biological evaluation for proposed, threatened and...

FY 17 Reforestation treatments Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District

1 of 23

Biological Evaluation

for

Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species

&

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District

Ouachita National Forest

U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE

Scott County, AR

FY 17

Reforestation Treatments Project

PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:

William Stephens Jason Garrett

Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Biologist

Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District

P.O. Box 2255 P.O. Box 2255

Waldron, AR 72958 Waldron, AR 72958

(479) 637-4174 (479) 637-4174

[email protected] [email protected]

DATE: November 30, 2016


2 of 23

I. INTRODUCTION

a. Purpose and Objective of this Biological Evaluation

This Biological Evaluation (BE) documents the likely impacts on proposed, endangered,

threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species from proposed management activities.

This BE has been prepared in accordance with direction given in Forest Service Manual 2672.41

and 2672.42 and addresses only those Federal lands in the project area.

As part of the National Environmental Policy Act decision-making process, the BE provides a

review of Forest Service activities in sufficient detail to determine how a Proposed Action would

affect any PETS species. PETS species, taken from both state and Federal lists, are species most

likely to be put at risk from management actions. The objectives of this BE are as follows:

to ensure that FS actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non-

native plant or animal species or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species;

to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that actions of

Federal agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species

and to document the need for consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service;

To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that PETS species receive full

consideration in the decision-making process. Decision-makers will consider information in

this BE to ensure that no species is placed in jeopardy by management actions;

to address the effects of management activities to the habitat and/or potential habitats of plant

and animal species on the PETS list; and

To document the need for mitigation measures specifically addressing any potential impacts

from management activities related to known PETS habitat or potential habitat.

Appendix A of the BE includes the list of PETS species documented to occur on the Ouachita

National Forest. That list of species was reviewed and sixteen (16) species were selected to be

evaluated for the Proposed Action being considered in this document.

b. Purpose and Objective of the Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to conduct reforestation treatments on approximately 42 acres in

Compartment 1246, stands 12 and 36 and on approximately 21 acres in Compartments 253 stand

7 and 254, stands 1, 60, and 63. These treatments do not involve herbicide application.

c. Area Description and General Location


3 of 23

The project area in Compartment 1246 is located in Management Area (MA) 22 (Renewal of the

Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass Ecosystem and Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat) on the

Poteau Unit of the Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District. The project area in Compartments 253

and 254 are located in Management Area (MA) 14 (Ouachita Mountains, Habitat Diversity

Emphasis) and both compartments are in the American Burying Beetle Area (ABBA) on the

Cold Springs Unit of the Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District.


4 of 23

II. CONSULTATION HISTORY

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, outlines the procedures for interagency

cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitats.

In 2005, the Ouachita National Forest presented a Biological Assessment (BA) to the Conway

office of the US Fish &Wildlife Service (USFWS) relating to forest management activities.

This BA concluded findings for Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species on the Ouachita

National Forest – those species listed in Appendix A. For eight (8) species and one designated

critical habitat, the findings fell into one of the three categories: 1) “No Effect”, 2) “Not Likely

to Adversely Affect” (Discountable), or 3) “Not Likely to Adversely Modify Critical Habitat”

(Discountable). These findings were concurred with by a letter dated August 17, 2005.

The BA made a determination of “likely to adversely affect” for the American burying beetle

within the American burying beetle area (ABBA). The ONF requested Section 7 formal

consultation and received a Biological Opinion (BO) from the USFWS relating to forest

management activities as they pertain to the American burying beetle (ABB) in 2005 in

conjunction with the Revised Forest Plan.

In 2010, the US Forest Service presented the Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan

for the Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest to the Conway office of the US Fish

&Wildlife Service (USFWS) relating to conservation and management activities.

The Ouachita and Ozark-St. Francis National Forest requested Section 7 formal consultation in

regard to the 2010 Final American Burying Beetle Conservation Plan (ABB CP) and received a

revised Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) from the USFWS. This PBO applies to forest

management activities as they pertain to the American burying beetle in the 2005 Revised Land

and Resource Management Plan.

On October 2, 2013 Proposed listing of northern long-eared bat as endangered throughout its

range under the Endangered Species Act was published in the Federal Register (USDI FWS

2013).

The FWS released the “Northern Long Eared Bat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance”

January 6, 2014 This document provided recommendations for how to avoid take of any

individual NLEB during the summer roosting period when conducting routine forest

management.

On June 24, 2014 The FWS announced a six-month extension for making a final determination

on listing the NLEB as endangered. With the extension, the Service announced that it would

make a final decision on listing the NLEB no later than April 2, 2015. As part of the extension,

the Service also reopened a 60-day public comment period and sought input from states, tribes,

federal agencies and other stakeholders about the status of the NLEB and also encouraged

interested parties to work with the Service on issues such as forest management and bat

conservation.

On January 22, 2015 FS Southern Regional Office transmitted request for formal conferencing

on NLEB to FWS for National Forests in Southern Region where NLEB occurs.


5 of 23

On April 2, 2015 FWS announced „threatened‟ status for NLEB, along with interim 4(d) rules

effective May 4, 2015.

On August 5, 2015, the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provided the Regional Forester

the corrected Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) on the continued implementation of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (FS), Forest Land and Resource Management

Plans (Forest Plans) and their associated projects on 15 National Forests and 1 National

Recreation Area (collectively, Forests) in the FS Southern Region (the Action). The

Programmatic Biological Opinion concluded after reviewing the current status of the NLEB,

environmental baseline for the Action Area, effects of the Action, and cumulative effects, that

the Action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the NLEB. FWS

has not proposed or designated critical habitat for this species; therefore, none is affected. The

Programmatic Biological Opinion also provided terms and conditions for incidental take and

concluded that the “anticipated level of incidental take is not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the NLEB” (USDI-FWS, 2015). Issuance of the Biological Opinion by the USDI-

FWS concluded formal consultation on FS continued implementation of Forest Plans and their

associated projects on 15 National Forests and 1 National Recreation Area in the FS Southern

Region that are within the range of the NLEB.

On January 5, 2016, the USDI-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued the Programmatic

Biological Opinion (PBO) on the Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities

Excepted from Take Prohibitions. The PBO concluded after reviewing the current status of the

NLEB, environmental baseline, effects of the Action, and cumulative effects, that the Action, as

proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the NLEB (USDI-FWS, 2015).

FWS has not proposed or designated critical habitat for this species; therefore, none is affected.

The PBO evaluated major categories of actions that may affect the NLEB, but for which

incidental take is not prohibited, therefore there are no reasonable and prudent measures or terms

and conditions that are necessary and appropriate for these actions. The final 4(d) rule went into

effect February 16, 2016.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Office (Conway office) is on the district‟s

mailing lists for scoping on all projects requiring NEPA documentation. Concurrence on the

management activities listed in this Biological Evaluation will be requested for all species

requiring a concurrence through informal consultation.

III. PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

The Forest Service proposes to conduct Reforestation treatments on 63 acres in the following

compartments:

Compartment

Stand Acres

Reforestation treatments 253

,

7 3

254 1,60,63 18

1246 12,36 42

TOTAL ACRES 63


6 of 23

Reforestation treatments will include mechanical ripping/scarification and hand planting of pine

seedlings. If regeneration is not successful, then the treatments may be repeated. Release

treatment with hand tools could occur if needed. These treatments do not involve the use of

herbicides or result in vegetation type conversion. Monitoring of the area will be conducted to

establish the need for treatments. Existing firelines will be utilized to protect the project area

from prescribed fire.

The project area in Compartment 1246 is located in Management Area (MA) 22 (Renewal of the

Shortleaf Pine/Bluestem Grass Ecosystem and Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat) on the

Poteau Unit of the Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District. The project area in Compartments 253

and 254 are located in Management Area (MA) 14 (Ouachita Mountains, Habitat Diversity

Emphasis) and both compartments are in the American Burying Beetle Area (ABBA) on the

Cold Springs Unit of the Poteau-Cold Springs Ranger District.

IV. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED

Appendix A includes a list of all PETS species that are known to occur on the Ouachita National

Forest*. Each of these 81species was reviewed to determine those species that are known to

occur within the boundary or those that potentially could occur within the project area on the

Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District.

*The Ouachita National Forest PETS List was developed by Ouachita National Forest Supervisor’s Office

(SO) personnel. SO personnel used the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (August 8, 2007) and the

most current Endangered Species list to develop the Forest List. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

website was also checked by this biologist, to verify no species have been added as endangered, threatened,

or candidate list for the state of Arkansas since the Ouachita PETS list was developed.

A total of 16 PETS species where found that could occur within or near the stands proposed for

midstory treatments. Table 1 provides names of species selected from the Ouachita National

Forest PETS list in Appendix A which were determined to need further review for this project.

TABLE 1: Species To Be Evaluated in this Biological Evaluation

Number of Species for

this BE Scientific Name Common Name

T&E SPECIES requiring FWS Concurrence (1-3)

1 Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker

2 Nicrophorus americanus American Burying Beetle

3 Myotis Septentrionalis Northern Long-eared Bat

SENSITIVE SPECIES

TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL SPECIES (4-7)

4 Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed myotis

5 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle

6 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman‟s Sparrow


7 of 23

7 Speyeria diana Diana fritillary

AQUATIC ANIMAL SPECIES (8-11)

8 Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner

9 Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana fatmucket

10 Toxolasma lividus Purple Lilliput Mussel

11 Obovaria arkansasensis Southern hickorynut

RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES (12-14)

12 Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita false indigo

13 Vernonia lettermannii Narrowleaf ironweed

14 Vitis rupestris Sand grape

TERRESTRIAL PLANT SPECIES (15-16)

15 Carex latebracteata Waterfall's sedge

16 Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis Ozark chinquapin

Each selection will require further review. The comments section on each species in Appendix A

describes why a species will be further considered in this BE.

V. EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION,

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE, EFFECTS, AND DETERMINATION OF

EFFECTS

a. General Historical Survey Information

Susan Hooks, Forest Botanist for Ouachita National Forest, along with previous botanists in this

position, the district biologist and technicians, have conducted multiple surveys on this ranger

district for various types of projects. Results of these surveys have developed a good

understanding of vegetation and habitat types associated with PETS plant species.

All PETS plant and animal species occurrence maps are sent to Arkansas Natural Heritage

Commission to be incorporated into their database. This database is used to further evaluate

habitat types associated with PETS plant and animal species.

Annual Revised Forest Plan monitoring is done on all Ouachita National Forest districts. This

monitoring is done by contract, cooperative agreements, volunteers, and by force account.

b. Species Survey Information, Environmental Baseline, Effects, and Determination of

Effects

1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker– Endangered bird species

Survey Information: Currently, there are 70 active RCW clusters on the Poteau/Cold Springs

Ranger District. Annual survey data, over the last five years, indicate that the RCW population

on the ONF has increased by an average of 6% annually. The number of active clusters has gone

from 57 in 2010 to 70 in 2014. The closest known RCW cluster is over 2 miles away from the

project area.


8 of 23

Since 1990, personnel working with RCWs on the ONF have made detailed daily field reports of

activities associated with RCWs, including: surveys for and monumentation of cavity trees,

maintenance and monitoring of cavities, banding nestlings and adults and other activities

associated with the nesting season and inspections during outbreaks of southern pine beetles.

These field notes and copies of the annual reports are maintained at the Poteau RD office in

Waldron, AR.

There have been additional monitoring activities involving all of the following activities:

(1) insert cavities are routinely checked and necessary maintenance performed;

(2) cavity trees are mapped and maps provided in prescribed burn plans and experienced

personnel are involved in raking fuel away from trees or supervising this activity by others;

(3) various aspects of RCW biology are noted in monitoring sessions conducted in mornings and

evenings at selected cavity trees;

(4) translocation projects include extensive monitoring both before and after bird releases;

(5) WSI midstory reduction projects are supervised by experienced personnel.

Basic biological and population data about RCWs has appeared in many technical publications

(Kulhavy et al. 1995, Connor et al. 2001). Included are data sets from the ONF and the Ouachita

Mountains in Oklahoma (McCurtain County Wilderness Area). Basic survey data for Arkansas

was summarized in James and Neal (1986, 1989).

The need to conduct additional site-specific inventories was not necessary to determine the

presence of this species or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this species because

ongoing site-specific inventories relating to RCWs are currently available.

Environmental Baseline: Historically, RCWs occurred in pine forests ranging from the eastern

U.S. in New Jersey south through Florida, and west from Missouri through Oklahoma and Texas

(Hooper et al. 1980). By the time RCWs were listed as endangered, suitable habitat comprised

1% or less of its historic levels, with predictable declines in the numbers of birds (Conner et al.

2001). Surveys in Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s showed a population of a few hundred birds

confined to public lands and scattered holdings of timber companies (James et al. 1981). The

population in the ONF represents the northernmost remaining RCWs in the U.S.

RCWs were listed as endangered in 1970 because of widespread loss of its habitat in the

southeastern U.S. Two clear factors are associated with this sharp decline:

Original high-quality pine stands of what is today the ONF were heavily cutover during

the logging “boom” period 1906-1950 (Smith 1986). Therefore, almost all of the ONF

today consists of second-growth shortleaf pines and mixed species of hardwoods. Older

stands in this second growth forest are in the 50-90 years range. Even though this forest

contains relatively large acreages of maturing forest, it is just reaching the lower

threshold age suitable for red heart development useful to RCWs for cavity excavation

(85 years and up; Rudolph and Conner 1991).

Long-term fire suppression has resulted in the loss of structurally open stands. Most


9 of 23

stands in the ONF have stocking rates of hardwoods and pines well above historical

levels. There is a natural reason for this. Shortleaf pines are not shade tolerant.

Openings created by the death of older larger shortleaf pines become occupied by

midstory hardwoods and shade out most shortleaf pine reproduction, without fire in the

ecosystem (Guldin 1986; see also Kreiter 1995). Quality RCW habitat is characterized

as park-like stands of mature pines maintained in an open condition by periodic fire.

These fires reduce competition from smaller pines and hardwood trees and foster a

diverse understory of native grasses and forbs (Conner et al. 2001). This habitat is

termed a “pine-grassland.”

RCWs are unique in their habit of excavating roost and nest cavities in live, mature, pines (Ligon

1970). These pines usually exhibit heartwood decay caused by red heart fungus (Connor and

Locke 1982). The birds excavate through the hard, resinous sapwood to reach the softer

heartwood, where they then excavate a chamber. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) is the species

that occurs naturally in the Ouachitas. Mattoon (1915) found that the mean age of pines with

heartwood in the Ouachitas was 110 years. In Texas, RCWs prefer the oldest available shortleaf

pines for cavity excavation, typically in the range of 105 years (Rudolph and Connor 1991).

The ONF has responded to RCW recovery needs through creation of MA 22 (USFS 1996). The

pine-bluestem grass ecosystem project area encompasses over 200,000 acres, primarily in Scott

County, AR, and includes parts of the Poteau, Cold Springs and Mena RDs in Arkansas and

extends into the Oklahoma districts. Suitable pine-grassland habitat also exists in MA 14.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative):

Reforestation treatments: No direct effect is anticipated for RCW during reforestation, site

preparation, and hand planting activities. If any RCWs are in the area during these activities they

will most likely seek cover and return after workers have left the area. No Indirect and

cumulative effects are anticipated due to no other known activities in the area.

Determination of Effects: Considering all activities for proposed action, there would be no

effects positive or negative; therefore a No Effect is the Determination for red-cockaded

woodpecker or its habitat.

2. American burying beetle – Endangered insect species

Survey Information: In the fall of 1992, the first American burying beetle was captured on the

Cold Springs Ranger District in Logan County. Scott County was added as an occupied county

the same year. In 1993 approximately 30,000 acres on the Ouachita NF were surveyed with only

seven captures, primarily on the Cold Springs RD (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1994).

Otherwise, the majority of ABB captured in Arkansas were taken on Fort Chaffee, south of Fort

Smith, Arkansas (USDI Fish & Wildlife Service 1994). During the period 1992-1996, 73 ABBs

were captured on the Cold Springs RD (Carlton and Rothwein 1998). ABB occurrences have

been concentrated east of Highway 71N and north of Highway 80 on the Cold Springs RD

(District survey monitoring records show sites where ABB survey lines are located). Additional

surveys have been conducted every year since the first capture. ABB surveys from 1992 through

the present continue to find ABB on an irregular basis. These captures have generally occurred


10 of 23

close to private open pasture land or near recent regeneration cutting. Compartment 253, and

254 have had positive captures in the past, but not since 1999.

The need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETS species for this project was assessed using

direction in Forest Service Manual. Based on this assessment, no additional surveys for ABB

were deemed necessary at this time.

In May 2010, the USFWS issued a Revised Programmatic Biological Opinion for the ABB. This

document adjusted the ABBA on the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District. Compartments 253,

254 are within the OUF-AR-ABBA. For this reason, this species will be carried through the

evaluation process.

Environmental Baseline: The American burying beetle (ABB) was listed as an endangered

species in July 1989 (Federal Register Vol. 54 (133): 29652-5). At that time, the only known

occurrence of this species was Block Island, Rhode Island, and Latimer County, Oklahoma (Peck

and Kaulbars 1987; Madge 1958). Results of 1992 - 2010 surveys have increased the known

occurrences to eight counties in Oklahoma, five counties in Arkansas, seven counties in

Nebraska, two counties in South Dakota, and three counties in Kansas.

The ABB has been found in a variety of habitats, including grassland, upland forest, bottomland

forest, edge, and regeneration areas. ABBs are considered habitat generalists and will forage in

any habitat available (Lomolino et al. 1995). Breeding requirements are not so general, and it

appears as if breeding sites may be more specialized.

Reproduction success depends upon the availability of vertebrate carrion of an appropriate size

and weight (optimum weight is between 100 and 200 grams). It is possible that this species

would most likely be found near dense breeding aggregations of optimally sized vertebrate

species. The presence of a grass-forb understory, regardless of overstory type, is a major factor

in the occurrence of the ABB. Forests with thick midstories have proven to be poor habitat due

to limiting flight. Availability of prey and soil type also influences ABB occurrence.

The ABB is nocturnal and the western population is active from late April to late September.

ABBs exhibit a high level of parental care to their young. At night, they are attracted by smell to

carrion. Both adults will prepare the brood rearing chamber, and the female will remain in the

nest until the young complete larval development. It is possible that adult ABBs can raise two

broods per year. Presumably, young adult beetles burrow into the soil to over winter (USDI Fish

& Wildlife Service 1994).

Presently, the cause for the decline of this species is undetermined.

Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative)

Reforestation treatments: Site preparation would only be considered ground disturbance if done

by mechanical scarification. This could cause the direct effect of running over an ABB. If ABB

were present, even then, only one stand would be done at a time and an entire stand probably


11 of 23

cannot be completed in one day. Even then, only 21 acres is being treated in the ABBA. At this

time and less than 1/10 of the ground would be disturbed. Hand planting would have no direct

effect on ABB. Hand release would have no direct effects on ABB. No cumulative effects are

anticipated since the only other activity in the area is prescribed burning, and these units will be

protected from these activities.

Determination of Effects: This project may affect the American burying beetle; however, there

are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological opinion dated

May 3, 2010. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is excepted from the

prohibitions for taking threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. This project is

consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic

biological opinion, and activities excepted from taking prohibitions under the ESA section 4(d)

rule applicable to the American burying beetle; therefore, the programmatic biological opinion

satisfies the Forest Service‟s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the American

burying beetle for this project.

3. Northern Long-Eared Bat- Threatened mammal species

Survey Information: The northern long-eared bat is thought to be a common species in the

Ouachita National Forest (Perry and Thill, 2007). NLEB is a common species in Arkansas and is

found in all counties within Ouachita National Forest in (Sasse et al.2014). During the 2005 Bat

Blitz held on the Ouachita NF the northern long-eared bat was found in good numbers and

accounted for 24% of all bats captured. Preliminary results from acoustic surveys conducted in

the summer of 2009 showed northern long-eared bats to be present on the Ouachita National

Forest but was not detected in surveys conducted on the Poteau Cold Springs Ranger District.

Additional surveys for northern long eared bat were not necessary to analyze and disclose effects

because the species is known to occur in the project area. This action occurs more than 59 miles

from a known roost tree within the Alum Creek Experimental Forest on the Winona Ranger

District in Arkansas. The closest known, occupied hibernacula are Heath Mine and Golden 1

Mine. Heath and Golden 1 Mine are approximately 34 miles from the project area.

Environmental Baseline: The northern long-eared bat has a large range that stretches over much

of the Eastern United States and all Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Ocean west to the

southern Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. In the United States they are found from

Maine to Florida and West to Oklahoma and Montana (USDI FWS 2013).

Northern long-eared bats use an assortment of habitats across its range including both hardwood

and coniferous forest. This species is known to use a wide variety of roost sites including caves,

man-made structures, as well as living trees and snags of both hardwoods and conifers.

Preferred roosting habitat appears to vary from region to region within its range. Research

conducted on the Ouachita National Forest documented a preference for shortleaf pine snags as

roosting sites (Perry and Thill, 2007). Both male and female used managed and unmanaged

timber stands. However, research result showed that females preferred to roost in managed pine

stands with low pine BA while males preferred to roost in more dense stands (Perry and Thill,

2007).


12 of 23

The northern long-eared bat was listed as a Threatened species by the UFWS on April 2, 2015.

The listing of this species is primarily due to a disease referred to as White-nosed syndrome

(WNS) that has caused a decline of 99 percent in the northern long eared bat population in the

Northeastern states and is expected to spread throughout the United States (USDI FWS 2013).

White-nosed syndrome is named for the white fungus evident on the muzzles and wings of

affected bats. The white fungus is identified as Pseudogymnoascus destructans and thrives in

cold and humid conditions which are characteristic of the caves and mines used by bats during

hibernation. Bats affected with WNS lose their fat reserves and often die from the disease.

For northern long-eared bats breeding begins in late summer or early fall when males begin

swarming near hibernacula. After copulation, females store sperm during hibernation until

spring, when they emerge from their hibernacula, ovulate, and the stored sperm fertilizes an egg.

This strategy is called delayed fertilization (USDI FWS 2013). After fertilization, pregnant

females migrate to summer areas where they roost in small colonies and give birth to a single

pup. Maternity colonies, with young, generally have 30 to 60 bats, although larger maternity

colonies have been observed. Most females within a maternity colony give birth around the

same time, which may occur from late May or early June to late July, depending where the

colony is located within the species‟ range. Young bats start flying by 18 to 21 days after birth.

Adult northern long-eared bats can live up to 19 years (USDI FWS 2013).

Northern long-eared bats emerge at dusk to fly through the understory of forested hillsides and

ridges feeding on moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles, which they catch while in

flight using echolocation. This bat also feeds by gleaning motionless insects from vegetation and

water surfaces (USDI FWS 2013).


Reforestation treatments: The NLEB may be impacted indirectly by noises associated with

scarification, mechanical ripping, such as the sound of equipment and/or general human

interaction (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013a). Hand planting will have no direct effects

on the ABB. No cumulative effects are anticipated since the only other activity in the area is

prescribed burning, and these units will be protected from these activities.

Determination of Effects: This project is likely to adversely affect the northern long-eared bat;

however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic biological

opinion on implementing the final 4(d) rule dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis. Any

taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under the final 4(d) rule (50 CFR

§17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action

in the programmatic biological opinion, and activities that do not require special exemption from

taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat; therefore, the programmatic

biological opinion satisfies the Forest Service‟s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2)

relative to the northern long-eared bat for this project.

4. Eastern Small-footed myotis – Sensitive mammal (bat) species


13 of 23

Survey Information: The Eastern small-footed bat has a fairly widespread range extending from

southeastern Canada and the eastern U.S., down to Alabama and west to Oklahoma, but its

distribution is very spotty and rarely found in large numbers. Few high-quality occurrences

exist; the total numbers counted are very low in comparison to the total number of caves and

mines surveyed. Population size is uncertain but clearly exceeds 2,500 and probably exceeds

10,000. The largest number of hibernating individuals ever reported for the species was 2,383,

which were found in a mine in Essex County, New York. Some of the occurrences probably

have not been surveyed completely, and individuals are undoubtedly missed at some sites

because they are hibernating in areas that cannot be reached or easily observed (NatureServe

2015). In Arkansas it is known in small numbers from only a few caves in the Ozarks and has

been documented on Mt. Magazine in Logan County (Saugey pers. Comm.). Preliminary results

from acoustic surveys preformed on the Ouachita National Forest in August and September of

2009 indicated that this species is present in low numbers in Scott and Montgomery Counties.

Prior to this survey only a single specimen was document from Polk County and was not known

from the caveless region of western Arkansas. It has been documented on the Ouachita National

Forest in Oklahoma at Bear Den Caves in Leflore Co., OK (Saugey et al. 1989).

Environmental Baseline: This species prefers hibernating in caves or mines, they are the

“hardiest” of cave bats. This bat tends to hibernate near cave entrances; hence it may be

vulnerable to freezing in abnormally severe winters. This species may also overwinter in rock

talus areas (Saugey, pers.comm.). Warm-season roosts are typically in talus areas that occur on

ridgetops. Very little is known about the ecology, reproduction, and life history of this species

(NatureServe, 2015). Major threat to this species include human disturbance during hibernation

and White Nose Syndrome.


Reforestation treatments: Habitat suitable for hibernation (caves, mines and rock talus areas) has

not been found within this project area. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this species would be

harmed during the inactive season. Roosting habitat is not expected to be directly impacted by

the proposed action since this species preferred summer roosting habitat (rock crevices, talus

slopes) is extremely limited to nonexistent in the project area. No cumulative effects are

anticipated since the only other activity in the area is prescribed burning, and these units will be

protected from these activities.

Determination of Effects: The Proposed Project “may impact individuals but is not likely to

cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” in the short term and in the long term

would have “beneficial impacts” upon this species.

5. Bald Eagle– Sensitive bird species

Survey Information: Bald eagles occur throughout Arkansas during the winter (James and Neal

1986) and there has been an increase in their statewide nesting population (Karen Rowe,

personal communication). They occur in the ONF throughout the year, though the nesting

population is much smaller than the wintering population.


14 of 23

Mid-winter bald eagle surveys were conducted annually at Lake Hinkle 1979-1992 (records are

available at the Poteau office). Periodic aerial surveys for bald eagle have been conducted

during prescribed burning operations on the district. No additional nest sites have been located

during aerial surveys.

There are three eagle nests documented on the Poteau/ Cold Springs Ranger District. In addition

to the three nest locations on the Poteau/ Cold Springs RD, there is a nest located on private land

(adjacent to government property) on the north side of Poteau Mountain. No eagle nests are

known to occur in the project area.

Additional surveys for bald eagles were not necessary to analyze and disclose effects because

survey methods are not effective to provide definitive information for excluding the species from

consideration in the project analysis.

Environmental Baseline:

Bald eagles range from Alaska East through Canada and South throughout the lower 48 states

and Mexico (NatureServe, 2015). The most densely populated bald eagle breeding populations

are in Alaska and Canada, but there are breeding populations in all of the lower 48 states with

significant breeding populations occurring in Florida, the Pacific Northwest, the Greater

Yellowstone area, the Great Lakes states and the Chesapeake Bay region (USDI-FWS, 2007).

Most eagles that breed at northern latitudes migrate southward during winter, or to coastal areas

where waters remain unfrozen (USDI-FWS, 2007).

Breeding habitat is usually close to large water bodies that provided desired food sources such as

fish, waterfowl and seabirds (USDI-FWS, 2007). Wintering areas are commonly associated with

open water though in some regions (e.g., Great Basin) some bald eagles use habitats with little or

no open water (e.g., montane areas) if upland food resources (e.g. rabbit or deer carrion,

livestock afterbirths) are readily available (NatureServe, 2015).

In 1940 the bald eagle gained federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Later the bald eagle was given additional protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Soon

after passage of the Eagle Act, populations stabilized or increased in most areas of the country.

However, the eagle population drastically declined in later years, primarily due to widespread

use of the pesticide DDT. The accumulation of DDT in eagles caused them to lay eggs with

weakened shells resulting in the eggs being cracked or broken before they could hatch,

decimating the eagle population across the nation (USDI-FWS, 2007). Concerns about the bald

eagle resulted in its protection in 1967 under the predecessor to the current Endangered Species

Act. The eagle was one of the original species protected by the ESA when it was enacted in 1973

(USDI-FWS, 2007). Today bald eagle populations have rebounded. In June of 2007 the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service announced the bald eagle‟s removal from the Endangered Species List.

Currently the bald eagle is still protected under the migratory bird treaty act and Bald and Golden

Eagle Protection Act (USDI-FWS, 2007). Both laws prohibit killing, selling, or otherwise

harming eagles, their nest, or eggs (USDI-FWS, 2007).


15 of 23

Reforestation treatments: would have no direct impact on bald eagles because there are no eagle

nests known to occur in the project area. It is possible that an unknown nest tree may exist in

project area but is unlikely due to a large amount of field work being conducted in this area. If

an unknown nest does exist in the project area it likely would not be damaged since eagles

normally build their nest high up in the canopy of mature trees no commercial timber harvesting

is proposed and only small trees will be cut during hand release. The proposed treatments are

not expected to harm or improve bald eagle habitat. Therefore, no indirect impacts are

anticipated. No cumulative effects are anticipated since the only other activity in the area is

prescribed burning, and these units will be protected from these activities.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project will have “no impacts” for this species.

6. Bachman’s Sparrow – Sensitive bird species

Survey Information: On the Poteau/Cold Springs Ranger District Bachman‟s sparrow is primary

monitored through R-8 Landbird point counts, informal surveys and the Waldron breeding bird

survey route.

All 12 units of the Ouachita National Forest have established Breeding Bird Points (50 points

total for Poteau/Cold Springs) which are monitored on an annual basis. Five Bachman‟s

Sparrows have been found on the Poteau/Cold Springs from 1997 – 2013 during these surveys.

The Waldron Breeding Bird Survey of 2002 recorded (2) Bachman‟s sparrows on the Cold

Springs Ranger District in a young seedtree stand.

On the Poteau/Cold Springs RD, most survey and distributional data involves informal data

collection. Presence of singing birds is usually noted in field records maintained as part of the

overall RCW recovery project (data on file and in field notebooks). Records indicate Bachman‟s

Sparrows most often occur within and adjacent to stands managed for RCW recovery. Typically,

these stands have a history of prescribed burning and other vegetation treatments. Specific

surveys for Bachman‟s sparrow were conducted in 1998 in areas with similar habitat (but lacking

RCW clusters) were negative (data on file). However, other Bachman‟s Sparrows have been

seen and or heard during the nesting season or migration, in open mature pine stands or in

recently cut seedtree areas.

Additional surveys are not necessary to determine the presence of Bachman‟s Sparrow or to

evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this species. The positive response of this bird to

habitat treatments like those in the proposed action is well known and additional specific surveys

will not provide additional data useful in evaluating the proposed project.

Environmental Baseline: Bachman‟s Sparrow forages on the ground in dense grass or shrub

habitat like that found in early forest stage cover. Key habitat requirements for breeding activity

are dense grassy places where scattered trees or saplings are present usually in pine forest types.

They use young pine plantations 1-3 years of age, and open pine stands with grasses and

scattered shrubs, oaks or other hardwoods (see Arkansas nesting data in Haggerty 1988; also

James and Neal 1986; DeGraaf et al. 1991; Hamel 1992).


16 of 23

The natural history of Bachman‟s Sparrow and its preferred habitats has been well documented.

Bachman‟s Sparrow populations have declined throughout its southern range in recent decades

(DeGraaf et al. 1991; Hamel, 1992), however its viability as a species is not threatened at this

time. Population declines may be directly related to declines in its preferred habitats that are

early seral stage (losses due to changes in timber harvest methods – no regeneration harvests)

and the lack of mature, open pine woodlands.

Bachman‟s Sparrow occurs on Poteau/Cold springs RD during the migration and nesting seasons

in pine-bluestem habitat primarily areas managed for RCW recovery (MA22), but also in MA 14

with similar treatments. In past years, it was documented in young pine regeneration areas.

With the end of clearcutting in the early 1990s, current records are from mature pine stands,

including seed tree areas, maintained in an open condition with prescribed burning.


Reforestation treatments: The Proposed Action could have a direct effect by harm a nest that

contained eggs or young if treatments took place during the nesting season. However, this is not

likely due to the stands proposed for treatment are too dense to have a well-developed

herbaceous ground layer which is a critical component of Bachman‟s sparrow habitat. No

Indirect and cumulative effects are anticipated with this project




7. Diana fritillary – Sensitive insect species

Survey Information: In the literature, deciduous and upland pine woodlands near streams appear

to be preferred habitat. Eggs are laid near various species of violets primarily in late summer.

The larvae have been documented to feed on the leaves and flowers of violets (Carlton and

Spencer 1996). 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 species has been observed in various areas throughout the district. Most of the older

scattered records involved sunny openings associated with roadsides. Concentrated efforts in

recent years have shed light on these earlier records. Males were found in abundance during

early June and females in abundance later in the growing season.

Surveys on the Poteau RD by Craig Rudolph (2001) and others from Southern Research Station

indicate this species to be common in Management Area 22 where timber thinning, WSI, and

repeated prescribe burning has produced approximately 40,000 acres of open, park-like forest.

Additional surveys for this butterfly were deemed not necessary at this time because this species

is known to occur within this area, suitable habitat is present within the vicinity of the proposed


17 of 23

project area, and additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased information for

this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: The Diana fritillary, a butterfly, is of concern because populations in

its former range have become isolated. Historically, Diana fritillary occurred as far north as

western Pennsylvania. It presently occurs in the Virginias, westward throughout the Ohio Valley

to Illinois, and south to northern Louisiana and northern Georgia. The coastal plain-eastern

piedmont populations of Virginia and North Carolina seem to be eradicated. Currently, this

species is rare outside of Appalachia, but it occurs in the Ozark-Ouachita Interior Highlands

region (NatureServe 2003). The Diana is known to occur in this project area and is found

frequently across the entire district. Most of the occurrences are in areas that were burned 2-3

years prior. Diana fritillary utilizes and is associated with wild violets, wild iris, and milkweeds.

It occurs in deciduous and pine woodlands near streams and in open areas with a variety of

wildflowers.


Reforestation treatments: It is extremely unlikely that there would be any direct impacts during

reforestation treatments due to adult butterflies since they are highly mobile. However, there is

the possibility of directly impacting eggs and larvae if treatments occur during the reproductive

season. No Indirect and cumulative impacts are anticipated.




8. -11 SENSITIVE AQUATIC ANIMAL SPECIES

8 Notropis ortenburgeri Kiamichi shiner Fish

9 Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana fatmucket Mollusk

10 Toxolasma lividus

Purple lilliput Mollusk

11 Obovaria arkansasensis Southern hickorynut Mollusk

The Kiamichi shiner is confined to western Arkansas south of the Arkansas River where it has

been found in major rivers. Additional surveys for Kiamichi shiner are not necessary to

determine the presence of this species or to evaluate the effects of the proposed actions on this

species.

There have been only limited surveys for bivalves such as Louisiana fatmucket, Purple Lilliput,

and Southern hickorynut on the Cold Springs RD. This is due largely to the fact that only small

portions of perennial streams are included within the public lands. There have been enough

surveys to indicate that the following bivalves could occur in perennial streams downstream

from this project area.

Louisiana fatmucket is widespread in the Ouachitas and not listed as sensitive by Harris et al.

(1997).


18 of 23

One specimen of Purple Lilliput has been found in the Poteau River

While Southern hickorynut was found in the Poteau River (Harris 1994), little of which is in

public ownership. It was more recently found in the Fourche La Fave River (Harris 2001:11).

The former Ouachita creekshell (now combined with Southern hickorynut into one species) has

been documented in several rivers in western Arkansas (Harris et al. 1997, Fig. 16). It was found

during a survey of the Fourche La Fave River (Harris 2001:11). It was documented previously

in the Poteau River (Harris 1994).

No bivalve surveys have been completed on the streams that get drained into from this project

area in recent years specifically related to the proposed projects in this BE. Assumptions are that

these three mollusks could occur in the streams downstream from this Project area but are

unlikely to occur within the project area because the streams are small and do not have a constant

flow.

Additional surveys for these mussels are not necessary to determine their presence or to evaluate

the effects of the proposed actions on these species. Forest standards designed to control

significant levels of sedimentation should protect water quality, and these filter-feeding aquatic

organisms.

Environmental Baseline: The Kiamichi shiner is Ouachita endemic minnow is found in small to

medium sized streams and small rivers in flowing pools over gravel, cobble and small boulder

substrates (Robinson and Buchanan 1988: 220-221). Impacts could occur if streams in these

project areas or downstream from the area are negatively affected by erosion, sedimentation, or

contamination by non-point source pollutants.

Threats to these three sensitive mollusk species include chemical use, sedimentation, dredging,

and dam construction.

Low intensity burning would be expected to have little or no impact on water quality (Bidwell, et

al., no date: 2877-10). This would be primarily a result of forest plan measures limiting

activities in SMZs that would contribute to sedimentation and other disturbances.


Reforestation treatments: All activities connected with Reforestation treatments occur in upland

pine stands, which have been designated as lands suitable for timber production. There are

specific restrictions on use of heavy equipment within SMZs that protect stream quality.

Restrictions on herbicide use within the Forest Plan would protect stream quality and therefore

limit impacts on aquatic species. Vegetation management would not directly, indirectly, or

cumulatively affect these sensitive aquatic species.

Determination of Effects: The proposed project will have “no impacts” on these four sensitive

aquatic species because of the general protective measures for SMZs within the Forest Plan.

12. – 14. SENSITIVE RIPARIAN PLANT SPECIES


19 of 23

12 Amorpha ouachitensis Ouachita false indigo

13 Vernonia lettermannii Narrowleaf ironweed

14 Vitis rupestris Sand grape

Survey Information: Ouachita false indigo (12 Amorpha ouachitensis) is a fairly widespread

endemic. It is found in rocky shoreline riparian glades; rocky, well-drained, semi-open areas.

This species is not likely harmed by most management activities due to streamside zone

protection zones.

Narrowleaf ironweed (13. Vernonia lettermannii) and Sand Grape (14. Vitis rupestris) are also

associated with streamside zones and many of these species actually grow right at the water

edge.

Surveys for the Cold Springs Ranger District by Bates (1991), field surveys by the Forest

Botanists and other Forest Service employees have found these plant species distributed widely

throughout the district. Each occurrence was within a protected streamside zone.


direction in Forest Service Manual. Based on this assessment, no additional surveys for this

sensitive plant species were deemed necessary at this time because this species is known to occur

within many streamside protection zones on the district, suitable habitat is present in the

proposed project area. Assumptions are that these species do occur in this project area.

Additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased information for this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: These three sensitive riparian plant species are endemic species to the

Ouachita Mountains and are locally abundant. Threats to these species would be similar to those

for fish and mollusks. Motorized vehicles “playing” along creeks can also have a detrimental

impact on these species. These species are protected through the implementation of Revised

Forest Plan Standards for protection of streamside zones.


Reforestation treatments: All activities connected with Reforestation treatments occur in upland

pine &/or hardwood stands. There are specific restrictions on use of heavy equipment within

SMZs that protect stream quality. Restrictions on herbicide use within the Forest Plan would

protect SMZs and therefore limit impacts on these plant species. Vegetation management would

not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively affect these sensitive riparian area plant species.

Determination of Effects: Therefore, limitations of forest management activities within SMZs

included in the Forest Plan would protect these three sensitive riparian area plant species from

undesirable impacts. The Proposed Project “may impact individuals but is not likely to cause

a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability.”

15. Waterfall’s sedge – Sensitive Plant Species


20 of 23

Survey Information: This species is found in Arkansas and Oklahoma on 105 or more sites,

most of which occur near or on the Ouachita National Forest. Many of the locations on the

Ouachita National Forest are on sites located within areas that have undergone timber

management activities and in areas that have been burned. Often Waterfall‟s sedge is found in

areas that have had recent silvicultural activities. It appears to do well with practices that mimic

natural disturbance. No current management practices (e.g., timber harvesting, road building)

significantly impact C. latebracteata.


direction in Forest Service Manual. Based on this assessment, no additional surveys for this

sensitive plant species were deemed necessary at this time because this species is known to occur

within the district and additional surveys at this time would not provide any increased

information for this analysis.

Environmental Baseline: Waterfall‟s sedge is an endemic species to the Ouachita Mountains and

is locally abundant. It has a Global Heritage rank of G3, an Arkansas state rank of S3, and an

Oklahoma state rank of S3 (Natureserve, 2015). It is found in a variety of habitats such as shaley

roadsides, dry shale woodlands, riparian areas, mesic oak hickory forest, pine and pine hardwood

forest, and mazarn shale, and novaculite glades. It is found in Polk, Yell, Scott, Montgomery,

Howard, Garland, and Pike Counties, Arkansas and LeFlore and McCurtain Counties,

Oklahoma. Waterfall‟s sedge receives some natural protection from human disturbance by the

diversity of its preferred habitats, as described above. Many of the locations on the Ouachita

National Forest are on sites located within areas that have undergone timber management

activities and in areas that have been burned. Often Waterfall‟s sedge is found in areas that have

had recent silvicultural activities. It appears to tolerate practices that mimic natural disturbance.

No current management practices (e.g., timber harvesting, road building) significantly impact C.

latebracteata because of the nature of the habitats it occupies. A minor risk to the species occurs

from the use of herbicides to control vegetation where it occurs adjacent to roadways and in

regeneration areas.


Reforestation treatments: The proposed Action may directly impact individual plants through

uprooting, or by burying plants under displaced soils. Site preparation should have minimal

indirect impacts since waterfall‟s sedge appears to tolerate practices that mimic natural

disturbance so species viability and distribution are not anticipated to be significantly impacted.


cause a trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability” for this species.

16. Ozark chinquapin – Sensitive plant species

Survey Information: There are over 180 documented sites on the Ouachita NF and 374 on the

Ozark NF. Due to the abundance of this species, only a limited number of sites have been

reported and entered into Arkansas Natural Heritage Inventory and Oklahoma Biological Survey

databases. Therefore, these site locations do not represent all actual occurrences for the forest.


21 of 23

District personnel are all trained to recognize this species.


direction in Forest Service Manual. Based on this assessment, additional surveys are not

necessary to determine the presence of this species or to evaluate the effects of the proposed

actions on this species.

Environmental Baseline: Ozark chinquapin was formerly a locally abundant and widespread tree

within the Interior Highlands region of Arkansas. It is less common and less widespread within

the uplands of southwestern Missouri and eastern Oklahoma. Historical relict populations may

occur in northern Alabama in the Appalachian Highlands, but these populations may have been

extirpated (NatureServe, 2009). Ozark chinquapin has been seriously impacted by the

introduction of the chestnut blight (Endothia parasitica). Today, very few seed-producing mature

trees of this species still exist, but immature stump sprouts are quite common (Tucker, 1980,

1989). Typically, these stump sprouts live only a few years before they die from the effects of

chestnut blight. Ozark chinquapin most commonly occurs in dry upland deciduous or mixed

hardwood-pine communities on acid soils of ridge-tops, upper slopes adjacent to ravines and

gorges, and the tops of sandstone bluffs. Recent experiments concerning the effects of canopy

removal on Ozark chinquapin suggest that the taxon responds favorably to canopy thinning

through increased sprouting, flowering and fruit production (NatureServe, 2003).


Reforestation treatments: Ozark Chinquapin is designated as a leave tree species however, it is

possible that this species could be misidentified and directly impacted by being ran over. If an

Ozark Chinquapin was accidently ran over would likely re-sprout. These treatments should have

no significant effect on the viability of the species. Indirect impacts are minimal. No

Cumulative impacts associated with this project are not anticipated for this species because

there are no other activities currently known to be having an effect on this project area.

Determination of Effects: This proposal “may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a

trend to federal listing or loss of viability” for this species.

VI. MITIGATIONS All activities proposed follow direction of existing Biological Opinions and Assessments. No

additional protection or mitigation is required or proposed for the activities proposed in this BE.


22 of 23

VII. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS Species evaluated

in this BE

Scientific Name Common name Determination

1 Picoides borealis

Endangered

Red-cockaded Woodpecker No Effect

2 Nicrophorus americanus

Endangered

American burying beetle May Affect likely to adversely affect,

3 Myotis Septentrionalis

Threatened

Northern Long-Eared Bat May Affect, likely to adversely affect

4 Myotis leibii Eastern Small-footed myotis May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a

trend to Federal listing or a loss of viability

5 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle No Impacts

6 Aimophila aestivalis Bachman‟s Sparrow May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a


7 Speyeria diana Diana fritillary May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a


AQUTIC

ANIMAL

SPECIES

8-11

Notropis ortenburgeri,

Lampsilis hydiana,

Taxolasma lividus

Obovaria arkansasensis,

Kiamichi shiner,

Louisiana fatmucket, , purple

Lilliput,Southern hickorynut

No Impacts

RIPARIAN

PLANTS

12-14

Amorpha ouachitensis,

Vernonia lettermannii, &

Vitis rupestris

Ouachita false indigo,

Narrowleaf ironweed, & Sand

grape

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a


15 Carex latebracteata Waterfall's sedge May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a


16 Castanea pumila

ozarkensis

Ozark chinquapin May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a


Concurrence with Fish and Wildlife Service is NOT required for the

determinations listed above and will not be requested at this time due to a “Take”

statement having already been issued for American Burying beetle and Northern

Long-eared Bat. However project level documentation is still required to

document the activity is excepted from incidental taking prohibitions.

All the vegetation manipulation activities of the Proposed Action will be

incorporated into the annual reports the years the activities occur.


23 of 23

VIII. SIGNATURE OF PREPARER

Prepared by: /s/ William Stephens Date: Nov 30, 2016

William Stephens

Wildlife Biologist



Reviewed by: /s/ Jason Garrett Date: Nov 30, 2016

Jason Garrett

Wildlife Biologist



biological evaluation for proposed, threatened and...

Documents