17) are situated in the eastern part of the Project Area (Management Area map, Appendix “B”). There is one developed recreation area, the Fourche Mountain Park Area, consisting of 3 acres located at the intersection of Highway 27 and Forest Road 83. This site provides tables, fire pits, and toilet facilities. For the most part, camping, hunting, fishing, ATV riding, scenic automobile touring, and hiking are mainly dispersed (outdoor recreation in which visitors are diffused over relatively large areas) recreation uses in the Project Area. For the most part, roads within the area require vehicles with a relative high ground clearance. Sight-seeing from vehicles, hiking, camping, hunting and fishing are the predominant recreational activities associated with the Project Area. Effects Analysis


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Immediate or direct effects to the recreation resource may include disturbance in the recreation experience by the sights and sounds of management activities such as logging operations and temporary road construction. Forest users may be directly affected by short-term displacement during prescribed fire activities. Prescribed fire is the only management activity proposed in the vicinity of the Fourche Mountain Picnic Area.

The increase in wildlife food sources (forage) resulting from management activities such as prescribed burning, wildlife opening maintenance, and timber harvest may increase wildlife abundance, and therefore enhance hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities in the area.


November 2012 131

No adverse cumulative effects are expected as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative. No Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: No direct effects are expected with a No Action situation (no implementation of proposed action activities). However, there is a greater potential for alteration to the landscape character that could result from wildfire or damage due to disease and/or insects. Indirect effects may be the encroachment of hardwoods into the dispersed camping sites with lack of vegetation treatment. The hunting and wildlife viewing experience may not be as enjoyable due to the lack of vegetation management that provides habitat diversity and mast production for wildlife. No adverse cumulative effects are expected as a result from the implementation of this alternative. 3.4.7.3 Special Uses

Present Conditions

There are two permanent existing major utility rights-of way traversing the Project Area (Project file map); an overhead electric transmission line with a 20 feet wide right-of-way, and an underground pipeline right-of-way 110 feet in width. There are no mineral extraction operations, oil/gas wells, or other special uses in the Project Area. Effects analysis

No adverse effects to, or on, special uses are expected to result from the Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives, or with the No Action Alternative. It is possible that additional special use applications could be submitted to the Forest Service under existing regulations. 3.4.7.4 Roadless Areas

Present Conditions

On the Ouachita National Forest there are six roadless areas identified with the 2001 Roadless Rule: Bear Mountain (1,908 acres), Beech Creek (8,194 acres), Blue Mountain (9,492 acres), Brush Heap (4,117 acres), Little Blakely (5,321 acres), and Rich Mountain (7,609 acres). Little Blakely, located along the north shore of Lake Ouachita, is the only one of these roadless area on the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District. There are no areas identified with the 2001 Roadless Rule in the Project Area. Nearest identified roadless areas with the 2001 Roadless Rule are Little Blakely (19 miles southeast of the Project Area), Bear Mountain (21 miles south-southeast of the Project Area), and Blue Mountain (27 miles southwest of Project Area). Effects analysis. There will be no effects to roadless areas since no Project activities would occur within or in the vicinity of such areas 3.4.8 Transportation System

Present Condition

Roads within the Wildcat Hollow Project Area are used for a variety of purposes. Arkansas State Highway 27 accommodates travel north and south through the eastern portion of the project area. The southern boundary of the Project Area consists of Forest Service Road, 72 Yell County Road 4128, and Forest Service Road 599. Forest Service road 72 intersects with State Highway 27 north of the Onyx Community. The north boundary of the project area is the Fourche La Fave River. There are no obvious landmarks for the east and west boundaries, they end at management compartment boundaries. The nearest Interstate Highway (I-40) is located approximately 33 miles to the north (Russellville, Arkansas). Commonly used roads that access the Project Area include Forest Roads 83, 599, 796, 795, 111, 116, 851, 665, 787, F80, F81, F79, F85, F93, 982, 983, Yell


November 2012 132

County Roads 4104, 4128 and others. There is unimproved Forest Road access to the national forest within the project area; some of these roads are closed to vehicles for the purpose of wildlife management activities. In addition to automobile touring, fishing, and hunting, other activities occurring in the area, which utilize Forest roads, include horseback riding, hiking, bird watching, and firewood gathering. There are no designated trails within the project areas.

Most Forest Service roads in the Project Area are best traveled with higher clearance vehicles such as pickup trucks. Access for closed roads beyond gates or dirt mounds is by foot, horse or, in some instances where designated, off-road-vehicle (ORV). Periodically, closed roads may be utilized by the Forest Service for management activities or fire control access. An inventory of existing roads in the Project Area was obtained by District personnel in accordance with Forest direction. Travel analysis was conducted in association with the proposed Project (see Travel Analysis Report, USDA-Forest Service 2012). The ID Team included the Travel Analysis as part of its review of the transportation system. Travel Management

Road designation and use in the Project Area have been affected by recent Forest Service rules and decisions. On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service announced final travel management regulations governing off-road-vehicles (OHVs) and other motor vehicle use on national forests and grasslands. The Forest Service subsequently amended internal agency directives regarding travel management to make them consistent with and facilitate implementation of the agency’s final travel management rule (36 CFR part 212), “Travel Management; Designated Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use” (70 FR 68264, November 9, 2005) (travel management rule). The travel management rule required each Forest Service administrative unit or Ranger District to designate those roads, trails, and areas open to motor vehicle use. The amended directives consolidated direction for travel planning for both roads and trails in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7710 and Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.55. On January 4, 2010 a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact was issued to implement the Ouachita Travel Management Project which amends the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Ouachita National Forest by limiting public use of motorized vehicles, including off-highway vehicles (OHVs), to designated National Forest System roads, National Forest System trails, and areas on National Forest System lands, as identified on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM). The Decision also authorizes changes to the Ouachita National Forest travel system, including motorized use designations, seasonal use restrictions and road closures. On May 9, 2011, the Forest released to the public MVUMs. These black and white maps show National Forest System roads and trails that are open to travel by the public on motorized vehicles, including OHVs. Tables that list roads and trails provide further detail about allowable uses, such as game retrieval, special designations (trails open to OHV less than 64” in width) and seasonal openings of roads and trails. These designations apply only to National Forest System roads and trails on National Forest System lands. NFS routes not shown on the MVUMs are not open to the public for motor vehicle travel. Open Road Density

Open road density is calculated by converting the acres within the allocation of a contiguous block into square miles (total acres/640 acres) and then dividing that figure into the linear measure of open roads within the block of land. With the current MVUM there are 36 miles of open Forest roads in the Project Area (25.87 square miles national forest land). For Project Area MA-14 lands the open road density (open road per square mile of national forest land) is 1.60; for MA-17 and MA-21 lands it is 1.38. Current open road density is in excess of the Revised Forest Plan desired condition of 1.0 for MA-14 and 0.75 for MA-17 and MA-21. This current higher open road density reflects the Forest travel management decision-making subsequent to extensive public participation.


November 2012 133

Effects Analysis Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Implementation of proposed road status and use would increase open road density in MA-14 to 1.88 and maintain an open road density of 1.38 for MA-17 and MA-21. Designation of roads to be open, year-round or seasonally, reflect the long-held public sentiment for the Fourche Unit of the District to keep as many roads open as possible. A contributing factor to the amount of open road in the Project Area is the geographical location of these open roads. Roads 72, 4128, and 599 lie along nearly the entire length of the southern boundary of the Project Area, and Roads 795 and 796 pass through most of the northern portion of the Project Area. These roads constitute the major portion of open roads for the area and all are essential for public access, and therefore opportunity for closure is not realistic. The ID Team also concluded that the low traffic volume typical for the area substantially lessens the potential for wildlife habitat disruption which is the purpose for open road density design criteria. The public preference for open roads was also documented by the public involvement process associated with the Forest Travel Management Decision: several open houses were held in 2007; over 150 comments were received in response to the December 2007 project announcement letter; and nearly 750 comments were received during the 30-day notice and comment period. Thus, consideration of local viewpoints, including those of local governments, occurred during the planning stages of the project. Approximately 8.5 miles of existing national forest roads would be reconstructed, meaning they would be reconditioned with treatment such as culvert replacement, roadbed re-shaping, and gravel addition. Approximately 49.2 mile of existing national forest roads would receive lesser maintenance such as blading the roadway surface and removal of brush from drain ditches. Approximately 23.4miles of temporary spur roads would provide access to implement project activities. This access is not intended to be a part of the Forest transportation system and is not necessary for long-term resource management. Temporary spur roads generally follow ground contours with maximum grade not to exceed 20 percent for lengths up to 200 feet. The cleared width generally does not exceed 12 feet. The route often follows existing older woods roads. Erosion control measures, such as water-bars, hay bales, silt fencing or mulching, are employed to protect water and aquatic resources or sensitive areas. Exposed soil on temporary roads (also, skid trails and landings) no longer needed for project work is to be seeded and fertilized within 30 days from discontinued use. If necessary, tilling may be required to assure revegetation. Plant or grass vegetation type shall be in accordance with approved species and seed mix, approved by the Forest Botanist and District Wildlife Biologist, during seasons designated for specific projects. Temporary roads are closed after use. Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: System Road Construction. With the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives, 4.6 miles of new road would become permanent national forest system roads and would be constructed to Traffic Service Level C or D design standards (FSH 7709.56). TSL C roads are characterized by low speed design with limited passing facilities, some limitation to vehicle type, traffic controls needed during periods of high use, rough road surface rutting and dusty conditions. TSL D roads may have traffic blocked by use activity, two-way traffic may be difficult with some backing required for passing, some vehicles may not be able to negotiate the road, very low traffic speed, rough and irregular road surface usually requiring high clearance vehicles, and road surface likely will have rutting and dusty conditions during dry periods. Traffic Service Level Roads C and D typically require a cleared width of approximately 30 feet to accommodate a single lane with shoulders and drainage ditches. 1.1 miles of this new road would be open seasonally, and 3.5 miles would be closed (administrative use only). See Road Status/MVUM Map, Appendix “B”). This new road would be added to the system as classified roads, and closed, either year-round or seasonally, to highway and off-highway vehicular traffic after administrative use to protect soil, water and wildlife resources.


November 2012 134

System Road Permanent Closure. Approximately 27.4 miles of system road would be closed to highway and off-highway vehicles with to protect soil, water and wildlife resources within the analysis area. Closure would be by gate or earthen berm. See Road Status/MVUM Map, Appendix “B”. Road closures (administrative use only) would be to both highway and off-highway vehicles. Emergency and regular road maintenance would be conducted on existing open roads.

System Road Reconstruction and/or Maintenance. Approximately 8.5 miles of existing open system road would be reconstructed to facilitate access for management activities, including hauling of timber from stands proposed for commercial timber harvest and to reduce sediment and improve watershed condition. 49.2 miles of existing classified road (open and closed) would require road maintenance prior to proposed treatments and throughout this Project Area’s entry cycle to reduce sediment and improve watershed condition. This maintenance includes slide and slump repair, surface blading, spot surfacing with gravel, maintenance of drainage structures, ditch cleaning and clearing the roadside of vegetation. The Proposed Action and the No Herbicide Alternatives would replace nonfunctioning culverts, which would have a positive indirect effect of reducing sediment from roads in the Project Area. These activities would have a cumulative effect of providing safe public access, improving forest health, wildlife habitat and forest recreational opportunities. See Proposed Road Work map in Appendix “B” and table listing of roads to be reconstructed and/or maintained in Travel Analysis Report (Project file).

Temporary Road Construction. Approximately 23.4 miles of temporary road would be constructed to access and haul timber from stands proposed for commercial timber harvest. After use, these temporary roads would be permanently closed to highway and off highway vehicles with earthen berms and seeded. See Proposed Road Work map in Appendix “B”. Motor Vehicle Use. As discussed previously the Forest released to the public on May 9, 2011 maps designating motor vehicle use (MVUM). These maps show National Forest System roads and trails that are open to travel by the public on motorized vehicles, including Off-Highway Vehicles. The current MVUM relating to the Project Area designates 28 miles of road open year-round to all vehicles and 13 miles of road open year-round to highway legal vehicles only. Other Forest rods not shown on the map are identified as closed to the public. Inventory of the road network for the Project resulted in an updated map for roads. Recommendations of the Travel Analysis Report (USDA-Forest Service 2012) that are included with the Proposed and No Herbicide Alternatives result in 36.9 miles of road open year-round to all vehicles, 9.7 miles of road open year-round to highway legal vehicles only, and 2.4 miles of road open seasonally (10/1 to 12/31) to all vehicles. 27.4 miles of Forest roads would be closed (administrative use only). The prevailing social values associated with the Project Area are hunting, dispersed camping, off-highway-vehicle riding (mainly four-wheeler and dirt-bike), driving for pleasure, hiking and mountain bike riding. The proposed actions are expected to be within acceptable limits of change to maintain the existing community lifestyle of this area. Cumulative effects, relative to sedimentation, also are analyzed in the Aquatics Cumulative Effects utilized by the Forest (see Section 3.4.3 Water Resources).

No Action Alternative Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects: Some general maintenance on commonly used roads could occur for the purpose of providing safe travel roadways. Little to no adverse impact to the natural environment would be expected from this activity. In some cases under a No Action circumstance, it is possible that the absence of maintenance to some roads could fail to correct drainage problems and thereby increase the sedimentation. Also, some roads may need to be closed due to unsafe travel conditions brought on by the lack of road repairs, and such closure could result in public


November 2012 135

inconvenience and opposition for reduced access. Undetermined maintenance could also be attributed to private roads, primarily on industrial timberland. There would be no temporary increases in public access due to construction of temporary roads, or permanent (closed) system roads. The current MVUM would remain the same, except for any revisions adopted by the Forest.

Table 3.20: Summary Proposed Road Work and Motor Vehicle Use Designation

Analysis Component

Proposed Action and No Herbicide

Alternatives (miles)

No Action Alternative (miles)

Proposed Project Road Work (see Proposed Road Work Map, Appendix “B”) approximate miles

New System Road Construction 4.6 N/A

Reconstruction of Existing Road 8.5 N/A

Road Maintenance 49.2 Undetermined4

Temporary Roads (Close & Restore) 23.4 N/A

Road Decommissioning 3.4 N/A

Revised Motor Vehicle Use Designation (see Road Status/MVUM Map, Appendix “B”) approximate miles

Open Road – All Vehicles 32.9 28

Open Road – Highway Legal Vehicles Only 8.7 13

Open Seasonally 10/1-12/31 – All Vehicles 2.4 0

3.4.9 Economics

Present Conditions

The Wildcat Hollow Project Area is located in Yell County, Arkansas. The area is about 12 miles southwest of Danville, Arkansas. The primary industry in the area is poultry production with many farms and scattered processing plants. Poultry processors Tyson Foods and Wayne Farms Company are the two largest employers. Per capita income was $15,383 with about 15% of the population living below the poverty line. Forest land accounts for 427,000 acres, or 70 percent of the land area in Yell County. The breakdown of forest ownership in the county is approximately:

Ownership/Jurisdiction acres Percent of Total

National Forest 214,000 50

Individuals 122,000 29

Industrial Forest 56,000 13

State and Other Federal 30,000 7

Private Corporation 5,000 1


November 2012 136

Forests contribute greatly to the local economy through recreational use, timber sales, and forest industry employment. El Dorado, Arkansas based Deltic Timber Company operates a mill in Ola, Arkansas. A smaller mill, L & S Lumber, is located in Briggsville, Arkansas. Rover Shavings and Posts purchases Forest Service Timber and is located in Rover, Arkansas. The economy of the area within and adjacent to the analysis area is about equally dependent on National Forest timber as it is on private and industrial timber holdings. The JWF District would offer about 22,000 ccf (1 ccf = 100 ft3) of wood products from the Project Area in the first year with expected gross receipts of around 748,000 dollars. On October 3, 2008, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 was reauthorized as part of Public Law 110-343. The new Secure Rural Schools Act has some significant changes. To implement the new law, the Forest Service requested states and counties to elect either to receive a share of the 25-percent 7-year rolling average payment or to receive a share of the Secure Rural Schools State (formula) payment by November 14, 2008 (county elections). Yell County has elected to receive the Secure Rural Schools State (formula) payment. In 2008, Yell County received a total of $940,529 in funds under this payment option. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, payments to all States will be made using the 7-year rolling average payment. Effects Analysis Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects. With proposed management activities, timber sales would generate significant returns to the National Forest Fund from which returns to the U.S. Treasury are made. Timber sales would also provide jobs directly to loggers and processors and indirectly to others through the process. The economic benefits can accrue from logging activity, stand improvements, raw material processing, and product sales. These activities are additive and cumulative and can create a stream of revenue reaching throughout the local economy. Timber harvesting and associated activities performed by contractors would maintain or temporarily improve the work related income of the contractors and their employees. No Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects. Without proposed silvicultural activities such as included with the Proposed Action Alternative or the No Herbicide Alternative there would not be any revenues generated to offset sunk costs (costs that have already been incurred and which cannot be recovered to any significant degree) being paid by appropriated funds. No revenue would be created for the restoration of shortleaf pine or implementation of various wildlife, recreation, and road improvement projects. No action would preclude awarding contracts to local businesses for any of the regeneration and forest management services. Most normally contracted road maintenance would continue, especially that work related to public safety. Local residents would continue to enjoy county road and school maintenance provided by funds distributed to the counties by the Forest Service under the SSA. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2012, payments to all States will be made using the 7-year rolling average payment. There would be no cumulative effects from deferring harvests on payments to counties. 3.4.10 Financial Efficiency See Table 3.22 (Financial Efficiency Analysis) for a summary of expected costs and revenues for the proposed action. Present Conditions: The 404,000-acre Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District currently thins or regenerates about 3,500 acres of forest per year while generating timber gross revenues of about $2,500,000


November 2012 137

annually. Much of that revenue is re-invested to improve wildlife habitat, increase shortleaf pine restoration and regeneration success, and improve roads and infrastructure. Effects Analysis

Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct Effects: The Proposed Action harvest includes clearcutting on 80 acres, seed tree with reserves on 817 acres, and commercial thinning on 4,329 acres. These activities could take place up to five years and involve two or more commercial timber sales. Timber sales would provide estimated gross revenue of $2,418,500 (Table 3.22) which includes improvements to Forest system roads with an approximate value of $750,500. It would cost an estimated $1,876,230 to conduct the sale and to assure regeneration of shortleaf pine in areas harvested under the Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives. Net revenue for this sale would be approximately $542,270 and would be used for wildlife habitat and other improvements with any remaining being returned to the U.S. Treasury through the National Forest Fund. Indirect Effects: The full implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative or No Herbicide Alternative would indirectly support local businesses through the sale of fuel, supplies and equipment, as well as food and other personal needs of the workers and their families. Cumulative Effects: The economic stability of the surrounding area is supported in the present and in the future through continuation of individual jobs and the forest industry as a whole.

Table 3.21: Financial Efficiency Analysis

COSTS and REVENUES

Proposed Action or No Herbicide Alternatives

Unit* Number of

Units1 $/Unit Total $

Financial Revenue

Pine Sawtimber CCF 38,400 40.00 1,536,000

Pine Pulpwood CCF 12,000 11.00 132,000

Total Gross Revenue 2,418,500

Financial Costs

Harvest Administration CCF 50,400 5 252,000

Sale Preparation CCF 50,400 19 957,600

Road Design and Engineering2 mile 13.1 8594 112,575

Regeneration Expenses acre 897 534 479,000

Total Financial Costs 1,876,230

Financial Net Value 542,270

Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.29

1 CCF = 100 cubic feet of solid wood

2 Engineering costs = 15% of road constructions costs; also, see FSH 2409.18 Ch. ; also, see FSH 2409.18 Ch. 30


November 2012 138

3.4.11 Public Health and Safety Effects Analysis: Public Health & Safety

Proposed Action Alternative, No Herbicide Alternative, and No Action Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects:

Fire

A potential risk to public safety is caused by smoke from prescribed burning activities, which can impact local individuals with respiratory problems and can reduce visibility on highways and roads. Proper implementation, as outlined in required burning plans, would provide for smoke dispersal and therefore minimize this risk. These effects would apply primarily to the Proposed Action and No Herbicide Alternatives and to a lesser extent to the No Action Alternative. Also, see Sections 2.4, 3.4.1 and 3.4.4 for discussion of measures to protect air quality, air quality conditions and effects analysis, and wildfire hazards and fuels accumulation conditions and effects analysis.

The absence of a proactive prescribed fire program, and lack of other fuels improvement activities such as timber harvest, would pose an increased likelihood of large hard-to-control wildfires which could produce greater smoke impacts, resource damage, and an increased level of risk to the using public and forest employees. These potential adverse effects apply primarily to an absence of forest management (No Action). Wildfires are the greatest cause of carbon release from forests.

West Nile Virus. There has been some, limited contention that existing and proposed new ponds pose an increased potential for the spread of West Nile Virus. There are 22 existing ponds in the Project Area. An additional 60 new ponds are proposed for the purpose of providing permanent water source for wildlife toward meeting Revised Forest Plan design criteria of 1 pond per 160 acres of Forest land (USDA-Forest Service 2005a, WF010, p.79). The role of these proposed ponds in the spread of West Nile Virus is uncertain and speculative at this point, but the threat is likely to be relatively small given the large number of water sources available for the spread of mosquitoes within the region in general.

Herbicide

Herbicide usage would occur only with the Proposed Action Alternative. Eradication or control of non-native invasive plant species would be accomplished with glyphosate, imazapyr, or triclopyr. Reforestation and timber stand improvement activities (site preparation, release, midstory removal) and wildlife habitat improvement treatments (midstory removal and overstory development) would employ application of triclopyr. Application methods would be directed foliar spray (backpack), frill girdle (hack and squirt), stem injection, cut surface, or basal bark. Application rates would be in within typical Forest Service program usage. This analysis is tiered to Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Reports for glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr (SERA 2011a; 2011b; 2011c). To reduce the likelihood of significant exposure, application workers would be directed not to walk through treated vegetation and not to spray over shoulder height. With proper training, supervision, and use of personal protection equipment, the likelihood of worker exposure of concern would be lessened. Associated with oversight of proposed activities by Forest Service personnel, safety and related training are emphasized and reviewed often by Forest and District leadership and staff managers. Exposure for the general public to toxic levels of herbicide is not considered likely due to the remoteness of forest areas to be treated. Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide that prevents plants from making proteins that are needed for plant growth. There are over 750 products containing glyphosate for sale in the U.S. that are widely used with applications in agriculture, forestry, industrial weed control, lawn, garden, and aquatic environments. Total use of glyphosate in Forest Service programs over the 5-year period from 2000 to 2004 was about 173,000 pounds or approximately 35,000 pounds/year. Over 100,000,000 lbs. of glyphosate were applied to U.S. crops annually during 2002. This is about a factor of about 2900 greater than the average annual use of glyphosate in Forest


November 2012 139

Service programs (SERA 2011a, p. 18). For the Wildcat Hollow Project, glyphosate would be used for eradication of non-native invasive plant species. It would be applied to terrestrial or aquatic plants, usually by directed foliar spray.

A Project-specific SERA worksheet (version 5.00.94; http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml) was completed for glyphosate-amine formulation at the maximum prescribed rate of 2 lbs. acid equivalent per acre applied by backpack directed foliar spray and is summarized as follows:

The central application volume would be 10 gallons per acre, upper application 25 gallons per acre, and lower application 5 gallons per acre.

Toxicity Equivalency Factor (Hazard Quotient) would be 1 for backpack worker exposure for 7 hours at the central application volume (0.625 acres/hour or 4.375 acres/day), 6 hours at the lower volume application level (0.25 acres/hour or 1.5 acres/day), and 8 hours at the upper volume application level (1 acre/hour or 8 acres/day).

Hazard Quotients would be at acceptable levels (less than 1) for all scenarios except the following acute (short term: mg/kg/event) exposures: accidental water consumption by spill to a child at the upper level of application, and non-accidental consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female at the upper level of application

The current Forest Service risk assessment uses a conservative half-life of 10 days on vegetation for glyphosate (SERA 2011a, p. 101). Based on the available information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that glyphosate should be classified as having evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans (SERA 2011a, p. 61).

Imazapyr is a non-selective broad-spectrum systemic herbicide absorbed by the foliage and roots, with rapid transfer to the xylem and phloem to the meristematic regions of the plant (tissue that is capable of dividing found at the growing tips−roots and stems) where it accumulates and causes disruption of protein synthesis. “For 2004, the Forest Service reported a total used of about 1500 pounds, concentrated primarily in Region 8 (Southern Region) which accounted for nearly 90% of imazapyr use.” (SERA 2011b. p.11) For the Wildcat Hollow Project, imazapyr would be used for eradication of non-native invasive plant species. The primary application method for imazapyr would be backpack directed foliar spray.

A Project-specific SERA worksheet (version 6.00.07; http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml) was completed for imazapyr formulation at the maximum prescribed rate of 2 lbs. acid equivalent per acre applied by backpack directed foliar spray and is summarized as follows:

The central application volume would 20 gallons per acre, 100 gallons per acre for the upper volume application, and 5 gallons per acre for lower application volume.


Hazard Quotients would be at acceptable levels (less than 1) for all scenarios except the following acute (short term: mg/kg/event) exposures: accidental water consumption by spill to a child at the upper level of application, and non-accidental consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female at the upper level of application.

The current Forest Service risk assessment uses a half-life on vegetation of 30 days for imazapyr (SERA 2011b, p. 46). Carcinogenicity was not identified as an endpoint of concern in the current Forest Service risk assessment (SERA 2011b, p. 26). Triclopyr is a selective systemic herbicide used to control unwanted woody stems and herbaceous weed. It mimics auxin, a plant growth hormone, thus disrupting the normal growth and viability of plants. “Based on Forest Service use statistics for 2004 (the most recent year for which Forest Service pesticide use statistics are


November 2012 140

available), about 12,500 lbs. of triclopyr are used annually in Forest Service programs, and most of this use occurs in the southeastern region of the United States (Forest Service Region 8). “The use of triclopyr in Forest Service programs represents only about 1% of the agricultural use of triclopyr.” (SERA 2011c, p. 4) For the Wildcat Hollow Project, triclopyr would be used for silvicultural applications (site preparation, midstory removal, release), wildlife habitat improvement (midstory removal and overstory development), and eradication of non-native invasive plant species. The primary application methods for triclopyr would be directed foliar spray (backpack), frill girdle (hack and squirt/injection), or cut surface.

A Project-specific SERA worksheet (version 5.00.64; http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml) was completed for triethylamine salt (TEA) formulation of triclopyr at the maximum prescribed rate of 2 lbs. acid equivalent per acre applied by backpack directed foliar spray and is summarized as follows:

The central application volume would 25 gallons per acre, 40 gallons per acre for the upper volume application, and 5 gallons per acre for lower application volume.


Hazard Quotients would be at acceptable levels (less than 1) for all scenarios except the following acute (short term: mg/kg/event) exposures: accidental water consumption by spill to a child at the upper level of application, non-accidental consumption of contaminated fruit by an adult female at the upper level of application and consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female at the central and upper levels of application.

Hazard Quotients would be at acceptable levels (less than 1) for all scenarios except the following chronic (longer term: mg/kg/day) exposure: consumption of contaminated fruit or vegetation by an adult female at the upper level of application.

The current Forest Service risk assessment uses a conservative foliar half-life of 15 days for triclopyr−TEA (SERA 2011c, p. 201). Based on the available information, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that triclopyr should be classified as not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (SERA 2011c, p. 27).

3.4.12 Climate Change

Effects of proposed actions on climate change Forests play a major role in the global carbon cycle by storing carbon in live plant biomass (approximately 50% of dry plant biomass is carbon), in dead plant material and in soils. Forests contain three-fourths of all plant biomass on earth, and nearly half of all soil carbon. The amount stored represents the balance between absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis and releasing carbon into the atmosphere through live plant respiration, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (Krankina and Harmon, 2006). Through the process of photosynthesis, carbon is removed from the atmospheric pool. About half the carbon absorbed through photosynthesis is later released by plants through respiration as they use their own energy to grow. The rest is either stored in the plant, transferred to the soil where it may persist for a very long time in the form of organic matter, or transported through the food chain to support other forms of terrestrial life. When plants die and decompose, or when biomass or its ancient remains in the form of fossil fuels are burned, the original captured and stored carbon is released back to the atmosphere as CO2 and other carbon-based gases. In addition, when forests or other terrestrial ecosystems are disturbed through harvesting, conversion, or natural events such as fires, some of the carbon stored in the soils and organic matter, such as stumps, snags, and slash, is oxidized and released back to the atmospheric pool as CO2. The amount released varies, depending on


November 2012 141

subsequent land use and probably rarely is more than 50% of the original soil store (Salwasser, 2006). As forests become older, the amount of carbon released through respiration and decay can exceed that taken up in photosynthesis, and the total accumulated carbon levels off. This situation becomes more likely as stands grow overly dense and lose vigor. Wildfires are the greatest cause of carbon release from forests. At the global scale, if more carbon is released than is captured and stored through photosynthesis or oceanic processes, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) builds in the atmospheric pool. However, the greatest changes in forest sequestration and storage over time have been due to changes in land use and land use cover, particularly from forest to agriculture and more recently changes are due to conversions from forest to urban development, dams, highways, and other infrastructure (Malmsheimer, Heffernan, Brink, et al.). Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative Direct Effects: The proposed harvest operations and stem reduction activities would result in a release of carbon and reduce carbon storage in the forest both by removing organic matter (trees) and by increasing heterotrophic soil respiration. However, much of the carbon that is removed is offset by storage in forest products. Forest management that includes harvesting provides increased climate change mitigation benefits over time because wood-decay emissions of Co2 from wood products are delayed (Malmsheimer, Heffernan, Brink, et al.). Prescribed burning activities, although a carbon neutral process, would release CO2, other greenhouse gasses, and particulates into the atmosphere. However, implementing the proposed prescribed burns on a 3 to 7 year cycle would reduce fuel loading and could be expected to reduce fire intensity and severity as well. Indirect Effects:

Indirectly, implementation of the proposed actions would increase the overall health, vitality and growth within the project area, reduce the susceptibility to insects and disease, as well as reduce fuel accumulations and lower the risk for a catastrophic wildfire from occurring in the project area. This would serve as a way to increase carbon storage within the Project Area and mitigate carbon accumulation in the atmosphere. Cumulative Effects, All Alternatives:

As GHG emissions and carbon cycling are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with this Project or any number of projects. It is not expected that the effects of this Project or multiple projects can be specifically attributed the cumulative effects on global climate change. Effects of Climate Change on the Proposed Project. For some management proposals, climate change may affect a project. For example, the effects of decreased snowfall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location, such as a southern aspect or low elevation. However, for the Proposed Action Alternative, the No Herbicide Alternative, or the No Action Alternative, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from climate change on the project are anticipated. No Action Alternative

Direct Effects:

No management activities would occur under Alternative A, therefore no direct effects on greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and carbon cycling would occur. Indirect Effects:

Because no management activities would take place under this alternative, carbon would continue to be sequestered and stored in forest plants, trees, (biomass) and soil. Unmanaged, older forests can become net


November 2012 142

carbon sources, especially if probable loss due to wildfires are included (Malmsheimer, Heffernan, Brink, et al.). In the absence of prescribed fire, fuel loadings would continue to increase and accumulate on the forest floor. In the event of a wildfire, fuel loading would be higher, increasing the risks of catastrophic damage to natural resources. This would result in a large release of GHG and carbon into the atmosphere. By deferring timber harvest activities, the forests would continue to increase in density. Over time this could pose a risk to density dependent mortality, insects, and disease. This could result both in a release of carbon from tree mortality and decomposition as well as hinder the forests ability to sequester carbon from the environment because live, vigorous stands of trees retain a higher capacity to retain carbon.

3.4.13 Cultural Resources

Present Conditions

Known Cultural Resources. There are 34 archeological sites have been identified in or near the Project Area as a result of cultural resources inventory surveys. Based on scientific evaluation and consultation with the SHPO and Tribes, 25 of the sites were determined to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Nine of the sites will require more investigation to formally determine their eligibility and will need to be protected. .

Site Locations Not Yet Known. Cultural resource surveys are not complete for certain activities because additional planning may be required prior to implementation. These activities include, but are not limited to:

Prescribed burn unit boundary and associated fireline construction locations

Temporary roads, skid trails, and log landings outside areas already surveyed

Road reconstruction, maintenance, conversion, or decommissioning activities involving ground disturbance occurring outside areas already surveyed

New pond construction for wildlife water source

These areas will be surveyed and regulatory and tribal consultation completed prior to implementation. Effects Analysis

The scope of the analysis for potential effects to cultural resources includes the entire Wildcat Hollow Project Area (see Chapter 1.0 and Appendix “B” maps) and considers proposed activities within treatment areas (see Chapters 1.0 and 2.0), as well as access to these areas.

An effect to a cultural resource is the "…alteration to the characteristics of a historic property qualifying it for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register." (36 CFR 800.16(i)) Any project implementation activity that has potential to disturb the ground has potential to directly affect archeological sites, as does the use of fire as a management tool. Examples of specific activities outlined in the Wildcat Hollow Project that have potential to directly affect cultural resources include timber harvesting and associated log landings, skid trails, and temporary roads, prescribed burning and associated fireline construction, road maintenance or reconstruction where ground disturbance takes place outside existing right-of-way area, and pond construction for wildlife water source.

Proposed activities that do not have potential to affect cultural resources, and therefore, are not considered undertakings for purposes of this project include: non-commercial thinning, timber stand improvements, on-going maintenance of existing Forest roads or reconstruction of previously surveyed roads where ground disturbance does not take place outside existing road prisms and existing drainage features, rehabilitation/closure of temporary roads, log landings, and skid trails using non-ground disturbing methods, road decommissioning using non-ground disturbing methods, and non-native invasive plant species control using non-ground disturbing methods.

In general, proposed Project activities have the potential to affect cultural resources by encouraging increased visitor use to those areas of the Forest in which cultural resources are located. Increased visitor use of an area in which archeological sites are located can render the sites vulnerable to both intentional and unintentional


November 2012 143

damage. Intentional damage can occur through unauthorized digging in archeological sites and unauthorized collecting of artifacts from sites. Unintentional damage can result from such activities as driving motorized vehicles across archeological sites, as well as from other activities, principally related to dispersed recreation, that lead to ground disturbance. Effects may also include increased or decreased vegetation on protected sites due to increased light with canopy layer reduction outside of the protected buffer. Proposed Action Alternative and No Herbicide Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Proposed access changes (see §2.6.1.1, §3.4.8, and Road Status and Motor Vehicle Use Map, Appendix “B”), soil restoration work (see §3.4.2 and §3.4.3), and opening of forested areas from timber harvest (see Harvest and Road Work maps, Appendix “B”) can impact cultural resources. Surface artifacts or features may be exposed, disturbed or removed due to increased access and visibility.

Project components that have potential to directly affect the archeological sites include primarily timber harvest operations, prescribed fire, road management, and some wildlife management activities. Adverse effects to cultural resources resulting from Wildcat Hollow Project activities could be avoided provided site avoidance and site protection measures are properly applied to the nine historic properties (see Chapter 2, technical requirements/design criteria). In that instance, Project activities would not be expected to adversely affect archeological sites.

Cumulative Effects:

As noted in Section 2.7 (Other Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions), Forest Service activity in the Project Area and adjacent watershed areas has not been extensive. Project scoping and analysis have not disclosed any definitive plans for use on non-national forest lands in the Project Area. Cumulative effects to cultural resources are not expected to occur. Known or discovered historic properties will be monitored to ensure continued protection. No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Currently, archeological surface and subsurface site integrity in the Wildcat Hollow Project Area is subject to adverse effects from the buildup of hazardous fuels and the potential decline of unmanaged forest. These conditions pose the potential for increased tree mortality and wildfire occurrence and intensity. Fires occurring in areas with dense concentrations of combustible material have the potential to burn with greater intensity and duration, thereby altering the physical integrity and/or research value of archeological sites or site components. Resulting soil exposure can lead to an increase in erosion, thus disturbing or leading to a loss of archeological soil matrices and/or site components. With no change in current management activities and direction, adverse effects (and the potential for them) on a number of the archeological sites may continue. With the No Action Alternative, historic properties likely would continue to degrade. Where sites exist in currently accessible areas, such as along roads, there is potential for being impacted, disturbed, or vandalized due to accessibility. There would be no change in effects from the current condition, and the potential threat to integrity of cultural resources would remain unchanged. Cumulative Effects:

Cumulative effects are not expected to occur; there are no past or present actions affecting cultural resources, nor is there future actions planned that would affect cultural resources.


November 2012 144

Chapter 4.0: Interdisciplinary Team Members & Primary Authors In accordance with regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, an interdisciplinary approach was used for planning the proposed forest management activities described and assessed herein. As prescribed by regulations and policy, an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) was established by the project Responsible Official, the District Ranger for the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District of the Ouachita National Forest. The interdisciplinary approach requires that “through interactions among its members, the team shall integrate knowledge of the physical, biological, economics and social sciences, and the environmental design arts in the planning process. The team shall consider problems collectively, rather than separating them along disciplinary lines.” (36 CFR 219.5; also, see Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 Chapter 10). This Environmental Assessment was conducted and this report prepared by an Interdisciplinary Team comprised of staff members of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District and Forest Supervisor Staff of the Ouachita National Forest. Team members and their positions are as follow:

Name IDT Position Staff Position Responsibility

Diana Angelo Member Zone Archeologist Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Heritage Resources & Civil Rights

Tim Knight Member Forester−Timber Management Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Economics/Financial Analysis, Proposed Road Work

Mary Lynn Mentz Member Wildlife Biologist Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Wildlife/Fish/Plants, BE, MIS, PETS,

Stanley Mason Support Soil Scientist Ouachita National Forest

Soils

Kurt Radcliff Member Fire Management Officer Jessieville−Winona−Fourche- Ranger District

Prescribed Burning

Donnie Robertson Support GIS Editor and Cartography Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Maps & GIS

Sarah Thompson Member Wildlife Biologist Trainee Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Wildlife/Fish/Plants, BE, MIS, PETS,

Rudy Thornton Team Leader Forester−Planning/GIS/NEPA Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Coordinator & Editor, Air Quality, Wildfire & Fuels, Water Resources, Scenery, Health & Safety

Robin Vaughn Member Forester−Recreation/Special Uses Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Scenery/Recreation/Roadless/Special Uses

Rickey Williamson Member Forester−Silviculturalist Jessieville−Winona−Fourche Ranger District

Silviculture, Vegetation, & Transportation/Road Analysis

Name Role Staff Position – Line Officer Responsibility

Megan Moynihan Responsible Official

District Ranger Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District

Decision Maker


November 2012 145

Chapter 5.0: Persons and Agencies Contacted and/or Consulted Public involvement in forest planning is a key element of the National Environmental Policy Act provision for considering effects of proposed projects associated with federal agencies. Scoping is required for all Forest Service actions (FSH 1909.15 Chapter 10, 36 CFR § 220). Scoping is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR § 1500. No single scoping technique is required or prescribed (36 CFR § 220.4) The proposed Wildcat Hollow Project lies within the Fourche Unit of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District of the Ouachita National Forest. The Fourche Unit of the Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District maintain a list of persons and organizations that have previously indicated an interest in being kept informed as to management activities proposed for Forest resources within the Fourche Unit of the District. The list of interested persons or organizations receiving scoping notice for the Project is as follows:

Bates, Vernon

Kyriakakis, Basil

Medina, Alisa

Miller, Jerry

Regan, David

Saugey, David

Vincent, Bo

Williams, Jerry

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission Hot Springs Regional Office

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission

State Archeologist, Arkansas Archeological Survey

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma

Chickasaw Nation

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Danville Waterworks

National Wild Turkey Federation

Osage Nation

Quapaw Tribe

Plainview Water Department

Ola Waterworks


November 2012 146

Chapter 6.0: Literature Cited and/or Reviewed Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 6:9-23.

Alterman, L. E., J. C. Bednarz, and R. E. Thill. 2005. Use of group-selection and seed-tree cuts by three early-successional migratory species in Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 117(4): 353-363.

Alig, Ralph J., David J. Lewis, Jennifer J. Swenson. 2005. Changes in land use, forest fragmentation, and policy responses. Proceedings of the Conference on Emerging Issues Along Urban/Rural Interfaces: Linking Science and Safety, March 13-16, 6 p.

Allen, C.R., R.S. Lutz, and S. Demarais. 1995. Red imported fire ant impact on Northern bobwhite populations. Ecological Applications 5(3): 632-638. Made available through JSTOR archives, online, 2010.

Angelo, Diana Rose, T. Dozier, L. Ray, J. Chambliss, W. Whisenhunt, G. Oseguera, and D. Smith. 2011. An Archeological Survey for a Proposed Timber Sale Project and Associated Actions, Wildcat Hollow Project Area, Compartments 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, Fourche Ranger District, Yell County. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 347. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Anwar, Ayesha. 2001. Does the Age of a Tree Effect Carbon Storage? Goddard Institute for Space Studies (http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/paa/2001/anwar/).

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Permitted Facility Emissions and Stack Data (ISTEPS Database) (http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/air/isteps/isteps.asp).

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Section 303(d) impaired water bodies. (http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/pdfs/303d_list_2008.pdf)

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. Regulation Number 2 Amended, Regulation Establishing Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Arkansas. 104 p. (http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_040517.pdf)

Arkansas Department Pollution Control and Ecology [now ADEQ]. 1987. Physical, chemical and biological characteristics of least-disturbed reference streams in Arkansas’ ecoregions. Volume II. Little Rock.

ARFish Database. 2001. Ouachita National Forest. User Friendly Version (L. Hlass USFS Fisheries Biologist, 11-16-2001).

Arkansas Forestry Commission. 2002. Arkansas Forestry Best Management Practices For Water Protection. http://www.forestry.state.ar.us/bmp/bmp_review.html.

Arkansas Forestry Commission. 2007. Arkansas Smoke Management Guidelines. Available at http://www.forestry.state.ar.us/manage/smoke_management.pdf.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2009. Arkansas wild turkey brood survey.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. 2010. Arkansas wild turkey brood survey.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Website. 2010. http://www.agfc.com.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2007. Element of occurrence records database. ANHC No. F-USFS-07-055. 12, December 2007. Little Rock.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2010. Website information for Ozark chinquapin. http://www.naturalheritage.org/program/rare-species/federally-listed/plant-profiles/ozark_chinquapin.asp.

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission. 2010. Website occurrence records for Scott and Yell Counties. http://www.naturalheritage.org/program/rare-species/federally-listed/.asp.

Askins, R.A. 2000. Restoring North America’s birds. Yale University Press, New Haven Connecticut. 320 p.


November 2012 147

Aubrey, K.B., and C.M. Raley. 2002. Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2):392-406.

Avery, Sheri 1993. Cultural Resources Survey for Proposed Timber Sale, Wildlife Pond, Wildlife Burn, Site Regeneration, and Road Construction Projects, Fourche and Cold Springs Ranger Districts, Compartments 303/441, 482/484, 485/486, and 508, Ouachita National Forest, Yell County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural

Resources Report No. 071. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Baker, M.B. Jr. 1988. Hydrologic and water quality effects of fire. In: Effects of Fire in Management of Southwestern Natural Resources. Tucson, AZ.

Baltosser, W. 2007. Flitting with disaster. Arkansas Wildlife Magazine, September-October. Little Rock, AR.

Bates, V. 1992. Jessieville Ranger District sensitive plant species survey. Volume II. A report to the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, Little Rock; Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock; and USDA-Forest Service, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902.

Bates, V. 1993. An endangered species status report: Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias, in Arkansas. A report submitted to the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Little Rock.

Bates, V. 2000. Additional surveys for the endangered species harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias) in the Ouachita Mountain region. A report submitted to the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS.

Beasley, R.S., E. L. Miller and E.R. Lawson. 1987. Chemical Properties of Soils and Streams in Natural and Disturbed Forest Ecosystems in the Ouachita Mountains. Publication No. 132. Technical Completion Report Research Project G-1212-02. Arkansas Water Resources Research Center 93 p.

Bennett, W. J., Jr. 1981. Timber Roads Survey: Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

Bennett, W. J., Jr. 1983. An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of Several Proposed Exchange Tracts in the Ouachita National Forest, West-Central Arkansas.

Birdsey, R.A.. 2001. Forest Management and Carbon Sequestration. USDA-Forest Service, Global Change Research Program. Presentation to Regional Partnerships in Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration. Lexington, Kentucky. November 6-7, 2001.

Birdsey, R.A., R. Alig, and D. Adams. 2000. Mitigation Activities in the Forest Sector to Reduce Emissions and Enhance Sinks of Greenhouse Gases. USDA-Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS−GTR−59.2000.

Birdsey, R.A and L.S. Heath. 1997. The forest carbon budget of the United States. In USDA Forest Service

Global Change Research Program Highlights. General Technical Report NE-237. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, PA, pp. 81-85.

Birdsey, R.A, A.J. Plantinga, and L.S. Heath. 1993. Past and prospective carbon storage in United States forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 58:33-34.

Blair, R.M. and D.P. Feduccia. 1977. Midstory hardwoods inhibit deer forage in loblolly pine plantations. Journal of Wildlife Management 41(4):677-684.

Bonan, G.B. 2008. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science. Vol. 320. 13 June 2008. www.sciencemag.org.

Bonar, R.L. 2000. Availability of pileated woodpecker cavities and use by other species. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):52-59.

Bost, S. 2009. The Ozark Chinquapin Foundation: working to save an Arkansas treasure. Pages 8-9, In Claytonia, Newsletter of the Arkansas Native Plant Society. Spring-Summer, Volume 29 (1).

Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgerson. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR: USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55 p.


November 2012 148

Burger, L.W. Jr. 2001. Northern bobwhite. Pp. 122-146, In, Wildlife of Southern forests: habitat and management. (J.G. Dickson, ed.) Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington 480 p.

Burger, L.W., D. A. Miller, and R. I. Southwick. 1999. Economic impact of northern bobwhite hunting in the southeastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 27(4):1010-1018.

Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007a. Effects of prescribed fire and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the blue ridge province in North Carolina. Biological Conservation 134: 393-404.

Campbell, J.W., J.L. Hanula, and T.A. Waldrop. 2007b. Observations of Speyeria diana (Diana Fritillary) utilizing forested areas in North Carolina that have been mechanically thinned and burned. Southeastern Naturalist 6(1):179-182.

Carlton, C.E. and L. Spencer Nobles. 1996. “Distribution of Speyeria diana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) in the highlands of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with comments on conservation.” Entomological News 107(4): 213-219.

Clingenpeel, J. A., and K. N. Leftwich. 2004. Determining watershed condition for aquatic viability and cumulative effects at the planning level. Process paper for forest plan revisions. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

Clingenpeel, J.A. 1989. Above and Below Storm Sampling BMP Effectiveness: FY 1989 Monitoring Results. Internal report on file at the Ouachita National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 2 p.

Clingenpeel, J.A. 1990. “Baseline Water Quality Stations Effectiveness Monitoring Results.” Internal report on file at the Ouachita National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 2 p.

Coats, R.N. and T.O Miller. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watershed: A hydrologic and regulatory dilemma. Environ. Manage. 5:147-160.

Cooper, R.D., D.H. Van Lear, and P.H. Brose. 2000. Oak advanced regeneration following seasonal prescribed fires in mixed hardwood shelterwood stands. Paper presented at the 10th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Conference, Shreveport, LA, February 16-18, 1999.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater

Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-79/31. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

Cox, J. and C. Jones. 2008. Bachman’s sparrow and the order of the Phoenix. Birding Magazine (May/June), American Birding Association. P 38-45.

Cox, J. and G. Slater. 2007. Home range and survival characteristics of male Bachman’s Sparrows in an old-growth forest managed with breeding season burns. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:263-269.

Cox, J. and B. Widener. 2008. Lightning-Season Burning: Friend or Foe of Breeding Birds? Tall Timber Research Station and Land Conservancy Report, Miscellaneous Report. 16pp.

Cram, D.S., R.E. Masters, F.S. Guthery, D.M. Engle, and W.G. Montague. 2002. “Northern bobwhite population and habitat response to pine-grassland restoration.” Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4): 1031-1039.

Crow, T.R., W.C. Johnson, and C.S. Adkisson. 1994. Fire recruitment of Quercus in a post agricultural field. American Midland Naturalist 131:84-97.

Daniel, Dennis. 2009. Letter written to the Ouachita National Forest in support of prescribed burning for local newspapers. National Wild Turkey Federation, Regional Biologist. Copy available from District offices.

Davis, Hester A. (editor). 1982. A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series 21. Fayetteville, AR.


November 2012 149

Davidson, C.L. and D. Gosse. 2003. Status and distribution of freshwater mussels (Unionacea) inhabiting the Saline River/Holly Creek Bottoms area, Saline County, Arkansas. 57:187-192.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson. 1991. “Forest and rangeland birds of the United States: natural history and habitat use.” USDA-Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 668. 625 p.

Dickson, J.G. 2001. “Wild turkey.” pp. 108-121, In Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. J.G. Dickson (ed.). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington. 480 p.

Dickson, J.G, F.R. Thompson, R.N. Conner, R. and K.E. Franzeb. 1993. Effects of Silviculture on Neotropical Migratory Birds in Central and Southeastern Oak Pine Forests. In: Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel (eds.). Status and management of Neotropical Migratory Birds: September 21-25, 1992, Estes Park, Colorado. Gen. Tech. Rep RM-229. Fort Collins, Colo.: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA-Forest Service: 374-385.

Dickson, J.G., and T.B. Wigley. 2001. “Managing forests for wildlife.” Pp. 83-94, In Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. J.G. Dickson (ed.). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington. 480 p.

Dimmick, R.M. Gudlin, D. McKenzie, and R. Wells. 2004. The Northern bobwhite conservation initiative: A plan for quail population recovery. Quail Unlimited Magazine (2002, article updated 2004).

Dobrowolski, J.P., W.H. Blackburn, and H.A. Pearson. 1992. Changes to infiltration and interrill erosion from long-term prescribed burning in Louisiana. Water Resources Bulletin. 28:12 287-298.

Dodd, C.K., Jr. and B. S. Cade. 1998. Movement patterns and the conservation of amphibians breeding in small, temporary wetlands. Conservation Biology 12(2): 331–339.

Dozier, Thomas and Jamie Chambliss. 2008. An Archeological Survey for A Proposed Salvage Timber Sale and Fireline Project on Long Mountain, Fourche Ranger District, Perry and Yell Counties, Arkansas. Ouachita

Cultural Resources Report No. 289. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Dunn, J. L. and K. L. Garrett. 1997. A field guide to warblers of North America. Peterson Field Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. 656 p.

Dunning, J.B. 2006. Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Accessed February 2009).

Eddleman, W.R., R.L. Clawson, and J. Eberly. 2007. Birds of shortleaf pine forests in Missouri: an historical and contemporary perspective. pp 168-175, In Kabrick, J.M., D.C. Dey, and D. Gwaze, eds. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium; November 7-9, 2006; Springfield, MO. General Technical Report NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: USDA-Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Edwards, P.J. and C.A. Troendle. 2008. Water Yield and Hydrology. In: Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management An Eastern Synthesis, Audin, L.J. (Ed.). Ch. 12, p. 57.

Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005a. Initial effects of prescribed fire on quality of soil solution and streamwater in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. S. J. Applied. For. 29: 5-15.

Elliot, K.J. and J.M. Vose. 2005b. Effects of understory prescribed burning on shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.)/mixed-hardwood forests. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 132(2), 2005, pp. 236-251.

Engstrom, R. T., R.L. Crawford, and W.W. Baker. 1984. Breeding bird populations in relation to changing forest structure following fire exclusion: a 15 year study. Wilson Bulletin 96(3):437-450.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. “Interim air quality policy on wildland and prescribed fires.” USEPA Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Washington, D.C. (5/15/98). http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarp./t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. “Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule,” 40 CFR Part 51, July 1, 1999 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarp./t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf.


November 2012 150

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. “AIRData.” http://www.epa.gov/aqspubl1/.

Erickson, H.E., and R. White. 2007. Invasive plant species and the joint fire science program. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-707, USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

Etchieson, Meeks. 1990. Guidelines for Completing Cultural Resource Surveys on the Ouachita National

Forest. USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Executive Order No. 11988. Floodplain Management., 42 Fed. Reg. 26951 (May 24, 1977).

Executive Order No. 11990. Protection of Wetlands. 42 Fed. Reg. 26961(May 24, 1977).

Executive Order No. 13443. Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation 72 Fed. Reg. 46537 (Aug. 20, 2007).

Faabor, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1993. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone: a perspective for managers In: Deborah M. Finch and Peter W. Stangel (eds.) Status and management of neotropical migratory birds: September 21-25, 1992, Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service: 331-338.

Feldhamer, G.A. 2002. Acorns and white-tailed deer: interrelationships in forest ecosystems. Pp. 215-223, In Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. (W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy, eds.) The Johns Hopkins University Press 432p.

Fenwood, J.D., D.A. Saugey, and C.A. Racchini. 1985. Fall deer food selection in the Ouachita National Forest. Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science. 39:123-124.

Fenwood, J.D., D.F. Urbston, and R.F. Harlow. 1984. Determining deer habitat capability in Ouachita National Forest pine stands. Proceedings Annual Conference Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 38: 13-22.

Ferguson, S.A. 1999. “Ventilation Climate Information System (VCIS)”, USDA-Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera.

Flemming, S.P., G.L. Holloway, E.J. Watts, and P.S. Lawrence. 1999. Characteristics of foraging trees selected by pileated woodpeckers in New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(2):461-469.

Fletcher, K. and B. Freedman. 1986. Effects of the herbicides glyphosate, 2,4,5-T, and 2,4-D on forest litter decomposition. Can J For Res 16:6–9.

Fowler, C.T. 2003. Human Health Impacts of Forest Fires in the Southern United States: A Literature Review. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, Vol. 7. Pp. 39-59.

Gainer, A.F. 1921. Nesting of Bachmans sparrow. The Wilson Bulletin 33(1):2-4.

Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2008. Status of rare and endangered mussels in southeastern Oklahoma. The Southwestern Naturalist 53(1):45-50.

Glassberg, J. 2002. Butterflies of North America. Michael Friedman Publishing Group, Inc. New York. 202 p.

Gucinski, H.; M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes. 2000. Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service 117 p.

Guldin, J.M. 2004a. Ouachita and Ozark Mountains symposium: Ecosystem management research. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–74. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Pages 164–172.


November 2012 151

Guldin, J.M. 2004b. Reproduction cutting methods for naturally regenerated pine stands in the south. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–75. Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Chapter 9. p. 83-95.

Guldin, J.M. and B.T. Wigley. 1998. Intensive management−can the south really live without it? Transactions of the 63rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference, 1998 March 20-25, Orlando, FL. Washington D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute: 362-375.

Haggerty, T.M. 2000. A geographic study of the vegetation structure of Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila

aestivalis) breeding habitat. Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science, 71(3):120-129.

Haggerty, T.M. 1998. Vegetation structure of Bachman’s sparrow breeding habitat and its relationship to home range. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(1):45-50.

Haggerty, T.M. 1995. Nest-site selection, nest design and nest-entrance orientation in Bachman’s sparrow. The Southwestern Naturalist 40(1):62-76.

Haggerty, T.M. 1988. Aspects of the breeding biology and productivity of Bachman’s sparrow in central Arkansas. Wilson Bulletin 100(2):247-255.

Haggerty, T.M. 1986. Reproductive ecology of Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) in central Arkansas. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 173 p.

Haikey, Larry D. 1996. Cultural Resources Survey for a Proposed Timber Harvest and Related Projects in Compartments 478, 479, and 483, Fourche Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest, Yell County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 160. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. “Land manager’s guide to the birds of the South.” The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 437 p.

Hanula, J.L. and D.D. Wade. 2001. Effects of 40 years of Winter Burning in Longleaf Pine on Insects and Other Arthropods. Longleaf Alliance Report No. 5.

Hardcastle, E.L. and D.X. Williams. 2001. A status report on harperella, Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias, in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 55:177-178.

Hardin, K.I., T.S. Baskett, and K.E. Evans. 1982. Habitat of Bachman’s sparrows breeding on Missouri glades. The Wilson Bulletin 94(2):208-212.

Harris, J.L., W.R. Posey, C.L. Davidson, J.L. Farris, S.R. Oetker, J.N. Stoeckel, B.G. Crump, M.S. Barnett,

H.C. Martin, M.W. Matthews, J.H. Seagraves, N.J. Wentz, R. Winterringer, C. Osborne, and A.D.

Christian. 2009. Unionoida (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas, Third Status Review. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 63:50-86.

Harris, J.L., P.J. Rust, A.C. Christian, W.R. Posey II, C.L. Davidson, and G.L. Harp. 1997. Revised status of rare and endangered Unionacea (Mollusca: Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 51:66-89.

Harris, J.L. 1992. Survey of the freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Unionidae) of the South Fourche La Fave River and major tributaries. Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, AR.

Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1988. Status survey of Lampsilis powelli (Lea, 1852). Final Report to Office of Endangered Species, USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS.

Harris, J.L. and M.E. Gordon. 1990. Arkansas Mussels. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.

Harris, L.D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest. The University of Chicago Press. 211 p.

Harveson, L.A., F.S. Guthrie, and E.C. Hellgren. 2004. Invertebrate consumption by breeding Northern bobwhites and its relation to production. The Southwestern Naturalist 49(4):472-477.


November 2012 152

Hayes, R., S. Riffell, R. Minnis, and B. Holder. 2009. Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 8(3):411-426.

Healy, W.M. 2002. Managing eastern oak forests for wildlife. Pp. 317-332, In Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. (W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy, eds.) The Johns Hopkins University Press 432 p.

Helms, J.A., editor. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda MD. 210 p.

Henderson, D., and L.D. Hedrick, eds. 1991. Restoration of old growth forests in the Interior Highlands of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Conference. Winrock International, Morrilton, AR, September 19-20, 1990. 190 p.

Homan, J.M., N.M. Girondo, and C.J. Gagen. 2005. Quantification and predicted stream dryness in the Interior Highlands. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 59:95-100.

Huebschman, J.J., and T.B. Bragg. 2000. Response of Regal fritillary (Speyeria idalia Drury) to spring burning in an eastern Nebraska tallgrass prairie, USA. Natural Areas Journal 20(4):386-388.

Hunter, C.G. 1988. Wildflowers of Arkansas. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, Arkansas. 296 p.

Hunter, C.G. 1995. Trees, shrubs and vines of Arkansas. Second Edition. The Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock, Arkansas 205 p.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. M. L. Hunter, ed. Cambridge University Press, New York. 698 p.

Hunter, W.C., J.G. Dickson, D.N. Pashley, and P.B. Hamel. 2001. “Bird communities of southern forests.” Pp. 322-349, In Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. J.G. Dickson (ed.). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington. 480 p.

Hura, C.E., and T.R. Crow. 2004. Woody debris as a component of ecological diversity in thinned and unthinned northern hardwood forests. Natural Areas Journal 24:57-64.

Ilhardt, B.L., E.S. Verry, and B.J. Palik. 2000. Defining riparian areas. Pp 23-42 In Riparian Management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. (E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, and C.A. Dolloff, eds). Lewis Publishers, Washington DC. 402 pp.

Imhoff, Steve. 1976. An Archeological Survey of Twenty U.S. Forest Service Exchange Tracts, Yell County, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, PO# S1722. Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Imhoff, Steve. 1978. An Archeological Survey of Thirteen USDA Forest Service Exchange Tracts, Perry and Yell Counties, Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Project No. 225. Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Jackson, W., L. Lavdas, D. Loberger, and D.N. Kelly. 1999. Help for the User Interface for VSMOKE GIS and VSMOKE Version 2.2.1,

James, D.A. and J.C. Neal. 1986. Arkansas birds: Their distribution and abundance. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 402 p.

Johnson, K.H., D. Wear, R. Oren, R.O. Teskey, F. Sanchez, R. Will, J. Butnor, D. Markewitz, D. Richter,

T. Rials, H.L. Allen, J. Seiler, D. Ellsworth, C. Maier, G. Katul, and P.M. Dougherty. 2001. Carbon Sequestration and Southern Pine Forests. Journal of Forestry. 99(4): 14-21

Jones, J.D.J., and M.J. Chamberlain. 2004. Efficacy of herbicides and fire to improve vegetative conditions for northern bobwhites in mature pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32 (4):1077-1084.

Jones, R.L., W.T. Slack, and P.D. Hartfield. 2005. The freshwater mussels (Mollusca:Bivalvia: Unionidae) of Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 4(1):77-92.

Jorgensen, R. and C.G. Wells. 1986. Foresters’ primer in nutrient cycling. USDA Forest. Service Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-37. 42 p.


November 2012 153

Kennamer, J.E. 2008. Letter to Arkansas Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor fully supporting the use of prescribed fire in turkey management on the Ouachita National Forest. 17 September. National Wild Turkey Federation Headquarters, POB 530, Edgefield, SC 29824-0530. Copy available at District Office.

Klaus, N.A., S.A. Rush, T.S. Keyes, J. Petrick, and R.J. Cooper. 2010. Short-term effects of fire on breeding birds in Southern Appalachian upland forests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(3):518-531.

Knighton, M.D. 1977. Hydrologic response and nutrient concentrations following spring burns in an oak-hickory forest. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 627-632.

Kolka, R.K. 2008. Effects of Fire and Fuels Management on Water Quality in Eastern North America. In: Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management An Eastern Synthesis, Audin, L.J. (Ed.). Ch. 13, p. 26.

Kroll, J.C., R.N. Conner, and R. R. Fleet. 1980. “Woodpeckers and the southern pine beetle.” Southern Pine Beetle Handbook. USDA Combined Forest Pest Research and Development Program. Agriculture Handbook No. 564. Washington, D.C.

Ku, T.T. and E.R. Lawson. 1993. Soil Nutrient Study Data Analysis and Interpretation – Ouachita National Forest. Report submitted from Dept. of Forest Resources, U of A at Monticello. 16 p. unpublished. January.

Kuddes-Fischer, L.M., and M.A. Arthur. 2002. Response of the understory vegetation and tree regeneration to a single prescribed fire in oak-pine forests. Natural Areas Journal 22:43-52.

Kulhavy, D.L., and R.N. Conner (eds). 1986. “Wilderness and natural areas in the eastern United States: a management challenge.” Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, Texas 416 p.

La Sorte, F.A., F.R. Thompson, III, M.K. Trani, and T.J. Mersmann. 2007. Population trends and habitat occurrence of forest birds on Southern National Forests, 1992-2004. General Technical Report NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 260 p.

Liechty, H.O., K.R. Luckow, and J.M. Guldin. 2005. Soil chemistry and nutrient regimes following 17-21 years of shortleaf pine-bluestem restoration in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Forest Ecology and Management 204: 345-357.

Leichty, H.O., Shelton, M.G., Luckow, K.R. and Turton, D.J. 2002. “Impacts of Shortleaf Pine-Hardwood Forest Management on Soils in the Ouachita Highlands: A Review.” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 26, No. 1, pages 43-51.

Liu, Yongqiang. 2004. “Variability of wildland fire emissions across the contiguous United States”. Atmospheric Environment 38, pp. 3489-3499.

Lochmiller, R.L., R.E. Masters, and S.T. McMurray. 1994. Wildlife stand improvement in the Ouachita National Forest: Effects of midstory vegetation removal and fire on small mammal communities. Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 24 p.

Luckow, K.R., and J.M. Guldin. 2007. Soil Compaction Study of 20 Timber-harvest Units on the Ouachita National Forest. In: M. Furniss, C. Clifton, K. Ronnenberg; eds., 2007, Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Sciences Conference, San Diego, CA, 18-22 October, 2004, PNW-GTR-689, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 341-351.

Luckow, K. 1998. “Soil compaction monitoring of 20 timber harvest unit subplots on the Ouachita National Forest. In: Appendix D of the Environmental Assessment for Amendment No 27 to the Forest Plan for Changing Applicable Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines Related to Soil Compaction and Normal Operating Seasons.” May, 1998. USDA-Forest Service Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Marland, G., B. Schlamadinger, and L. Canella. 1997. Forest management for mitigation of CO2 emissions: how much mitigation and who gets credits? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 2:303-318.


November 2012 154

Martin, J.A., W. E. Palmer, D.P. Grimes, and J.P. Carroll. 2010. Mortality of adult Colinus virginianus L. (Northern Bobwhite) from prescribed fire. Southeastern Naturalist 9(1):181–183.

Masters, R.E., D.M. Engle and R. Robinson. 1993. Effects of timber harvest and periodic fire on soil chemical properties in the Ouachita Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 17, pp. 139-145.

Masters, R.E., R.L. Lochmiller, S.T. McMurry, and G.A. Buckenhofer. 1998. “Small mammal response to pine-grassland restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 26(1): 148-158.

Masters, R.E., J.E. Skeen, and J. Whitehead. 1995. “Preliminary fire history of McCurtain County Wilderness Area and implications for red-cockaded woodpecker management”. Pp. 290-302, D. L. Kulhavy, R. G. Hooper, and R. Costa, (eds). Red-cockaded woodpecker: species recovery, ecology and management. Center for Applied Studies, Stephen F. Austin University, Nacogdoches, Texas. 551 p.

Masters, R.E., and J. Waymire. 2000. “The effects of timber harvest and fire frequency on wildlife and wildlife habitat in the Ouachita Mountains.” Oklahoma State University and Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. 44 p.

Masters, R.E., and C.W. Wilson, 1994. Effects of midstory vegetation removal and fire on breeding birds and plant community composition in Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters. Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR 71902. 160 p.

Masters, R.E., C.W. Wilson, G.A. Bukenhofer, and M.E. Payton. 1996. Effects of pine-grassland restoration for red-cockaded woodpeckers on white-tailed deer forage production. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1):77-84.

McAllister, C.T., H.W. Robison, and M.E. Slay. 2009. The Arkansas endemic fauna: An update with additions, deletions, a synthesis of new distributional records, and changes in nomenclature. Texas Journal of Science 61(3):203-218.

McDaniel, V. 2005. The benefits of fire: Burning for biodiversity. Southeastern Biology 52(1):28-31.

McMahon, C.K. 1999. Forest fires and smoke impacts on human health and air quality in the USA. In: [Editors unknown] , eds. Proceedings TAPPI International Environmental Conference April 18-21. Nashville, TN: TAPPI Press. 2: 443-453.

McMahon, C.K. and S.N. Tsoukalas. 1978. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarons in Forest Fire Smoke. Carcinogenesis, Vol 3: Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, edited by P.W. Jones and R.I. Freudenthal. Raven Press, New York. Pp. 6-73.

McShea W. J., and W. M. Healy editors. 2002. Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 432 pp.

Miller, E. L., R. S. Beasley, and E. R. Lawson. 1988. Forest harvest and site preparation effects on stormflow and peakflow of ephemeral streams in the Ouachita Mountains. J. Environ. Qual., 17(2), 212–218.

Miller, E. L., R. S. Beasley and E. R. Lawson. 1986. Storm flow, sedimentation and water quality responses following silvicultural treatments in the Ouachita Mountains. pp. 117-129. In Proceedings: Forestry and Water Quality : A Mid-South Symposium. University of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR.

Miller, E.L, R.S. Beasley, and J.C. Covert. 1985a. Forest road sediments: Production and deliver to streams. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Forestry and water quality: a mid-South symposium. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: 164-176.

Miller, E.L, R.S. Beasley, and E.R. Lawson. 1985b. Stormflow, Sedimentation, and Water Quality Responses Following Silvicultural Treatments in the Ouachita Mountains. Proceedings of Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium. Department of Forest Resources University of Arkansas, Monticello p.117-129.

Miller, K.V. 2001. “White-tailed deer.” Pp. 95-107, In Wildlife of southern forests: habitat and management. J. G. Dickson (ed.). Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, Washington. 480 p.


November 2012 155

Moran, M. D. and C. D. Baldridge. 2002. Distribution of the Diana fritillary, Speyeria diana (Nymphalidae) in Arkansas, with notes on nectar plant and habitat preference. Journal of the Lepidopterist’s Society 56(3):162-165.

Mueller, J.M., C.B. Dabbert, S. Demarais, and A.R. Forbes. 1999. Northern bobwhite chick mortality caused by red imported fire ants. Journal of Wildlife management 63(4):1291-1298.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

National Wild Turkey Federation. 2006. Spring burns help wildlife habitat and wild turkeys. March 15, 2006 Website Newsletter.

Neal, J.C. and W.G. Montague. 1991. Past and present distribution of the red-cockaded woodpecker, Picoides

borealis, in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 45:71-75.

Neary, D.G., and J.B. Currier. 1982. Impacts of wildfire and watershed restoration on water quality in South Carolina’s Blue Ridge Mountains. South. J. Appl. For. 6(2): 81-90.

Neihardt, Charlene L. 1994. “BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Using Above and Below Storm Sampling FY 1992.” Internal report on file at the Ouachita National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 2 p.

Noguchi, G., T. Augspurger, and J. Dwyer. 2007. Clearing the water for mussels. Endangered Species Bulletin. March.

Opler, P.A. and V. Malikul. 1998. Genus Speyeria. Page. 236, In Eastern butterflies. Peterson Field Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Palmer, W.E., K.M. Robertson, and R.E. Masters. 2004. The culture of fire in the southeast. Pages 354-368 In: Rahn, J (ed.). Transactions of the Sixty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 16-20, 2004, Spokane, WA. Wildlife Management Institute. 826 p.

Pan, Yude, R. A. Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, W.A. Kurz, O.L. Phillips, A. Shvidenko,

S.L. Lewis, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, R.B. Jackson, S. Pacala, A.D. McGuire, S. Piao, A. Rautiainen, S.

Sitch, D. Hayes. 2011. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Sciencexpress / www.sciencexpress.org / 14 July 2011 / Page / 10.1126/science.1201609; Downloaded from www.sciencemag.org. 10 p.

Perlin, J. 2001. The Tree of Life. Eco-Link Volume 12, Number 3.

Perry, D.A. 1994. Forest ecosystems. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, MD. 649 p.

Perry, Roger W. 2011. A Review of Fire Effects on Bats and Bat Habitat in the Eastern Oak Region. Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference, May 17-19, 2011, Springfield, MO. GTR-NRS-P-12. pp. 170-191.

Perry, R.W. and R.E. Thill. 2003. Initial effects of reproduction cutting treatments on residual hard mast production in the Ouachita Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27(4): 253-258.

Perry, R.W., R.E. Thill, D.G. Peitz, and P.A. Tappe. 1999. Effects of different silvicultural systems on initial soft mast production. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(4): 915-923.

Pinto, J.P., L.D. Grant, et al. 1999 [Lima, Peru, 6-9 October 1998]. In: Health Guidelines For Vegetation Fire Events Background Papers [World Health Organization]. Edited by Goh, K-T, D. Schwela, J. G. Goldammer, and O. Simpson.

Plantinga, A.J., RJ. Alig, H. Eichman and D.J. Lewis. 2007. Linking Land-Use Projections and Forest Fragmentation Analysis. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-570. Portland, OR: USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Station. 41 p.


November 2012 156

Porter, W.F. 1992. “Habitat requirements.” Pp. 202-213, The wild turkey: biology and management. Dickson, J.G. (ed.). Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 463 p.

Potts, S.G., B. Vulliamy, A. Dafni, G. Ne’eman, C. O’Toole, S Roberts, and P. Willmer. 2003. Response of plant-pollinator communities to fire: changes in diversity, abundance and floral reward structure. Oikos 101:103-112.

Reice, S.R. 2001. The silver lining: The benefits of natural disasters. Princeton University Press. 218 p.

Reinhardt, T.E., R.D. Ottmar, and A.J.S. Hanneman. 2000. “Smoke exposure among firefighters at prescribed burns in the Pacific Northwest.” Res. Pap. PNW-RP-526. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 45 p.

Renken, R.B, and E.P. Wiggers. 1993. Habitat characteristics related to pileated woodpecker densities in Missouri. Wilson bulletin 105:77-83.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W.

Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Robinson, M.S., T.R. Anthony, S.R. Littau, P. Herckes, X. Nelson, G. S. Poplin and J.L. Burgess. 2008.

Occupational PAH Exposures during Prescribed Pile Burns. Ann. Occup. Hyg., Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 497-508.

Robison, H.W. 1984. “Occurrence and distribution of the fishes of the U.S. National Forest regions, Arkansas. Part I. Ouachita National Forest.” Prepared for the USDA-Forest Service Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. (available Hot Springs, Arkansas.)

Robison, H.W. and T.M. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 536 p.

Robison, H.W. 1992. Distribution and status of the Ouachita River form of the longnose darter in the Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Final Report to Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. 57 p.

Robison, H.W. and R.T. Allen. 1995. Only in Arkansas: A study of the endemic plants and animals of the state. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 121 p.

Robison, H.W. 2001. Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Final Report to the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. November.

Robison, H.W. 2005. Distribution and status of the Kiamichi shiner, Notropis ortenburgeri Hubbs (Cyprinidae). Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 59:137-147.

Robison, H., C. McAllister, C. Carlton, and G. Tucker. 2008. The Arkansas endemic biota: An update with additions and deletions. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science 62:84-96.

Rodewald, A.D. 2003. Decline of oak forests and implications for wildlife conservation. Natural Areas Journal 23:368-371.

Rogers, M.E., L.K. Halls, and J.G. Dickson. 1990. “Deer habitat in the Ozark forests of Arkansas.” USDA-Forest Service Research Paper. SO-259. Russellville, Arkansas. 17 p.

Rose, F.L., T.R. Simpson, J.R. Ott, R.W. Manning, and J. Martin. 2010. Survival of Western Cottonmouths (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma) in a pulsating environment. The Southwestern naturalist 55(1)11-15.

Roseberry J.L., and S.D. Sudkamp. 1998. Assessing the suitability of landscapes for northern bobwhite. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:895-902.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.W. Rohrbaugh, Jr., S.E. Barker, J.D. Lowe, R.S. Hames, and A.A. Dhondt. 1999. “A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest-interior birds.” The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.


November 2012 157

Rosene, W. 1984. The bobwhite quail: Its life and management. The Sun Press, Hartwell Georgia. 418 p.

Rudolph, D.C. and C.A. Ely. 2000. The influence of fire on Lepidopteran abundance and community structure in forested habitats of eastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52(4) Supplement:127-138.

Rudolph, D.C., C.A. Ely, R.B. Schaeffer, J.H. Williamson, and R.E. Thill. 2006a. The Diana fritillary (Speyeria diana) and great spangled (S. Cybele): dependence on fire in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepodopterists’ Society 60(4):218-226.

Rudolph, D.C., C.A. Ely, R.B. Schaeffer, J.H. Williamson, and R.E. Thill. 2006b. Monarch (Danaus

plexippus L. Nymphalidae) migration, nectar resources and fire regimes in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas. Journal of the Lepodopterists’ Society 60(3):165-170.

Ryan, Kevin C.; Jones, Ann Trinkle; Koerner, Cassandra L.; Lee, Kristine M., tech. eds. 2012. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 224 p. (http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/24395242/1057078804/name/Ryan%26Others_2012_WildlandFireInEcosystems-EffectsOfFireOnCulturalResourcesAndArchaeology.pdf)

Ryan, M.G., M.E. Harmon, R.A. Birdsey, C.P. Giardina, L.S. Heath, R.A. Houghton, R.B. Jackosn, D.C. McKinlwy, J.F. Morrison, B.C. Murray, D.E. Pataki, and K.E. Skog. 2010. A Synthesis of the Science on Forests and Carbon for U.S. Forests. Report Number 13. Issues in Ecology. Ecological Society of America. 16 pp.

Ryan, M.G. 2008. Forests and Carbon Storage. (June 4, 2008). USDA-Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/carbon.shtml.

Sampson, R.N., R.D. Atkinson, and J.W. Lewis. 2000. “Mapping wildfire hazards and risks.” Journal of Sustainable Forests, Volume II. 2000.

Sampson, R.N., and D. Hair. (eds.) 1996. Forests and Global Change. Vol. 2: Forest Management Opportunities. American Forests. Washington, D.C.: 217-235.

Sampson, R.N., and L.R. Clark. 1996. Wildfire and carbon emissions: A policy modeling approach. In: Sampson, R.N., and D. Hair, eds. Forests and Global change. Vol. 2: Forest Management Opportunities. American Forests. Washington, D.C.: 217-235.

Santeford, Lawrence G., Carol S. Spears, Milton A. Hughes, and Davis C. Chenault. 1993. An Archeological Survey of 499 Acres in the Fourche District of the Ouachita National Forest, Yell County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 102. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Santeford, Lawrence G., Carol S. Spears. 1994. An Archeological Survey of 2412 Acres in the Fourche District of the Ouachita National Forest, Yell County, Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 85. Spears

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2002. “The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2000.” Version 2002.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. “The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2005.” Version 6.2.2006, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Sealander, J.A. and G.A. Heidt. 1990. Arkansas mammals: their natural history, classification, and distribution. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 308 p.

Schwartz, J.; Slater, D.; Larson, T.V. [and others]. 1993. Particulate air pollution and hospital emergency visits for asthma in Seattle. American Review of Respiratory Disease. 147: 826-831.

Sharky, Brian, ed. 1997. “Health hazards of smoke: recommendations of the April 1997 Consensus Conference.” Tech. Rep. 9751-2836-MTDC. Missoula, Montana: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center. 84p.


November 2012 158

Shea, S.M., and J.S. Osborne. 1995. “Poor quality habitats.” Pp. 193-209, In Quality whitetails: the why and how of quality deer management. K. V. Miller and R. L. Marchinton (eds). Stackpole Books, Mechanicburg, PA.

Shriver, W.G., and P.D. Vickery. 2001. Response of breeding Florida grasshopper and Bachman’s sparrows to winter prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3):470-475.

Sierzchula, Michael C., and Robert H. Lafferty, III. 1988 Cultural Resources Survey in the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests, Caddo, Fourche and Bayou Ranger Districts, Conway, Garland, Howard, Polk, Pope, Van Buren, Montgomery, and Yell Counties, Arkansas. MCRA_88-3

Smith, K.L. 1986. Sawmill. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. 246 pp.

(SOCCR). 2007. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report. The North American Carbon Budget and Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2. Edited By The Scientific Coordination Team: Anthony W. King (Lead), Lisa Dilling (Co-Lead), Gregory P. Zimmerman (Project Coordinator), David M. Fairman, Richard A. Houghton, Gregg Marland, Adam Z. Rose, and Thomas J. Wilbanks. November 2007. 242 pp.

Spears, C.S., K. U. Boykin, E. Masterson, M. Franklin, M. Zabecki Harvey, and C.A. Johnson. 2011. A Cultural Resources Survey of 4266 Acres in the Oden, Mena, and Fourche Ranger Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Polk, Scott, and Yell Counties Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 218. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Spears, Carol S., Kenneth L. Smith, Kirsten Hoffman, Milton Hughes, Annie Moerbe, and Marisa

Bartlett. 1993. A Cultural Resources Survey of 2260 Acres in the Cold Springs, Fourche, and Caddo Ranger Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Garland, Logan, Scott and Yell Counties, Arkansas. SPEARS Project

Report 62. Spears Professional Environmental and Archeological Research Service, West Fork, Arkansas.

Spears, G.S., F.S. Guthery, S.M. Rice, S.J. DeMaso, and B. Zaiglin. 1993. “Optimum seral stage for northern bobwhite as influenced by site productivity.” Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 805-811.

Spencer, L.A. 2006. Arkansas butterflies and moths. Ozark Society Foundation, Little Rock. 314 p.

Spurr, S.H. and B.V. Barnes. 1980. Forest Ecology (Third Edition). John Wiley & Sons. 687 pp.

Stambaugh, M.C., R. Muzika, and R.P. Guyette. 2002. Disturbance characteristics and overstory composition of an old-growth shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill) forest in the Ozark Highlands, Missouri, USA. Natural Areas Journal 22:108-119.

Stanturf, J.A, D.D. Wade, T.A. Waldrop, D.K. Kennard, and GL. Achtemeier. 2002. Background Paper. Fire in Southern Forest Landscapes. In: Wear, D.M. and J. Greis, editors, Southern Forest Resource Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Dept. Agric. Forest Service, Southern Research Station. P. 607-630 (Chapter 30).

Steenson, W.S. 1992. Environmental Assessment−Compartment 1415. Internal Report on file from Ouachita National Forest, Jessieville-Winona Ranger District. Perry County, AR.

Steffen, D.E., N.W. LaFon, and G.W. Norman. 2002. Turkeys, acorns, oaks. Pp. 241-255, In Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. (W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy, eds.) The Johns Hopkins University Press. 432 p.

Stoeckel, J. and K. Moles. 2002. Status survey for the scaleshell mussel, Leptodea leptodon, with a summary of baseline data on other freshwater mussel species of the South Fourche La Fave River, Arkansas. Final Report prepared for the Ouachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902, 26 p.

Stransky, J.J. and L.K. Hall. 1979. “Effects of a winter fire on fruit yields of woody plants.” Journal of Wildlife Management. 43: 1007-1010.


November 2012 159

Strayer, D.L., J.A. Downing, W.R. Haag, T.L. King, J.B. Layzer, T.J. Newton, and S.J. Nichols. 2004. Changing perspectives on pearly mussels, North America’s most imperiled animals. BioScience 54(5):429439.

Sun, G., M. Reidel, R. Jackson, R. Kolka, D. Amatya, and J. Shepard. 2004. Influences of Management of Southern forests on Water Quantity and Quality. In: Southern Forest Science: Past, Present, and Future [H.M. Rauscher and K. Johnsen, Editors]. USDA-Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-75. Pp. 195-224.

Swift, L.W. Jr., K.J. Elliot, R.D. Ottmar, and R.E. Vihnanek. 1993. Site preparation burning to improve southern Appalachian pine-hardwood stands: fire characteristics and soil erosion, moisture and temperature. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23, 2242-2254.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011a. Glyphosate–Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report (TR-052-22-03b). Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Syracuse, New York. Available at: www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml ; also see SERA Glyphosate Worksheet associated with Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAe. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011b. Imazapyr –Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report (TR-052-29-03a). Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Syracuse, New York. Available at: www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml ; also see SERA Imazapyr Worksheet associated with Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA). 2011c. Triclopyr–Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report (TR-052-25-03a). Prepared for: USDA Forest Service. Fayetteville, New York. Available at: www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml ; also see SERA Triclopyr Worksheet associated with Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRA) and Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA). http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/worksheets.shtml.

Tatum, V.L. 2004. Toxicity, transport, and fate of forest herbicides. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1042-1048.

Thill, R.A., R.D. Craig, and N.E. Koerth. 2004. Shortleaf pine-bluestem restoration for Red-cockaded woodpeckers in the Ouachita Mountains: implications for other taxa. Pp. 657-671, In Costa, R. and S.J. Daniels, eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: road to recovery. Blaine WA. Hancock House Publishers.

Thogmartin, W.E. 1999. “Landscape attributes and nest-site selection in wild turkeys.” The Auk 116(4): 912-923.

Thompson, F.R., and R.M. DeGraaf. 2001. Conservation approaches for woody, early successional communities in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:483-494.

Trauth, S.E., H.W. Robison, and M.V. Plummer. 2004. The amphibians and reptiles of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville 421 p.

Tucker, J.W., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2004. Influence of fire on Bachman’s sparrow, an endemic North American songbird. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1114-1123.

Tucker, J.W. Jr., W.D. Robinson, and J.B. Grand. 2006. Breeding productivity of Bachman’s sparrows in fire-managed longleaf pine forests. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 118(2):131-137.

Tucker, J.W., G.R. Schrott, and R. Bowman. 2010. Fire ants, cattle grazing, and the endangered Florida grasshopper sparrow. Southeastern Naturalist 9(2):237-250.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-21. Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. 2005 County Business Patterns. http:/factfinder.census.gove/servlet.html.


November 2012 160

USDA. 2009. Memorandum 1042-154 dated May 28, 2009, whereby the delegations of authority to the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (7 CFR 2.20(a)(2)) and from the Under Secretary to the Chief of the Forest Service (7 CFR 2.60(a)) for the management and administration of the national forests, national forest purchase units, national grasslands and other lands and interests administered by the Forest Service are revised to reserve to the Secretary the authority to approve or disapprove road construction or reconstruction and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000.

USDA–Forest Service. 1970. Fire Weather – Agriculture Handbook 360. NFES 1174. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho. 229 pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Vol. 2, ROS Users Guide.

USDA–Forest Service. 1976. “Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook.” Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-10. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experimental Station.

USDA–Forest Service. 1983 (Revised). The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities, Agriculture Handbook No. 453. 591 p.

USDA–Forest Service. 1986. Service Foresters Handbook (Southern Region). Miscellaneous Report R8-MR 11. 129 p.

USDA–Forest Service. 1989a. Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management Plan in the Ozark/Ouachita Mountains. Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R-8-MB 23, Volume II

USDA–Forest Service. 1989b. “A Guide For Prescribed Fire In Southern Forests.” Tech. Pub. R-8-TP 11.

USDA–Forest Service. 1990a. Silvics of North America. vol. 1, Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala, Tech. Eds. Washington D.C.

USDA–Forest Service. 1990b. Silvics of North America. vol. 2, Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala, Tech. Eds. Washington D.C.

USDA–Forest Service. 1993a. Integrated Forest Service Policy that governs prescribed fire activities for the Ouachita National Forest (Ouachita Supplement Number 5100-93-1, 5140).

USDA–Forest Service. 1993b. Herbicide Effectiveness Monitoring on the Ouachita National Forest for Water Quality in the Fiscal Years of 1989 through 1993. December 1993. 22 pages.

USDA–Forest Service. 1994. A cumulative effects analysis of silvicultural best management practices using Basin Area Stream Survey Methods (BASS). Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas. Volumes I and II. 129 p.

USDA-Forest Service. 1995a. London, Jack D. Forest Statistics for Arkansas Counties–1995. Southern Research Station. SRS-17.

USDA-Forest Service. 1995b. A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analyses. Prepared by CH2M Hill.

USDA-Forest Service. 1996. Triclopyr Herbicide Information Profile. Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. November 1996. 14 p.

USDA–Forest Service. 1999. Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment: “Air quality.” Report 2 of 5 Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-32. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station 57 p.

USDA-Forest Service. 2000a. Landscape Aesthetics: A Guide for Scenery Management, USDA Handbook 701 (Revised).

USDA-Forest Service. 2000b. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement (Vol. I: FEIS 663 pp., II: Maps, III: Response to Comments, IV: Letters). November 2000. Washington, D.C.


November 2012 161

USDA–Forest Service. 2001a. “First order fire effects model, version 5.00.” USDA-Forest Service Intermountain Research Station, Intermountain Fire Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 8090, Missoula, Montana 59087.

USDA–Forest Service. 2001b. “Health Hazards of Smoke.” 0151-2821-MTDC Missoula Technology and Development Center (MTDC).

USDA–Forest Service. 2002. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems, Effects of on Air. Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 5. December 2002.

USDA–Forest Service. 2003a. A summary and analysis of data pertaining to management indicator species for stream fishes, lake and pond fisheries, terrestrial vertebrates and plants for the Ouachita National Forest. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas 71902. October 24.

USDA–Forest Service. 2003b. Landtype Association Descriptions. Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, Arkansas.

USDA–Forest Service. 2003c. Southern Research Station. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests: A Field Guide for Identification and Control. General Technical Report, SRS-62.

USDA-Forest Service. 2003d. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests. A field guide for identification and control. Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-62. Miller , James. A.

USDA-Forest Service. 2004a. 2003 Ouachita National Forest Monitoring Report. 51 p. (Available from USFS, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902.

USDA-Forest Service. 2004b. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. FS-804. Washington, D.C., 24 p.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005a. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R8-MB 124 A.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Forest Service, Southern Region, Management Bulletin R8-MB 124 B.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005c. Biological Evaluation for the Land and Resources Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005d. A Manual for the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model. Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forests.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005e. Management Indicator Species Selection Process Record, Ouachita National Forest Plan Revision, August 11, 2005.

USDA-Forest Service. 2005f. 2004 Ouachita National Forest Monitoring Report. (Available from USFS, P.O. Box 1270, Hot Springs, AR 71902.

USDA-Forest Service. 2006. Ouachita National Forest Wildland Fire Statistics 1980-2005. Personal communication from Andy Dyer, Fire Management Officer, Ouachita and Ozark/St. Francis National Forests. Hot Springs, Arkansas. November 7, 2006.

USDA-Forest Service. 2007. Official Correspondence File Code 2670: Addition of the Bald Eagle to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, effective 8 August 2007. Regional Forester Chuck Meyers, 17 July 2007, Signed by Janet Anderson (for). Amends the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List.

USDA-Forest Service. 2008a. A Summary and Analysis of Data pertaining to Management Indicator Species for the Ouachita National Forest. November 24, 2008. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/ouachita/.

USDA-Forest Service. 2008b. Neotropical Migrant and Resident Landbird Survey Temporal Trend Totals by Species Report for the Ouachita National Forest.


November 2012 162

USDA-Forest Service. 2008c. Scenic Treatment Guide−Southern Region National Forests. April 2008. Atlanta, GA.

USDA-Forest Service. 2009a. Environmental Assessment For Travel Management Project. Ouachita National Forest. Hot Springs, AR.

USDA-Forest Service. 2009b. Biological Evaluation for Motor Vehicle Use Map for the Ouachita National Forest. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

USDA-Forest Service. 2010a. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-131. Miller , James. A., Steven T. Manning and Stephen F. Enloe.

USDA-Forest Service. 2010b. Fiscal Year 2009 monitoring and evaluation report for the Land and Resource Management Plan, Ouachita National Forest. September.

USDA-Forest Service. 2010c. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact Travel Management Project /s/Norman L. Wagoner Forest Supervisor January 4, 2010, Ouachita National Forest. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR.

USDA-Forest Service. 2011a. 5-year Review of the 2005 Forest Plan. Ouachita National Forest. Arkansas and Oklahoma. 162 pp.

USDA-Forest Service. 2011b. D.R. Angelo, T. Dozier, L. Ray, J. Chambliss, W. Whisenhunt, G. Oseguera, and D. Smith. An Archeological Survey for a Proposed Timber Sale Project and Associated Actions, Wildcat Hollow Project Area Compartments 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, Fourche Ranger District, Yell County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 347. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

USDA-Forest Service. 2011c. C.S. Spears, K. U. Boykin, E. Masterson, M. Franklin, M. Zabecki Harvey, and C. A. Johnson. A Cultural Resources Survey of 4266 Acres in the Oden, Mena, and Fourche Ranger Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Polk, Scott, and Yell Counties Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 218. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

USDA-Forest Service. 2011d. Motor Vehicle Use Maps released to the public by the Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, AR May 9, 2011. Available from Office of Forest Supervisor, District Ranger Offices, and from the ONF’s website, http://www.fs.usda.gov/ouachita

USDA-Forest Service. 2012. Travel Analysis Report, Wildcat Hollow Project, Yell County, Arkansas, Jessieville-Winona-Fourche Ranger District, Ouachita National Forest. April 2012.

USDI (U.S. Department of Interior). 1985. “Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide.” Prescribed Fire and Fire Effects Working Team, NWCG, p.28

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) Recovery Plan. (D. Maddox and R. Bartgis, authors). Region 5, Newton Corner, MA 02158.

USDI–Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. “Simple approach smoke management estimation model, version 4.1.” Wyoming State Office, Division of Lands and Renewable Resources, P.O. Box 1828.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service 2001b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered status for the scaleshell mussel. Final rule. Federal Register, Volume 66, Number 195, Tuesday, October 9, 2001. Pages 51322 – 51339.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Concurrence letter pertaining to the “Programmatic biological assessment of the Ouachita National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan as related to eight federally endangered species: Leopard darter (Percina panhtherina) and critical habitat, harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), Arkansas fatmucket mussel (Lampsilis powellii), Scaleshell mussel (Leptodea leptodon), Ouachita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri), Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Bald eagle (Haliaeetus


November 2012 163

lecocephalus) and Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis). Margaret Harney, Acting Field Supervisor. Arkansas Field Office, 1500 Museum Road, Suite 105, Conway, 72032. 17 August 2005.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal Register. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Final Rule. Volume 72, Number 130, Monday, July 9, 2007. Pp. 37346-37372.

USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Threatened and endangered species list for Scott and Yell Counties. Arkansas field office, Conway, AR,

USDI/USDA-Forest Service 2001. (U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service). Smoke Management Guide For Prescribed And Wildland Fire (2001 Edition) NFES 1279. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho. 226 pp.

Vaughn, C.C. 1997. Catastrophic decline of the mussel fauna of the Blue River, Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 42(3):333-336.

Vaughn, C.C. 1999. Changes in the mussel fauna of the middle Red River drainage: 1910 – present. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium. Pages 225-232.

Vandermast, D.B., C.E. Moorman, K.R. Russell, and D.H. Van Lear. 2004. Initial vegetation response to prescribed fire in some oak-hickory forests of the South Carolina Piedmont. Natural Areas Journal 24:216-222.

Van Lear, D.H., and P.H. Brose. 2002. Fire and oak management. Pp. 269-279, In Oak forest ecosystems: ecology and management for wildlife. (W.J. McShea and W.M. Healy, eds.) The Johns Hopkins University Press 432 p.

Van Lear, D.H., and T.A. Waldrop. 1989. History, uses, and effects of fire in the Appalachians. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-54, Asheville N.C,: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 20 p.

Van Lear, D.H., and S.J. Danielovich. 1988. Soil movement after broadcast burning in the Southern Appalachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 12: 49-53.

Van Lear, D.H., J.E. Douglass, S. Cox, and M.K. Ausspurger. 1985. Sediment and nutrient export in runoff from burned and harvested pine watersheds in the South Carolina Piedmont. J. Environ. Qual. 14(2): 169-174.

Varner, J.M. III, J.K. Kush, and R.S. Meldahl. 2003. Vegetation of frequently burned old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) savannas on Choccolocco Mountain, Alabama. Natural Areas Journal 23:43-52.

Very, E.S., J.W. Hornbeck, and A.C. Dollof. (eds.) 2000. Riparian management in Forests of the Continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers 402 p. Boca Raton, FL.

Vestal, J. 2000. BMP Effectiveness monitoring using above and below pebble counts. Internal report on file at Ouachita National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Hot Springs, AR. 2 p.

Waddell, David B., Ellen Z. Waddell, Kirsten Hoffman, Milton Hughes and Annie Moerbe. 1995. An Archeological Survey of 8,939 Acres in the Caddo, Cold Springs, Fourche, Jessieville, Winona, and Womble Districts of the Ouachita National Forest, Garland, Hot Spring, Montgomery, Perry, Scott and Yell Counties in Arkansas. SPEARS Project Report 66. Spears Professional Environmental and Archeological Research Service, West Fork, Arkansas.

Ward, D.E. 1991. Smoke Emissions From Wildland Fires. Environmental International, Vol 17, pp. 117-134.

Weber, P.G., S. Preston, M.J. Dlugos, and A.P. Nelson. 2008. The effects of field mowing on adult butterfly assemblages in central New York state. Natural Areas Journal 28(2):130-143.

Welch, J.R., K.V. Miller, W.E. Palmer, and T.B. Harrington. 2004. Response of understory vegetation important to the northern bobwhite following imazapyr and mechanical treatments. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1071-1076.


November 2012 164

Wheeler, G.L. and J.K. Eichman. 1991. The Effects of Forest Management Practices on Soil Nutrient Status�A final report to the USFS, Ouachita NF. Cooperative Agreement #19-90-056 with the University of Arkansas. February 56 p. unpublished.

White, D.L., T.S. Waldrop, and S.M. Jones. 1990. Forty Years of Prescribed Burning on the Santee Fire Plots: Effects on Understory Vegetation. In: Fire and the Environment: Ecological and Cultural Perspectives, USDA-Forest Service Southeastern Forest Experiment Station General Technical Report SE-69. Pp. 51-59.

Wilcox, J.T. and D.H. Van Vuren. 2009. Wild pigs as predators in oak woodlands of California. Journal of Mammalogy 90(1):114-118.

Williams, Barbara. 1993. An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Timber Project in Compartments 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, and 477, Fourche Mountain Ecosystem Management Area, Fourche Ranger District, Yell County, Arkansas. Ouachita Cultural Resources Report No. 061. Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas.

Williams, C.K., F.S. Guthery, R.G. Applegate, and M.J. Peterson. 2004. The northern bobwhite decline: scaling our management for the twenty-first century. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3): 861-869.

Williams, L.R., C.M. Taylor, M.L. Warren, Jr., and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2003. Environmental variability, historical contingency, and the structure of regional fish and macroinvertebrate faunas in Ouachita Mountain stream systems. Environmental biology of Fishes 67: (203-216).

Williams, L.R., C.M. Taylor, M.L. Warren, Jr., and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2002. Large-scale effects of timber harvesting on stream systems in the Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Environmental Management 29 (1) 76-87.

Williams, L.R., C.M. Taylor, M.L. Warren, Jr., and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2001. The role of regional factors in structuring Ouachita Mountain stream assemblages. Symposium on Ecosystem Management Research in the Ouachita and Ozark Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station (21-239).

Wilson, C.W., R.E. Masters, G. Bukenhofer. 1995. Breeding Bird Response to Pine-Grassland Community Restoration for Red-Cockaded Woodpeckers. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 59, No. 1 (Jan. 1995) pp. 56-57. \

Witsell, C.T. 2005. Final report on Ptilimnium nodosum (Rose) Mathias (Harperella): Survey work in Arkansas, 2004. Report prepared by Theo Witsell, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (Little Rock) submitted to the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service. Grant E-21. 53 p.

Wood, D.R., L.W. Burger, Jr., J.L. Bowman, and C.L. Hardy. 2004. Avian community response to pine-grassland restoration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3):819-829.

Woods, A.J., T.L. Foti, S.S. Chapman, J.M. Omernik, J.A. Wise, E.O. Murray, W.L. Prior, J.B. Pagan,

Jr., J.A. Comstock, and M. Radford. 2004. Ecoregions of Arkansas (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs). Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey. (map scale 1:1,000,000).

Zaczek, J.J., J.W. Groninger and J.W. Van Sambeek. 2002. Stand dynamics in an old-growth hardwood forest in Southern Illinois, USA. Natural Areas Journal 22:211-219.


November 2012 165

Appendices

Appendix “A”: Biological Evaluation and PETS Checklist

Appendix “B”: Maps

Management Areas

Harvest

Timber Stand Improvement

Wildlife Habitat Improvement

Prescribed Fire Burn Units

Road Status and Motor Vehicle Use

Road Work