Environmental Assessment BIG MUDDY RIVER BOTTOMS HABITAT IMPROVEMENT United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service April 2005

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (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 USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. For Information Contact: National Environmental Policy Act Coordinator The Shawnee National Forest 50 Hwy 145 South, Harrisburg, IL 62946 (618) 253-7114 This document can be accessed on the Shawnee National Forest website at www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY…………………………………………………………….. ……. 4 II. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………… 5 Document Structure………………………………………………………………. 5 Purpose of and Need for Action………………………………………………….. 7 Proposed Action………………………………………………………………….. 8 Decision Framework……………………………………………………………… 8 Public Involvement……………………………………………………………….. 8 Issues and Scope of the Environmental Assessment……………………………… 12 III. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION…………. 12 Alternative 1……………………………………………………………………….. 12 Alternative 2……………………………………………………………………….. 12 Alternative 3……………………………………………………………………….. 13 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail……………………………… 13 Comparison of Alternatives……………………………………………………….. 14 IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES………………………………………………………………. 14 Water and Soils……………………………………………………………………. 15 Air…………………………………………………………………………………. 20 Vegetation…………………………………………………………………………. 23 Terrestrial Wildlife………………………………………………………………… 28 Aquatic Wildlife…………………………………………………………………… 39 Heritage Resources……………………………………………………………….... 42 Recreation………………………………………………………………………….. 42 V. REFERENCES………………………………………………………………. 43

3

I. SUMMARY The Shawnee National Forest (Forest) proposes to establish a series of shallow-water impoundments and additional greentree reservoir, and to perform timber-stand improvements, prescribed burning and selective planting to maintain oak-dominated bottomland forest and restore wetlands in the bottoms of the Big Muddy River. The project is located in the bottoms of the Big Muddy River approximately eight miles south of Murphysboro in Jackson County, Illinois. It is within the Jonesboro-Murphysboro Ranger District of the Forest. This action is needed because the hard-mast–producing forests in the project area and the area’s shallow wetlands have deteriorated to the point where they are no longer able to meet the objectives detailed in the Forest’s 1992 land and resource management plan (Plan). Without these improvements, the area’s wetlands would continue to diminish in both acreage and habitat value and bottomland oak- and hickory-dominated flatlands would continue to be replaced by elm-ash-maple forest. This would result in a reduction in hard mast and the production of a more closed (and, therefore, shade-producing) canopy which would, in turn, reduce the area’s biodiversity. The overall result would be diminished recreational, wildlife and overall forest management opportunities. In addition to the proposed action, the following alternatives were considered: • No action—continuing to manage the area under current plans without any of the proposed

actions. • Proposed actions without thinning activities in Unit #17 • Clearcutting; • Additional (expanded) or less regeneration activities; • Single-tree selection/uneven age management; • Replanting as trees die naturally, and; • Proposed action without prescribed fire and without timber-stand improvement. The deciding official for this project will review information on the proposed action, its purpose and need and the action(s)’ potential beneficial and adverse effects and decide whether or not to implement the proposed action or one of its alternatives.

4

II. INTRODUCTION The Big Muddy River Bottoms Habitat Improvement project area is located in Jackson and Union Counties, Illinois on the Jonesboro-Murphysboro Ranger District of the Shawnee National Forest (Figure 1). The analysis area is about eight miles southwest of Murphysboro, Illinois: In Jackson County, T9S, R3W, Sections 17, 20, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35 and T10S, R3W, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29 and 33; and in Union County, T11S, R3W, Sections 4, 5 and 9. The subject of this environmental assessment is a project aimed at mitigating the loss of bottomland hardwoods and other wetland resources in the project area. These actions include establishment of shallow-water impoundments, application of management actions to restore the viability of pin oak forests, and establishment of additional bottomland hardwood areas to mitigate losses due to flooding. A. Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This document describes direct, indirect and cumulative impacts that could occur if the proposed action or its alternatives were implemented. The document is organized into four sections: • Introduction: Describes the purpose of and need for the project and the agency’s proposal

for achieving that purpose and need. It also describes the process through which the Forest Service informed the public of proposed actions and how the public responded.

• Comparison of Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: Provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action and alternatives to it. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. The section also includes performance standards for the actions.

• Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: Describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action or its alternatives. The section is organized by resource area. For each resource area, the affected environment and the anticipated effects of the no-action alternative are described first to provide a baseline for analysis. The effects of the proposed action and other action alternatives are then compared to this baseline.

• Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section lists the agencies and individuals consulted during preparation of this environmental assessment.

Additional project documentation is included in the project record located at the Jonesboro-Murphysboro Ranger District Station, 521 N. Main St., Jonesboro, Illinois.

5

Figure 1. Big Muddy River Bottoms Habitat Improvement project area.

6

B. Purpose of and Need for Action The Big Muddy River Bottoms Habitat Improvement project area, shown on Figure 1, is an important component of both the Shawnee National Forest (Forest) and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) flyway. The Big Muddy river bottomlands constitute one of the largest continuous bottomland hardwood tracts in southern Illinois. The presence of this plant association increases the diversity of floral and faunal habitats within the Forest. The 3,400-acre Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir was established in part of the project area during the 1960’s to provide habitat for migrating waterfowl as a functional part of the Mississippi River flyway (Reference 1). Vegetation in the project area has been heavily influenced by human activities. Dendrological and anthropological data and pollen and charcoal profile studies all indicate that fire played an important management role in the area in pre-historic times. During the late 1800’s and early 1900’s the area was ditched, drained, timbered, cleared, burned, farmed and grazed. Throughout the area, fire was frequently used to clear land and impede growth of vegetation considered undesirable for agricultural purposes. Fire was a major determinant of tree-species composition in the area. Growth of the shade-tolerant tree components of southern Illinois bottomland forests, such as elm, maple and ash, was suppressed by frequent fires that favored the growth of more fire-tolerant and shade-intolerant trees, such as oaks and hickories. Eventually, four primary forest community-types dominated the area: shagbark hickory, pin oak, pin oak-cherrybark oak and pin oak-red maple, with pin oak the dominant tree species over most of the area (References 1, 7, 12, 15). In Oakwood Bottoms, the forest has a mature and, in some cases, overmature, pin oak overstory with a maple-elm-ash midstory and thousands of pin oak seedlings (generally ranging from 2,000 to 300,000 per acre) on the forest floor. Since the Forest Service acquired the area, fire and other factors that favored the development of pin oak forest have been largely eliminated. The condition of the oak overstory is rapidly declining. In many areas 20 to 100 percent of the overstory trees have died of old age and stress from a combination of overcrowding, insects, disease and water damage from the extensive and long-duration floods of 1993 and 1995. In spite of the fact that, in many parts of the project area, sufficient seed source exists to produce thousands of oak and hickory seedlings, and that these seedlings have the ability to persist in the shaded understory for a number of years, the shade-intolerant oaks and hickories are prevented from developing into mature trees by a midstory dominated by shade-tolerant elm, ash, and maple. As the oak and hickory overstory dies, the shade-tolerant midstory species grow more rapidly than the oak and hickory seedlings to fill the openings created by dead trees. Without suppression of the elm, ash and maple midstory and subsequent release of the oak and hickory seedlings through a combination of timber-stand improvements and prescribed burning, the species composition of the bottomland hardwood forest is trending to one dominated by the shade-tolerant elms, ashes and maples. The Forest Service estimates that, without management intervention, over the next 25 to 30 years, the shade-tolerant components will replace the oak-hickory components in the project area. This would result in diminished biodiversity accompanying the loss of this major plant association and an appreciable loss of much of the

7

hard mast that many species of wildlife both residing in and migrating through Oakwood Bottoms are dependent upon. In the project area, the Big Muddy River is leveed on its west side, protecting agricultural lands to the west. On the east side of the levee, the forest has a mature, mixed, bottomland-hardwood overstory with a maple-elm-ash understory. Much of this forest was affected by the severe flooding of 1993 and 1995 and subsequent years and, in some parts of the project area, nearly all trees have been killed. In other areas, many of the less flood-tolerant trees have been killed, while more flood-tolerant species have survived (Reference 13). Overall, the integrity of the bottomland hardwood forest in the project area has been compromised by a combination of the phenomena described above. The project is needed to restore wetland and bottomland hardwood forest habitat in the Big Muddy River floodplain, improve and increase the bottomland forest habitat in the area, regenerate oak-hickory bottomland forest within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir, provide additional shallow-water wetland habitat and improve waterfowl habitat, all of which would contribute to the biodiversity of the area and to the functional success of the Mississippi River flyway through the proposed action described in the section below. The proposed action is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan and helps move the project area towards the desired conditions described in the Plan. C. Proposed Action The Forest proposes to establish a series of shallow-water impoundments and additional greentree reservoir, and to perform timber-stand improvements, prescribed burning and selective planting to maintain oak-dominated bottomland forest and restore wetlands in the bottoms of the Big Muddy River. D. Decision Framework Given the purpose of and need for action, the deciding official will review the proposed action and its alternatives and decide whether or not to implement the proposed action or one of its alternatives. E. Public Involvement The Forest initiated a scoping process to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the environmental assessment and to identify significant issues relating to the proposed action. Scoping letters were mailed in July of 2003 describing the project and requesting public and agency input on issues to be addressed. The scoping letter was also posted on the Forest website. Written comments on the project were received by mail and email and reviewed by the interdisciplinary team that produced the environmental assessment. Using comments from the public and other state and federal agencies, the team developed the following list of issues to address.

8

Figure 2. Proposed shallow water impoundments (pink on right) and Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir expansion (green on left).

9

F Figure 3. Proposed prescribed burning (pink/hachured) and thinning (purple/cross-

hached) activities. Numbers denote flooding compartments.

10

Figure 4. Proposed timber-stand improvement areas (green/hachured). Numbers denote flooding compartments.

11

F. Issues and Scope of the Environmental Assessment Issues were separated into two groups: significant and non-significant. Significant issues are those directly or indirectly caused by implementation of the proposed action. Non-significant issues are those outside of the scope of the proposed action; already decided by law, regulation, the Forest Plan, or other high-level decision; irrelevant to the decision to be made; or conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality NEPA regulations requires this delineation in Section 1501.7: “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review.” In addition, resource areas that would remain unaffected by the proposed action are considered non-significant issues. The following significant issues and resource areas are analyzed in this environmental assessment:

• Water and Soils • Vegetation • Wildlife

• Air • Heritage Resources • Recreation

The following issues are non-significant. The first is outside of the scope of this project and the second is already decided by law and regulation outside the authority of the Forest Service.

• The FS should develop and maintain non-motorized trails in the Forest. • Analyze an alternative that would contemplate returning the area to natural drainage

patterns. III. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the habitat restoration project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. A. Alternatives 1. Alternative 1 – No Action Under this alternative, the Forest Service would carry out none of the proposed actions to enhance bottomland forests or other wetlands in the project area. There would be no prescribed burning, no timber-stand improvements in Unit #17 or selective plantings within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir area, no wetlands development and no greentree reservoir expansion. 2. Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action The proposed action is described in the section above and is illustrated on Figures 3, 4 and 5. It includes:

• Establishment of approximately 550 acres of shallow-water impoundments to restore wetlands and provide additional wetland habitat to replace historic losses. These are illustrated on Figure 3.

12

• Prescribed burning of approximately 12,120 acres in several different areas throughout Oakwood Bottoms; including adjacent riparian areas, and an area—the Gorham tract—to the north of the Bottoms. (Figure 4).

• Timber-stand improvement including girdling or cutting of shade-tolerant sapling and pole-sized trees and use of selective planting within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir area and in adjacent riparian areas to reduce competition of shade-tolerant species with oaks and hickories and allow for regeneration of oak and hickory species. (Figure 4).

• Thinning of dense stand (actual plantation) of pole-sized pin oak trees in Flooding Unit 17 (91 acres) to release pin oaks for optimum growth and mast production (Figure 4).

• Establishment of approximately 900 acres of additional greentree reservoir adjacent to the existing greentree reservoir as shown on Figure 3.

• Installation of two water supply wells to provide flooding water for the 900 acres of additional greentree reservoir.

• Restoration of existing levees, ditches and water-control structures in five of the flooding units within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir.

3. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2, except that no timber thinning activities in Unit #17 are included in this alternative. B. Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail 1. Clearcutting Clearcutting would favor regeneration of shade-intolerant oaks and hickories. However, management of the greentree reservoir must also consider the need for older, mast-producing, trees to provide food for waterfowl and other wildlife until the regenerated forest grows to mast-producing age. Clearcutting would remove this mast and seed source and, hence, would not serve the purpose of and need for this project. 2. Additional Regeneration Harvesting With the deteriorating condition of much of the pin oak forest in the project area, there is a need to regenerate as much of the area as possible, as soon as possible, in order to further management prescriptions and goals. Most of the present pin oak stands in the area are 70 or more years old and will need to be regenerated within the next 20 to 30 years, beginning very soon. Because of this need, the original proposal included regeneration of 900 acres of pin oak bottomland forest adjacent to the existing Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir. However, recent surveys of these areas indicated that most of the mature trees have died or will soon die, eliminating the need for timber harvest to be used as a regeneration tool. The remaining mature pin oaks are needed as mast-producing trees providing wildlife food and, therefore, the timber harvest/ regeneration alternative was not considered further. 3. Uneven-age Management – Single Tree Selection Uneven-aged management using single-tree selection was considered. However, pin oak seedlings are intolerant of shade. The openings created by single-tree selection would not

13

provide sufficient sunlight to allow the pin oak to compete effectively with the more shade-tolerant trees already present in many areas. Since one of the main reasons for the proposed action is to regenerate the aging pin oak and not the shade-tolerant species, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project. 4. No Prescribed Fire and No Timber-Stand Improvement This alternative contained all of the activities as listed in the proposed action except for prescribed fire and timber-stand improvement. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because, without prescribed fire and timber-stand improvement, the vegetative competition with the pin oak seedlings would be such that the purpose and need for the areas would not be met. C. Comparison of Alternatives Table 2 compares the project alternatives in terms of the categories and amounts of management proposed under those alternatives.

Table 2 Comparison of Alternatives

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Wetland impoundments 0 acres 550 acres 550 acres

Prescribed burning, cutting, selective planting

0 acres

12,120 acres 12,120 acres

Timber Stand Improvement 0 acres All of Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir, 5600

acres 0 acres

Thinning/release in Unit 17 0 acres 91 acres 0acres Restoration of ditches, levees, water-control structures 0 5 flooding units 5 flooding units

Establish additional greentree reservoir 0 900 acres 900 acres

Prescribed burning in area not within greentree reservoir 0 950 acres

(Gorham tract) 950 acres

(Gorham tract) IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, and pertinent socioeconomic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments which would accrue to implementation of each of the alternatives. These changes are the direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives and the related cumulative effects. The area of consideration for cumulative effects is the Big Muddy Bottomland analysis area as shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the adjacent private and public lands, activities on which could contribute to the total cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives. The environment of the project area has been greatly influenced by human activities. Past activities include: farming and cattle grazing; clearing of forests and old fields for agriculture and residential development; timber harvest; hardwood plantation establishment; power line construction and maintenance; land acquisition for the national forest; landform manipulation to

14

alter drainage, including the draining of swamps and construction of levees on the Mississippi and Big Muddy Rivers and in the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir; homestead establishment; tree-planting and timber-stand improvement, including tree-thinning and the use of herbicides to reduce vegetative composition; outdoor recreation; wildfires; road and trails construction and use; use of fire for clearing of vegetation; prescribed burning; use of all-terrain vehicles; and railroad construction and use. Past actions which have shaped the vegetative development of Oakwood Bottoms include the extensive disturbances of timber harvest, land clearing and farming, grazing, draining and burning while the area was in private ownership. These created conditions conducive to oak regeneration and survival. In the 1970's and 1980's the Forest Service harvested approximately 484 acres by clearcutting and thinned approximately 90 acres to promote oak regeneration. All clearcuts which were not affected by the great floods of 1993 and 1995 regenerated to an acceptable mix of shade-intolerant tree species. Numerous timber-stand improvement projects have been implemented in the analysis area in which individual trees (primarily oaks) were selected and released from competing vegetation. These past actions resulted in an area dominated by mature oak stands. Present actions include farming, flooding, recreational pursuits (hunting, fishing, hiking, birding, etc.), road maintenance, levee maintenance and campground maintenance. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include present actions as well as reforestation and timber stand improvement, timber harvesting for wildlife habitat, age class distribution, and oak regeneration and continuation of Phase II Oakwood Restoration Project. Row-crop agriculture on openlands and timber harvest on private woodlots is expected to continue. Conversion of bottomland hardwoods to row-crop agriculture could be expected on private lands. Future planned Forest Service activities for vegetative management are limited to timber stand improvement in the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir and reforestation in areas where the trees have been killed by extensive flooding. A. Water and Soils The location of the analysis area is National Forest Service land in the Big Muddy and Mississippi River historical floodplains, which lie in western Jackson County, Illinois (Figure 1). The Big Muddy River, approximately 135 miles long, rises in Jefferson County, Illinois and flows southwestward to the Mississippi River south of Grand Tower, Illinois. The Big Muddy River watershed is approximately 5,819 square miles. Elevations in the project area range from 350 feet above mean sea level in southern Jackson County to 360 feet in the northern part of the project area. The water quality of the Big Muddy River in the project area is rated by the USGS as Good, with the major water quality impacts listed as siltation, elevated levels of nutrients and organics, often accompanying removal of riparian vegetation. Sources of these impacts are listed as agricultural, urban and mine-related activities (Reference 3). The Big Muddy River has received the Partial/Minor Degree of Use Support rating from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in its "Illinois Water Quality Report Update, 1998".

15

Use Support assessments for rivers, streams and lakes are based on ability to support aquatic life. A Partial/Minor rating indicates the stream supports aquatic life with minor impairment. The hydrology of these floodplains has been altered by an extensive levee system built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The area which is not protected floods as frequently as it has historically but the duration is longer and the depth of flood water is higher. Based on 75 years of records maintained by the St. Louis District of the Corps of Engineers, the median daily streamflow of the Big Muddy River is approximately 2,000 cubic feet per second. The Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir was developed in the mid-1960’s to provide seasonal wetland waterfowl habitat to replace the natural floodplain and wetland eco-systems. Oakwood Bottom Greentree Reservoir is a man-made and maintained forested wetland. It includes an interval levee system to hold water in 29 different units. It also includes nine wells and pumps to seasonally distribute water into these management units on an annual basis in fall and winter. The underground water supply doesn't carry the sediment load that would have been deposited under natural conditions. Slope gradient in Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir is from northwest to southeast. Maximum elevation change within any flooding unit is three feet. As much as 30 percent of each unit may remain dry when shallowly flooded because of small ridges or natural levees which are common throughout the area.

Table 3 Major Soil Series in the Big Muddy Oakwood Bottoms Project Area

Series Drainage Characteristics Parent Material Topographic

position/location

Belknap Somewhat poorly drained Silty acid alluvium nearly level floodplains

Bonnie Poorly to very poorly drained Silty acid alluvium nearly level floodplains,

<2% slopes

Booker Very poorly drained Thick clayey alluvium Floodplains and benches along major rivers

Darwin Very poorly drained Clayey slack water sediments Floodplains

Jacob Poorly to very poorly drained

Acid clayey slack water sediments Floodplains, <1% slopes

Karnak Poorly to very poorly drained Clayey alluvium Floodplains

Okaw Poorly to very poorly drained

Clayey lacustrine sediments with a thin mantle of silt

Floodplains

Piopolis Poorly drained to very poorly drained

Silty clay loam or silt loam alluvium Floodplains

Wakeland Somewhat poorly drained Silty alluvium Floodplains, 0 to 2%

slopes The major soils in the analysis area are mapped in the Soil Survey of Jackson County, Illinois (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1979) (Reference 4). The major soils vary with parent material, but they do have certain general characteristics in common. They are all formed in alluvium or slack water sediments and they are all somewhat poorly drained to very poorly

16

drained. Table 3 shows the major soil series of the project area and their primary pertinent characteristics. Soils in the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir project area are predominately Jacob clay and Booker silty clay. They have greater than 60 percent clay in the subsoil and have a very high shrink-swell potential. Both Jacob and Booker have very slow permeability and are conducive to shallow water management. The erosion hazard is slight but wetness is a major problem and soil disturbing activities should be carried out in summer and fall during dry periods to reduce the compaction and rutting potential. The alterations in hydrology of the area have affected many of the natural wetlands. Construction of the levee and drainage systems and excavating natural levees to provide drainage has destroyed and altered wetlands along the Big Muddy floodplain. In addition, the floodplain which lies on the unprotected side of the levee contains man made ditches which have altered the hydrology of the wetland floodplain. Effects on Water and Soils 1. Alternative 1 Under this alternative, the wetland resources of the project area would continue to deteriorate, with accompanying increases in siltation. 2. Alternative 2 This alternative includes construction activities that could affect water quality and soil productivity in both the short and long term. Structure and levee construction have the potential to affect soil productivity by compaction and scour erosion during initial construction. The constructed berm or levee would be compacted to retain impounded water. Compaction of the natural soil surrounding the construction would be kept to a minimum. Soil compaction can affect site productivity, making it difficult to revegetate the site. Compaction reduces available water holding capacity, infiltration and soil hydraulic conductivity. It increases runoff and impedes root growth which inhibits revegetation. As a preventative measure structure construction would be done when soils are dry and generally using only heavy equipment with tracks to reduce compaction potential. Natural processes such as freezing and thawing and plant rooting would ameliorate the effects of compaction. Structures would be constructed in Management Area 6.3 while Oakwood expansion levee construction would take place in Management Area 1.3. During construction, bare soil exposure limits in filter strips, in Management Prescription 6.3 of the Forest Plan would be followed (Reference 2). In cases where construction of structures is within 200 feet of a perennial stream or 100 feet of an intermittent stream, allowable bare soil exposure limits in filter strips must be complied with. There is a potential for scour erosion at the construction sites when bare soil is exposed to overland flow of flood water, though the generally flat topography of the project area would

17

reduce this potential. Erosion decreases site productivity by removal of topsoil, which is highest in organic matter and nutrients. This organic matter holds significant amount of nutrients and improves water holding capacity and soil structure. Mitigation, which includes seeding and mulching, would be done as soon as construction is complete to reduce the erosion potential. In the short term at the construction sites soil particles may be detached from raindrop impact and transported off the site by flood waters causing an increase in turbidity and increasing nutrient levels in the waterway. As a mitigation measure, revegetating and mulching construction sites would follow construction immediately. In the long term, these impoundments would filter out sediment in flood waters and temporarily store water to decrease peak flow. In the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir, the levee system would keep sediments out of nearby waterways. Any dispersed soil particles from levee construction sites would be retained in the greentree and out of waterways. Soil erosion can occur when bare soil is exposed or an increase in runoff results from soil compaction. As described above, however, the generally flat topography of the project area reduces the impact of erosion. Soil particles carried off-site result in nutrient loss to the land base and enrichment to watercourses and riparian areas which ultimately act as catchment areas. Silvicultural activities identified in each of the alternatives are designed to be in compliance with the State of Illinois Water Quality Management Plan and Illinois Best Management Practices, both developed in accordance with the Clean Water Act. This alternative includes prescribed burning as a vegetation management treatment. Prescribed burn plans would ensure fires that do little damage to the duff layer and have little impact on the soil. Long-term prescribed burning studies (Reference 5) have demonstrated that available phosphorous, exchangeable calcium and organic matter in soil on plots burned on a regular schedule were higher than those on unburned plots. Prescribed fire does cause a loss of nitrogen through volatilization. Nitrogen reduction is temporary, as nitrogen-fixing soil microorganisms replenish soil nitrogen rapidly. Fire-dependent ecosystems and early-successional series are often dominated by nitrogen-fixing species resulting in rapid replenishment of soil nitrogen Jorgensen and Wells (1971) (Reference 6) suggest that prescribed burning improves site conditions associated with an increased rate of fixation due to more available nutrients and higher soil moisture and temperature. Mineral elements (e.g., potassium, calcium, magnesium) not volatilized by burning remain in the ash. Phosphorus and sulfur are volatilized at high temperatures (1,427 degrees Fahrenheit), so they are less susceptible to loss during burning (References 7, 17). Soil and forest floor samples were collected in four prescribed burning studies in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains. Burning was found to have had no deleterious effect on organic matter or nitrogen in surface mineral soil (Reference 5).

18

The effects of prescribed fire on water quality vary depending upon fire intensity, type and amount of vegetation, ambient temperature, terrain and other factors. The major concern about fire's effects on water quality is the potential for increases in sedimentation (Reference 8). However, Brender and Cooper (Reference 9) reported that repeated, low-intensity, prescribed fires have little effect on the hydrologic properties of soils; and Douglas and Van Lear (1983) (Reference 10) determined that two, low-intensity burns had no significant effect on nutrient or sediment concentrations in ephemeral streams. The lack of significant effects on water quality in these studies is due to the low to moderate intensity of the prescribed bums. Even though terrain was relatively steep, sedimentation was not increased. Douglas and Goodwin (Reference 11) demonstrated that this was because low to moderate intensity fires leave very little bare soil exposed and do not destroy the root mat. When fire is prescribed and applied properly, water quality would not be adversely affected. Regardless of alternative and method of vegetation management selected, adverse impacts to soil and water can be reduced by using specific burning techniques, and by adhering to Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The result would be no appreciable impacts to soil or water. This alternative also includes timber-stand improvement including girdling or cutting of shade-tolerant sapling and pole-sized trees and use of selective planting within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir area and in adjacent riparian areas to reduce competition of shade-tolerant species with oaks and hickories and allow for regeneration of oak and hickory species. The timber-stand improvement activities planned are all to be performed with hand tools and hand chain saws and their impacts on soil and water quality would be negligible. 3. Alternative 3 Alternative 3 includes all activities featured in Alternative 2 and their associated impacts, except that no timber thinning activities are included in this alternative. This would eliminate the soil and water impacts associated with skid trails, temporary roads and log landings. Comparison of direct and indirect effects on water and soils Of the alternatives analyzed, Alternative 2 would have the greatest adverse impact on water quality and soil productivity in the short term, since it would create the most soil disturbance. Alternative 1 would have the least effect. With the prescribed mitigation, however, effects of any of the alternatives on water quality or soils would be minimal. In the long-term, Alternative 2 would be most beneficial to water quality, since it is projected to be the most successful in restoring wetland values. Cumulative Effects on Water and Soils This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV.

19

1. Alternative 1 Since Alternative 1 would have no direct effects and the indirect effect would be the continuing degradation of the area’s wetland resources, it would be expected to have minimal cumulative effects. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 With the construction proposed under the action alternatives, shallow water impoundments would create more wetlands; and, with the proposed prescribed burning, there would be a shift back to soil conditions characterized by relatively slow nutrient cycling, low microbial activity and recalcitrant organic matter. This would favor the establishment of oak communities over competing elm-ash-maple communities (Reference 9). Thus, the diversity of both the soils and the vegetative communities of the area would be increased in the long term. Considered together with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, these alternatives would have beneficial cumulative effects. B. Air The primary legal basis for regulation of air quality is the Clean Air Act (CAA). Under the CAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), defined as amounts of pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result. NAAQS have been established for particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead. Areas where the ambient air currently meets the standard for a given pollutant are said to be in attainment. Jackson County, which is the location of the subject project, and the counties surrounding Jackson County, are all in attainment for all six of the pollutants cited above. States have the lead in carrying out provisions of the CAA and develop State Implementation Plans that describe programs they will carry out to meet the requirements of the CAA. The relevant regulatory requirements prohibit federal agencies from engaging in any activity which does not conform to the applicable State Implementation Plan under the CAA. This prohibition is referred to as the General Conformity Rule. To comply with the General Conformity Rule, a conformity determination must be made for each pollutant in a non-attainment or maintenance area unless the total of direct and indirect emissions of that pollutant caused by a federal action is below the de minimis thresholds established for that pollutant. The Term de minimis, in this context, denotes “so small as to be negligible or insignificant.” The thresholds established under the General Conformity Rule are 100 tons per year or less for each criteria pollutant in order to qualify for de minimis classification. If the total emissions from an action are below these thresholds, no conformity determination is required. The various alternatives studied for the Big Muddy River Habitat Improvement Project are analyzed in terms of the Conformity Rule below. Another provision of the CAA with some applicability to proposed project activities, particularly prescribed burning, is the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) provisions of the Act. The goal of PSD is to prevent areas that are currently “cleaner” than the NAAQS from being polluted up to the maximum ceilings allowable under the NAAQS. USEPA recently determined that wildland fires, including prescribed burning, were not subject to issuance of a PSD permit and that states could exclude prescribed fire emissions from PSD air quality analyses if the air

20

quality excursions caused by the burning would not cause long-term or permanent air quality degradation. Effects on Air 1. Alternative 1 Under this alternative, no project-related emissions would be generated. Existing air quality conditions and patterns in the project area would be unaffected. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 The air quality impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be the same. They would accrue to two types of activities: (1) temporary effects associated with the construction of the new wetlands, and (2) temporary effects associated with prescribed burning. Construction-related air emissions estimates were made by developing assumptions regarding the types of equipment which would be used and the duration of their use and applying those assumptions to the following USEPA models and emissions factors: • NONROAD Emissions Model (USEPA, 1999); • Mobile Source Observation Database (USEPA 2000a), and; • AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume II—Mobile Sources

(USEPA, 2000b). Equipment needed for the construction of the new wetland areas under the two alternatives would likely include one or more trackhoes, bulldozers, backhoes, and compactors, and several types of trucks. Construction would occur approximately eight hours per day for a period of five days for each area. Approximately twelve impoundment areas are planned. Therefore, construction activities would likely occur for a total of about 480 hours. Not all equipment would be used at the same time and not all equipment would be used for the entire duration of construction. The assumptions developed herein were designed to be very conservative and estimates of usage are based on the maximum expected usage. It was assumed that tractors, bulldozers, graders and compactors would each be used for one third of the project time, graders and compactors one fourth of the time, and that highway and service trucks would be used approximately four hours per day. These assumptions are presented in Table 4. In the Environmental Assessment of the Honey School Bridge Replacement, February, 2003, the Forest Service analyzed a very similar scenario. Equipment usage under that scenario is shown in the right-hand column of Table 4. Note that the only differences are additional vehicles in the case of Honey School Bridge. The results of applying these estimates to the above-cited models for the Honey School Bridge scenario are shown in Table 5. These results, applied to the Big Muddy scenario, result in a very conservative (i.e., high) estimate of emissions due to construction.

21

Table 4 Equipment Assumptions for Air Quality Analysis

Equipment Type Total Hours of Use During Construction, Big Muddy

Total Hours of Use During Construction, Honey School

Bridge Crawler/Tractor/Bulldozer 160 320, 2 vehicles Tractor/loader/bulldozer 160 160 Highway truck 60 60 Service truck 240 480, 2 vehicles Grader 120 120 Compactor 120 120 Small tools 240 240 Pump, gasoline 4-stroke 80 80 Cement truck 0 40 As shown in Table 5, none of the pollutants remotely approach the de minimis levels of 100 tons. NOx and VOCs are ozone precursors (contribute directly to the formation of ozone). The regulations require that the sum of the totals for these two classes of pollutants also be compared to the standard of a total of 100 tons. That sum in this scenario is 1.083 tons. Since leaded gasoline has been virtually eliminated in the US, it would be improbable that measurable lead emissions would accrue to this project. In summary, the emissions from equipment used in the two “action” alternatives analyzed would not be high enough to deteriorate the air quality of the project area.

Table 5 Total Equipment Emissions (in tons) During Construction

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Particulate Matter (PM10)

Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs) 0.759 0.920 0.239 0.115 0.163

Cumulative Effects on Air 1. Alternative 1 Since no direct or indirect effects on air quality are anticipated by implementing this alternative, no cumulative effects on air quality are anticipated. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 As is indicated above, the project area in Jackson County and the counties surrounding it are in attainment for all NAAQs. No other projects are ongoing or proposed for the project area in the foreseeable future that would affect local or regional air quality. If other construction projects are carried out in the area, it is reasonable to expect they would utilize equipment similar to that expected for the Big Muddy project, with similar levels of emissions. Even assuming that several of these projects were occurring at the same time as the Big Muddy project, the cumulative emissions of all these projects would still be expected to be well below the 100-ton thresholds. Based on these considerations, it is anticipated that implementation of either of these alternatives would result in minimal cumulative effects on air quality.

22

C. Vegetation The project area is generally termed “Oakwood Bottoms.” As is described in preceding sections, ecosystems of the Oakwood Bottoms have been greatly affected by agriculture and drainage control. Despite these impacts, however, the area has retained a diverse flora (References 12, 13). During a 1993 study (Reference 12), plants representing over 500 taxa from 278 genera and 90 families were collected and identified. Vegetation in the Oakwood Bottoms can be described in terms of three associations: (a) greentree reservoir, (b) mixed bottomland hardwoods and (c) riparian wetlands. In the greentree reservoir, the area has been bermed into a series of flooding compartments. The area is flooded during the fall and drained before the onset of the growing season. Flooding is accomplished through the use of well water. As a result of tight soils and little drainage relief, the area is primarily a wet forest, with pin oak the dominant tree species and four forest community types predominating: shagbark hickory, pin oak, pin oak-cherrybark oak and pin oak-red maple. In the mixed bottomland hardwoods part of the site, the area is not currently managed through controlled flooding. Due to a variety of environmental factors, the elm-ash-maple components do not strongly compete with pin oak in the bottomland hardwoods part of the site and pin oak is still the dominant tree species. In both the greentree reservoir portion of the site and the bottomland hardwoods area, the existing condition is primarily a mature to overmature oak-hickory overstory, a maple-elm-ash understory and a carpet of oak and hickory seedlings on the forest floor. Pin oak is a relatively short lived species and the condition and health of the oak overstory is rapidly declining. For management purposes pin oak in the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir will be considered mature at age 60. In many areas 20 to 100 percent of the trees have died from old age and/or stress related mortality from over-crowding, insects and disease, water damage from the great flood of 1993 or other unknown causes. The shade tolerant maple, elm, ash understory is filling in the holes created by the dead trees and shading and killing the oak seedlings that require significantly more sunlight to grow (Reference 13). The Forest Service estimates that in another 30 years, the majority of the oaks will have died, and without disturbance would be replaced by the shade tolerant component. This would result in an appreciable loss of the hard mast (acorns), on which many species of wildlife in Oakwood Bottoms are heavily dependent. As is discussed above, the Oakwood Bottoms area currently supports a diverse flora. This diversity would be reduced considerably as the oak-hickory canopy is replaced by maple-elm-ash overstory. These trees form a much more densely-leaved canopy than do oaks and hickories, resulting in a very heavily-shaded forest floor. Most vegetation typical of the forest floor of an oak-hickory forest cannot tolerate such heavy shade, so a much less diverse flora grows on the shaded forest floor (Missouri Conservationist, March, 2004) (Reference 14). Two federally listed plant species occur on the Forest. Of these, Price’s potato bean (Apios priceana), has the potential to occur in the project area. As is shown in Table 6, 38 species listed as “Regional Forester Sensitive” or “Forest-listed” have the potential to occur in the project area. Of these, three have been observed within the project area and another 35 have habitats in the

23

project area. These species are discussed in the Biological Evaluation prepared for this environmental assessment.

Table 6 State of Illinois, Regional Forester Sensitive and Forest-listed Plant Species with Habitat in the Project Area.

Scientific Name Common Name State Status

RFSS/ Forest Listed

Habitat

Carex bromides Sedge T FL Dry woodlands, floodplain forests Carex gigantea Large sedge E RFSS Wet woods, obligate wetland species Carex lupuliformis False hop sedge RFSS Wet woods, roadside ditches; obligate

wetland species Carex styloflexa Bent sedge FL Mesic floodplain forests Carya aquatica Water hickory T Floodplain forests Chelone obliqua Red turtle-head RFSS Swampy forest margins Cimicifuga rubifoloia Appalachian

bugbane T RFSS Edges of forests, forest openings Cynosciadium digitatum* Cynosciadium E FL Swamps, pin-oak flats

Cypripedium pubescens Large yellow lady’s-slipper RFSS Dry or moist woodlands

Eleocharis wolfii Wolf’s spikerush RFSS Marshy areas Euonymus americanus American

strawberry bush E FL Forested wetlands, floodplain forests Glyceria arkansana* Manna grass E FL Floodplain forests, shallow swamps Hottonia inflata Featherfoil RFSS Swamps, obligate wetland species Hydrolea uniflora One-flowered

hydrolea E FL Swamps and ditches Hypericum lobocarpum St. John’s-wort FL Swamps, bogs Iris fulva Copper iris FL Floodplain forests and swamps Juglans cinera Butternut RFFS Forest edges Lilium superbum Superb lily RFSS Mesic woods and streambanks Malus angustifolia Narrow-leaved

crabapple E FL Flatwoods and thickets

Matelea decipiens Climbing milkweed E FL Floodplain forests, streambanks

Melanthium virginicum Bunchflower T FL Wet woods, bogs, swales Melothria pendula Squirting cucumber T FL Rich, damp thickets; gravelly

streambeds Panax quinquefolius American ginseng RFSS Low mesic woods Paspalum dissectum Bead grass FL Shallow water, ditches, obligate

wetland species

Planera aquatica Water elm T FL Obligate wetland species, floodplain forests

Plantago cordata Heart-leaved plantain E RFSS Sand or gravel bars of streams under a

forest canopy

Poa alsodes Grove bluegrass E RFSS Sandstone canyons, mesic floodplain forests

Poa autumnalis Bluegrass E FL Mesic-to-wet mesic forests Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed E FL Stagnant, shallow water

24

Table 6 State of Illinois, Regional Forester Sensitive and Forest-listed Plant Species with Habitat in the Project Area.

Scientific Name Common Name State Status

RFSS/ Forest Listed

Habitat

Ptilimnium costatum* Mock bishop’s weed FL Floodplain forests; pin oak flatwoods

Puccinellia (=Torreyochloa) pallida

Pale alkali grass E FL Shallow standing water

Rhexia mariana Maryland meadow beauty E FL Open moist areas

Stenanthium gramineum Grass-leaved lily E RFSS Mesic floodplains; rocky woods Styrax americana Storax T FL Streams, floodplain forests, swamps Torreyochloa pallida Pale-false

mannagrass E FL Shallow standing water Trillium viride Green trillium E FL Forested bottomlands Urtica chamaedryoides Nettle T FL Floodplain forests Vitis rupestris Sand grape RFSS Floodplain forests, streambanks Legend: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; FL = Forest Listed; RFSS = Regional Forester Sensitive Species *Observed within project area.

The following sections of this report discuss potential project impacts on the federally listed and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (Table 6) which have either been reported from the project area or which have habitat requirements which correlate with habitats present in the project area. Although field surveys were performed to search the project area for the presence of species of concern, the fact that a given species was not observed during the surveys does not indicate that it is absent from the area. The discussions therefore focus on habitats rather than individual species. Effects on Vegetation Potential effects on T & E, Sensitive, and Forest-listed Species will be mitigated in accordance with the guidelines detailed in the Forest Plan. The Plan lists Sensitive and Forest-listed species and the natural communities, in which they occur, along with specific management practices, applicable to those natural communities, which will mitigate adverse impacts on these species. These mitigating practices would greatly reduce adverse impacts to federally listed species and to the sensitive species listed in Table 6, as well as for other species which are not listed as rare, endangered or threatened, or otherwise “sensitive.” Two sets of characteristics would have a great deal of influence on the effects of project implementation on the plants listed in Table 6. These include the hydrologic requirements of the plants and their sunlight requirements. Tables 7 and 8 list plants that are obligate wetland species and those that are shade-intolerant, respectively. Populations of wetland plants would be beneficially affected by implementation of any of the “action” alternatives, to the extent that those alternatives result in increased wetland habitat accompanying greentree reservoir

25

expansion and/or development of additional shallow-water impoundments. Populations of plants which are shade-intolerant would be enhanced by all of the action alternatives, to the extent that they result in opening the canopies to allow increased sunlight to reach the understory.

Table 7 Plants from Table 6 That are Favored by Wetland Hydrology

Scientific name Common name Carex gigantean Large sedge Eleocharis wolfii Wolf’s spikerush Glyceria arkansana Manna grass Hottonia inflate Featherfoil Hydrolea uniflora One-flowered hydrolea Iris fulva Copper iris Paspalum dissectum Bead grass Planera aquatica Water elm Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed

Table 8

Plants from Table 6 That are Shade-intolerant Scientific Name Common name Cimicifuga rubifolia Appalachian bugbane Cynosciandium digitatum Cynosciadium Euonymus americanus American strawberry bush Malus angustifolia Narrow-leaved crabapple Melothria pendula Squirting cucumber

1. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would allow for the continued decline of the shade intolerant community (oak and hickory) at the Oakwood Bottoms, including understory vegetation and including the sensitive species listed above. As the oak overstory matures and dies, growth of the existing shade tolerant species (primarily maple, elm, and ash) in the understory would be stimulated by the additional sunlight and occupy the space of the dead tree(s). These trees would form a denser canopy than was the case with the oaks and hickories and most oak seedlings on the forest floor and those herbaceous species which are adapted to current conditions on the forest floor would not get sufficient sunlight to survive. At the expected rate of mortality and replacement the area would convert from the present oak/hickory community to an elm-maple-ash community within the next 50 years. In many of the area’s flooding compartments, this process has already taken place and replanting would be necessary. This change would be particularly detrimental to the objectives of the Greentree Reservoir, where migrating waterfowl rely on acorn production for a food supply in their fall, winter and spring migrations in the Mississippi flyway. This alternative would have no direct effect on plant communities. However, deterioration of the oak-hickory community and its replacement by denser maple-ash-elm communities would have a detrimental effect on existing forest-floor components as their habitats disappear.

26

2. Alternative 2 Prescribed burning would be used as needed over the entire Oakwood Bottoms area. The area analyzed in this assessment would not all be burned in one year. Within the greentree reservoir, moisture levels, fuel availability and pumped water for greentree reservoir flooding would limit yearly burns. It is estimated that good burning conditions may only be available one in three years. Outside of the greentree reservoir, burning units would be staggered by year to maintain unburned winter and spring forage cover ratios. We anticipate that some burning would occur every year. The effects of timber stand improvement (thinning, weeding ,cleaning, and girdling/cutting), and prescribed burning would be to increase sunlight to the forest floor, promoting growth and survival of existing and future oak seedlings, saplings, and pole size trees, as well as for those sensitive species listed in Table 8. Minor adverse impacts under this alternative would accompany construction activities such as building of temporary roads and turnaround areas in Unit #17. These effects are predicted to be minor in the project area due to the lack of topographic relief and the nature of the area’s soils. Assuming the implementation of the mitigation measures for “sensitive species” described above and those for mitigation of soil impacts described under “soils,” this alternative would have an overall beneficial impact on project area vegetation. It would increase diversity and wetland habitat and further the management objectives of Oakwood bottoms and the remainder of the project area. 3. Alternative 3 This alternative differs from Alternative 2 in one major respect; it includes no timber-stand improvement activities. Impacts to vegetation would be quite similar to Alternative 2. This alternative would have the same basic beneficial effects of opening the crown to provide sunlight to the understory and would have the same beneficial effects on wetland enhancement. The minor adverse impacts related to tree thinning operations would be avoided. However, implementation of this alternative would not be as successful in releasing oaks for growth in Unit #17. The effects of prescribed burning and windthrow for this alternative are the same as those described in Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects on Vegetation This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV. 1. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in adverse, cumulative effects from the continued succession of the shade-tolerant component. The oak component would continue to decline as shade-tolerant species fill holes in the canopy left by dying oaks. Acorn production would be significantly reduced in the future. A small component of oak would be maintained through timber stand improvement but insufficient to meet species composition objectives for the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir. Habitat would decline for the endangered, threatened and sensitive species that are either shade-intolerant or dependent on wetland hydrology would decline.

27

2. Alternative 2 Implementation of Alternative 2, coupled with the existing timber stand improvement program, would result in beneficial, cumulative effects from enhancement of the area’s biodiversity and wetland habitat. 3. Alternative 3 Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in cumulative effects similar to Alternative 2, but less beneficial in that it would not be as successful in maintaining the pin oaks, lacking intensive burning and timber stand improvement program. D. Terrestrial Wildlife 1. Habitat Habitat surveys of the project and analysis areas were conducted in December of 2003, and February, March and April of 2004. The surveys consisted of examining habitats within the project and analysis areas, noting habitat quality, quantity and suitability for rare and management indicator species, as well as existing impacts. Habitats within the project area include a wide variety of habitats such as: bottomland hardwood forests; palustrine emergent wetlands, forested and shrub/scrub wetlands; moist soil management units; old field, early bottomland hardwoods, levees vegetated with grasses and forested riparian corridors along the Big Muddy River. 2. Populations One hundred four species of federally listed threatened and endangered, Illinois State-listed threatened and endangered (Forest-listed) species and Regional Forester Sensitive wildlife species were originally considered from the Forest's species list. Forty-six of the 104 species were considered for further analysis because they were listed by the Illinois Natural Heritage Program, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as occurring or probably occurring in Jackson or Union Counties. Twenty-two of the 46 species were included in the environmental assessment for further analysis based on recent records of occurrence or the likelihood of their occurrence. Several sources were reviewed and consulted to determine the presence of federally listed, state-listed and Regional Forester Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species, or their habitat, within the project area. Based on reported occurrences in the project area, one federally listed endangered and one threatened species were included in the analysis: the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Three Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species were included: Swainson’s warbler (Lymnothlypis swainsonii), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea) and timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus). Forest-listed species included in the analysis are listed in Table 9. Management indicator species are listed in Table 10. All these species are discussed in the Biological Evaluation prepared for this environmental assessment.

28

Table 9 Forest-Listed Wildlife Species with Habitat or Known to Occur in Project Area

Scientific Name

Common Name

State Status Habitat

Mammals Lontra canadensis

Northern river otter T Primarily along rivers, ponds, marshes, and lake in wooded areas.

Ochrotomys nuttalli Golden mouse T

Dense thickets in a variety of wooded habitats including, bottomland hardwood forest, pine plantations, abandoned upland fields, roadside right-of-ways, and successional sites dominated by cedar. Greenbrier thickets, boulder shrewn hemlock slopes, hedgerows, highly arboreal.

Oryzomys palustris Marsh rice rat T Mainly marshes, among grasses and sedges.

Birds

Botaurus lentiginosus

American bittern E

Large freshwater marshes, lake and pond edges where cattails, sedges, or bulrushes are plentiful and marshes with patches of open water and aquatic-bed vegetation. Also in areas of dense herbaceous cover, such as shrubby marshes, bogs, wet meadows

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk

T

Bottomland hardwoods and riparian areas, upland deciduous or mixed deciduous-conifer forest. Nesting areas well forested and almost always found near water Nesting habitat typically is mature forest with a well-developed high canopy and variable amounts of understory

Certhia americana

Brown creeper T

Forest, woodlands, forested floodplains and swamps. Scrub and parks provide winter and habitat during migration. Most often found in coniferous and mixed forests. Dead trees essential for nesting

Circus cyaneus

Northern harrier E

Marshes, meadows, grasslands, and cultivated fields. Perches on ground or on stumps or posts. Nests on the ground, commonly near low shrubs, in tall weeds or reeds,

Egretta caerulea

Little blue heron E Marshes, ponds, lakes, meadows, mudflats, lagoons, streams, other

bodies of calm shallow water.

Egretta thula Snowy egret E Marshes, lakes, ponds, shallow wetland habitats. Gallinula chloropus

Common moorhen T Freshwater marshes, canals, quiet rivers, lakes, ponds, primarily in

areas of emergent vegetation and grassy borders

Ictinia mississippiensis

Mississippi kite E

Tall forest, open woodland, prairie, shelterbelts, wooded areas bordering lakes and streams in more open regions, scrubby oaks and lowland/floodplain forests

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern E Tall emergent vegetation in marshes. Prefers marshes with scattered

bushes or other woody growth

Nyctanassa violacea

Yellow-crowned night heron

E Marshes, riverine swamps, lakes, lagoons, and large cypress swamps. Nests in trees in wooded situations near water, occasionally on ground.

Pandion haliaetus Osprey E

Primarily along rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Widespread during migration, often crossing land between bodies of water. Nests in dead snags, living trees, cliffs, utility poles, wooden platforms on poles, channel buoys, chimneys, windmills, etc.; usually near or above water.

Podilymbus podiceps

Pied-billed grebe T

Sloughs, marshes, marshy inlets and along edges of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Nests are typically built in shallow water surrounded by dense vegetation, especially cattail and bulrush.

29

Table 9 Forest-Listed Wildlife Species with Habitat or Known to Occur in Project Area

Tyto alba Common barn-owl E

Wet meadows, pastures, grass hayfields, and recently abandoned agricultural fields. Nests in buildings, platforms in silos and barns, wooden water tanks, duck blinds, caves, crevices on cliffs, burrows, and hollow trees,

Macroclemys temminckii

Alligator snapping turtle

E

Slow moving, deep water of rivers, sloughs, oxbows, swamps, bayous, and ponds near rivers, Shallow creeks that are tributary to occupied rivers with mud bottom and some aquatic vegetation but may use sand-bottomed creeks Almost entirely aquatic; rarely out of water except to nest.

Nerodia cyclopion

Mississippi green water snake

T Marshes, swamps, ditches, canals, bayous, shallow lakes and ponds, wet prairie, oxbows and floodplain sloughs, sluggish tree-lined streams, Basks on banks or in shore vegetation.

E = Endangered T = Threatened

Table 10 Management Indicator Species in the Project Area

Scientific Name Common Name Habitat

Mammal

Sciurus carolinensis Gray squirrel Mast dependent species and a species of mid and late successional bottomland hardwoods.

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed deer Mast dependent species and a species of mid and late successional

bottomland hardwoods.

Birds

Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested Fly Catcher Open forest and forest edges, snag/cavity dependent species

Meleagris gallopavo Eastern wild turkey Bottomland hardwoods, cropland, wetlands, shrubland, brushy thickets grassland/old field and forest edge, mast-dependent.

Icteria virens Yellow Breasted Chat Forested wetlands, shrubland, bottomland hardwoods

Oporornis formosus Kentucky warbler Neotropical migrant, forest interior species in deciduous forest, dense second growth, swamps. Medium-aged forests with slightly open canopy, dense understory, and well-developed ground cover.

Setophaga ruticilla American redstart Deciduous and bottomland hardwoods and wetlands

Aix sponsa Wood duck Mature bottomland hardwoods and wetlands, hard-mast dependent.

Hyoicichla mustelina Wood thrush Neotropical migrants and forest interior bird species Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary warbler Mature bottomland hardwoods and wetlands Colinus virginianus Northern bobwhite Variety of openland and forest-edge habitats.

Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler Early successional hardwood habitats characterized as brushy thickets grassland/old field and forest edge.

Prianga olivacea Scarlet tanager Neotropical migrant, forest interior species Dryocopus pileatus Pileated woodpecker Cavity trees, snags in mature bottomland and riparian forests.

30

3. Management Indicator Species (MIS) MIS were selected by the Forest for emphasis during planning. These species are monitored during Forest plan implementation to assess the effects of management on their habitat conditions and population trends; as well as management’s impacts on diversity and population viability of all native and desirable non-native plants and animals. MIS represent various native and desirable non-native vertebrate species and their habitat forest-wide. Species related to this project are present in Table 10. Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife 1. Alternative 1 With Alternative 1, the condition of the forest would continue to decline and eventually not provide necessary habitat conditions for species dependent upon bottomland hardwood forests. Wetland habitats would also continue to decline in quantity and quality. The majority of existing oak-hickory forest stands would slowly shift to more mixed hardwood forest dominated by shade tolerant species (elm, ash and maple), with less hard mast diversity and abundance. This decline in mature pin oak (hard-mast) habitat abundance would have direct and indirect adverse effects on federally listed threatened and endangered, state-listed threatened and endangered, Regional Forester Sensitive wildlife and project MIS species utilizing these habitats. This decline in mature hard-mast producing species would be particularly detrimental to the objectives of the Greentree Reservoir where migrating waterfowl rely on acorn production for a food supply in their fall, winter and spring migrations in the Mississippi flyway. Reduction in mast diversity, habitat quality and quantity for mast dependent wildlife species would likely occur in a majority of the existing hardwood stands in the Big Muddy Bottoms OA project with implementation of this alternative. This would have adverse direct and indirect effects leading to a decline in some MIS species that utilize bottomland hardwood habitats and hard mast resources. This decline would continue as the bottomland hardwood timber component continues to trend towards less valuable shade-tolerant tree species. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Beneficial effects under these alternatives would include the creation of additional wetland habitat; promote early successional habitats within the ditch, levee and temporary road construction areas; increase the herbaceous ground cover present within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir and the riparian corridor of the Big Muddy River; control shade-tolerant competing species and promote mast-producing hardwood regeneration. Increase of herbaceous ground cover would have the effect of creating additional foraging habitats for wildlife. Under Alternative 2, the killing of thin-barked tree species by prescribed burns and timber-stand improvement activities in Unit #17 would directly benefit federally listed threatened and endangered, state-listed threatened and endangered, Regional Forester Sensitive wildlife and project MIS species by increasing snag density, creation of interior forest openings, release of hard-mast producing tree species and creation of early successional hardwood forests within the project area. Suppression of the shade-tolerant timber component would allow oak understory to grow rapidly, hardwood regeneration would be released, resulting in a more diverse mixed hardwood forest component that would provide habitat on and near the forest floor.

31

Construction of 550 acres of shallow water impoundments would have the direct effect of creating more palustrine emergent wetland habitat thereby increasing the diversity of habitats within the project area that would benefit aquatic insects, crustaceans, amphibians and higher trophic level wildlife species that use them as food. These alternatives would directly benefit wildlife species due to an increased diversity of food resources and substantially increase habitat availability and quality. Improved water quality in the Big Muddy River due to retention of sediment and excess nutrients would provide beneficial benefits to wildlife. Vegetation removal by prescribed burning, timber-stand improvement, thinning, and during construction of the additional Greentree reservoirs and shallow water impoundments may temporarily increase local flows (when adjacent to stream channels) in proportion to the amount of vegetation removed. Increased stream flows would cause a temporary increase in available foraging habitat for some wildlife species within the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir and the Big Muddy River. However, the increased flow would be negligible by the time it enters the lower reaches of the Big Muddy River. It is unlikely that an indirect effect, such as sedimentation from heavy rains would affect wildlife species. Implementation of the protection measures and management recommendation presented in the Forest Plan (Reference 2) would prevent excessive sedimentation. In the short term, implementation of either alternative could result in the indirect effects of altered reproductive or foraging success, increased rates of disease because of increased sedimentation and degraded water quality, and altered community structure caused by migration of other species out of the affected areas. As these would be short-term effects, wildlife species would quickly reenter the affected areas. Acute incidents of sedimentation within the project and analysis areas could result in populations of aquatic species using these areas (mayflies, dragonflies and caddisflies) being locally extirpated thereby having a short-term indirect effect on wildlife species that utilize these aquatic species as food. a. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species One Indiana bat hibernaculum containing approximately 1,500 Indiana bats during the winter is within two miles of the nearest portion of the project and about six miles from the farthest portion of the project area. There are no caves or mines in or adjacent to the project area. No caves or mines would be impacted by the project. There is no designated critical habitat on the Forest or in southern Illinois for Indiana bats. In 2003, use of the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir for summer roosting habitat and maternity colonies by Indiana bats was documented by Carter (Reference 16). Numerous roost and maternity colony trees were identified during this study. During this study, Indiana bats were found to select large dead or dying trees with large sheets of loose bark. The study concluded that roosting colonies use multiple dead or dying trees that are ephemeral roost sites. Highly disturbed, late-successional habitats with large numbers of dead trees and significant portions in early seral stages of development were most often used by maternity colonies. These areas contained numerous dead, standing trees. The study further concluded that snags have a limited window of use, generally no more than ten years and that Indiana bat colonies are opportunistic nomads, utilizing disturbed habitats with suitable snag densities and tree species with suitable amounts of exfoliating bark.

32

Large, dead trees are common to abundant throughout all of Oakwood and the Big Muddy River corridor. Pole- and sapling-sized red maple and green ash are a common invading species in Oakwood Bottoms. Less common species in Oakwood are swamp white oak, cherrybark oak and some hickories on drier sites and swamp cottonwood, white ash, elm, sweet gum, and silver maple in perennially wet sites. Most of these tree species were drowned in the Big Muddy River corridor during floods in 1993 and 1995. Good roost habitat is apparent within the project area and current snag densities within the project area are high. However, the snags created by the floods could be approaching the end of their period of suitability for use by Indiana bats. Implementation of either of these alternatives would have beneficial direct and indirect effects, contributing to the creation of areas with standing dead snags and early seral stages of development. Any dead trees or large live trees which exhibit shaggy bark or cavities would be left. Dead or shaggy-barked trees that require cutting to mitigate safety concerns would be inspected for bats prior to cutting or would be cut outside of the maternity and migration period. Any tree found to contain bats would not be cut until after they have vacated the tree for the year. Creation and maintenance of dead snags within the project area would directly benefit the bald eagle which often uses large dead trees for roosting perches and nest sites. In accordance with Forest Plan direction for bald eagles, winter feeding areas have been identified that have been used for hunting in Oakwood Bottoms. However, the hunting perches change as the wintering waterfowl concentrations move around the Oakwood Bottoms area. Bald eagles normally nest where there is an open view of a large body of water. The project area contains this type of habitat along the Big Muddy River and an active nest was found near the Big Muddy River during surveys (Reference 13). Activities of either alternative would not occur within the 1,320 foot protected nesting zone during the nesting season. Implementation of either of these alternatives would have some beneficial direct and indirect effects on the Indiana bat and bald eagle, and no adverse direct or indirect effects. b. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Effects of the alternatives on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species are summarized in Table 11. The increased habitat quality for the rodents in Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir would have an indirect beneficial effect on those species that hunt the area for rodents. The continued maintenance of Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir has supplied quality habitat for rice rats. Prescribed fire would increase the amount of herbaceous vegetation, resulting in additional food sources for the marsh rice rat, golden mouse and other rodents, likely resulting in increased population of these species. The timber rattlesnake, a Regional Forester’s Sensitive species, would be helped by this increase in prey. The rattlesnakes may also benefit directly from the opening of the forest canopy. The added sunlight reaching the forest floor may provide additional basking areas for this species. These alternatives would have an overall beneficial effect on the habitat available to sensitive species.

33

Table 11 Summary of Effects – Regional Forester’s Sensitive Wildlife Species

Scientific Name Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Birds Swainson's warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects of increase in quantity and quality of available habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects of increase in quantity and quality of available habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Reptiles

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects from the creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat increase of herbaceous vegetation which would have a beneficial effect on rodent population (Food source)

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

E = Endangered T = Threatened c. Forest-Listed Species The effects of the alternatives on Forest-listed species are summarized in Table 12. The increased habitat quality for the rodents in Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir would have an indirect beneficial effect on those species that hunt the area for rodents. Forest-listed species which would be helped by this increase in prey include river otters, red-shouldered hawks, northern harriers, ospreys and Mississippi kites. The continued maintenance of Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir has supplied quality habitat for rice rats. Prescribed fire would increase the amount of herbaceous vegetation. This would supply additional amounts of food for the marsh rice rat, golden mouse and other rodents, likely resulting in increased population of these species. Predators utilizing these species would benefit from the increased prey population. Improvement of water quality within the Big Muddy River would have a direct beneficial effect on habitat for some Forest-listed species through the removal of nutrients and reduced sedimentation following project completion.

Table 12 Summary of Effects - Forest Listed Wildlife Species

Species

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Mammals Northern river otter Lontra canadensis

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to increase in quantity and quality of available habitat increase of herbaceous vegetation (Food source)

Would not differ significantly from alternative 2.

34

Table 12 Summary of Effects - Forest Listed Wildlife Species

Species

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to increase in quantity and quality of available habitat and increase of herbaceous vegetation (Food source)

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat increase of herbaceous vegetation (Food source)

Effects of management would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Birds

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects due to creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Overall beneficial effects through maintenance of high quality habitat in the project area; creation of additional nesting, roosting and foraging habitats; Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat. Increase in rodent population (food resources).

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Brown creeper Certhia americana

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects due to increase in snag density, food resources.

Loss of potential habitat due to no increase in snag density in Unit #17. Other effects would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat. Increase in rodent population (food resources)

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects due to creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Snowy egret Egretta thula

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Creation of additional wetland habitats. Maintenance of rookery habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects due to creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

35

Table 12 Summary of Effects - Forest Listed Wildlife Species

Species

Alternative 1

Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and quality foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and quality foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Yellow-crowned night heron Nyctanassa violacea

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects due to creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat. Maintenance of rookery habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and quality foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Continued loss of quality and quantity of habitat

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Reptiles

Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and quality foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Mississippi green water snake Nerodia cyclopion

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effect due to creation of additional wetland habitats and quality foraging areas.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

E = Endangered T = Threatened

d. Management Indicator Species The effects of project alternatives on MIS are summarized in Table 13. MIS are sensitive to changes in habitat and water quality. The proposed project may cause minimal adverse effects on the MIS during project implementation. There is the possibility that a direct effect, such as sedimentation, could occur in the Big Muddy River or the Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir in the form of runoff during project implementation. Under these alternatives, vegetative management practices, creation of shallow-water habitats and additional greentree reservoir would have minimal, short-term adverse effects on the species included in this analysis. Beneficial effects would include the creation of additional wetland habitat. Implementation of either of these alternatives would promote early-successional habitat, control shade-tolerant competing species and promote hardwood regeneration, and result in a

36

more diverse mixed hardwood forest component that would provide habitat on and near the forest floor. Overall, these alternatives would have direct and indirect, beneficial effects on the habitat available to Forest-listed species.

Table 13 Summary of Effects – Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Decline of hard-mast food resources.

Predicted increase in quantity and quality of available habitat increase of hard-mast producing trees (Food source) Predicted beneficial effect based on improvement of habitat.

Continued decline of hardmast timber component in Unit #17 would have an adverse impact on food resources. Other aspects of this alternative would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Decline of hard-mast food resources.

Predicted increase in quantity and quality of available habitat increase of hard-mast producing trees (Food source) Predicted positive effect based on improvement of habitat.

Continued decline of hardmast timber component in Unit #17 would have an adverse impact on food resources. Other aspects of this alternative would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Great crested fly-catcher Myiarchus crinitus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Slight predicted increase of habitat quality and quantity by improvement of edges and openland diversity.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Eastern wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Decline of hard-mast food resources. Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Large predicted short and long-term increases in quantity and quality of available habitat through increase of herbaceous vegetation, mature forests and openlands.

Continued decline of hardmast timber component in Unit #17 will have an adverse impact on food resources. Other aspect of this alternative would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Improvement in woodland class size, stem densities, and vegetative and herbaceous cover. Large predicted increase in quantity and quality early successional habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Kentucky warbler Oporornis formosus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Adverse effect of increased fragmentation. Beneficial effects from increases in stem density, herbaceous vegetation and food resources. Overall no net change in habitat.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

37

Table 13 Summary of Effects – Wildlife Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Predicted small adverse effect from decrease in size and age of bottomland and riparian habitats in the short-term.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Wood duck Aix sponsa

Decline of hard-mast food resources. Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects from creation of additional wetland habitats. Increase in quantity and quality of available habitat and increased hard-mast production. Large predicted beneficial effects.

Decline of hard-mast food resources in Unit #17. Other aspects would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Wood thrush Hyoicichla mustelina

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Adverse effect of increased fragmentation. Beneficial effects from increases in stem density, food resources and herbaceous vegetation. Overall small net loss of quality and quantity of habitat.

Beneficial effects of creating less improvement in woodland class size, stem densities, and vegetative and herbaceous cover when compare to Alternative 2 and 4.

Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Beneficial effects from decreased canopy closure, increased herbaceous vegetation and food resources. Adverse effects from decrease in forest age and size. Overall small net loss of quality and quantity of habitat.

Less improvement in woodland class size, stem densities, and vegetative and herbaceous cover when compare to Alternative 2

Northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Improvement of habitat, Increase of forests edges and openlands. Increase in herbaceous vegetation by application of prescribed burns

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Prairie warbler Dendroica discolor

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Improvement in woodland class size, stem densities, and vegetative and herbaceous cover. Large predicted increase in quantity and quality early successional habitat.

Less improvement in woodland class size, stem densities, and vegetative and herbaceous cover when compare to Alternative 2

Scarlet tanager Prianga olivacea

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Predicted small adverse effect from increase in forest opening densities, decrease in size and age of bottomland and riparian habitats.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

Continued loss of habitat, downward trending of population in project area.

Increase in snag density through application of prescribed burns and timber-stand improvement, Decline of mature forest habitat in the short-term.

Would not differ significantly from Alternative 2.

38

Cumulative Effects on Terrestrial Wildlife This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV. 1. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in adverse, cumulative effects from the continued decline in the quality of wetland and bottomland hardwood habitats within the project area, with a continuing trend towards a bottomland forest dominated by less desirable shade-tolerant trees and a significant loss of hard-mast producing tree species. This would result in an area-wide reduction of hard-mast–dependent wildlife species. Wetland habitat in the project area damaged by the floods of the 1990 would not be replaced, resulting in a trending towards the reduction of wetland dependent species. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 would result in beneficial, cumulative effects from the maintenance of a diverse bottomland forest with an oak-hickory component of greater than 60 percent (Reference 2) and of varying age classes, providing a sustained flow of mast production for wildlife habitat in the future. Available wetland habitat would be increased, resulting in an increase of biodiversity throughout the project area. Available foraging habitat would be increased for wildlife species, and the quality and quantity of habitat available to migrating waterfowl would be improved. E. Aquatic Wildlife 1. Habitat Aquatic habitat surveys of the project area were conducted in December of 2003, and February, March and April of 2004. Aquatic habitats within the project area include a wide variety of wetland habitats such as: bottomland hardwood forests; palustrine emergent wetlands, forested and shrub/scrub wetlands; moist soil management units; deepwater habitats such as impoundments, ponds, oxbow lakes and borrow pits; creeks and drainage ditches. The surveys consisted of examining aquatic habitats within the aquatic project and analysis areas, noting habitat quality, quantity and suitability for rare aquatic and management indicator species, as well as existing impacts. All Oakwood Bottoms Greentree Reservoir flooding compartments were inundated to normal flooding depths during the December 2003 site visit. During the March 2004 survey, the flooding units were in varying states of inundation with some units exhibiting minimal flooded areas and some remaining at or near nominal flooding depths. During the survey performed during April of 2004, all flooding compartments were at or near normal draw down levels. The Big Muddy River is an entrenched, meandering, low gradient, medium sized river with a high width-to-depth ratio and many oxbow bends. Stream channel movements such as down-cutting and meandering are common in the aquatic analysis area and contributes to a high silt load and moderate to high turbidity in the river. The river contains large amounts of large,

39

woody debris; numerous logjams, cut banks and shallow water areas within the meanders. The large volume of large woody debris creates high value aquatic invertebrate and fish habitat. The substrate consists of alluvial material; primarily silt and sand with some gravel and cobble-sized rocky substrate evident near the Rattlesnake Ferry low water crossing. The riparian corridor of the Big Muddy River is broad, defined by the Shawnee Hills to the east and the levee to the west. 2. Populations IDNR samples fish within the Big Muddy River at four locations on a routine basis. Three sampling stations are located upstream of the project area with the closest upstream station located near Route 127 in Murphysboro, Illinois at USGS River Mile 37.4. The fourth sampling location is located within the project analysis area in the lower reach of the Big Muddy River at USGS River Mile 9.5 near the Rattlesnake Ferry LWC. During the 2000 sampling event, thirty-one fish species were collected from the Big Muddy River from the four sampling locations. During the 2003 sampling, 34 species of fish were collected from four locations. Bighead and silver carp (recent exotic introductions) were found in significant numbers at the sampling location located in the lower reach of the Big Muddy River. No state or federally listed endangered fish species were collected during the year 2000 or 2003 fish surveys (References 18, 19). Several sources were reviewed and consulted to determine the presence of federally listed, state-listed and Regional Forester Sensitive aquatic wildlife species, or their habitat, within the project area. Based on reported occurrences in the project area, no federally listed endangered or threatened or Forest-listed species are located in the project area, and one Regional Forester Sensitive species may occur in the area, the bird-voiced tree frog (Hyla avivoca). Effects on Aquatic Wildlife 1. Alternative 1 Implementation of this alternative would result in the continued degradation and reduction of habitat within the project area. This would result in adverse, indirect effects on aquatic species in the area due to a reduction of available spawning, foraging and resting areas. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Vegetation removal by prescribed burning and during construction of the additional greentree reservoirs and shallow water impoundments may temporarily increase local flows (when adjacent to stream channels) in proportion to the amount of vegetation removed. Increased stream flows create a temporary increase in available aquatic habitat, which can be of direct benefit during natural low-flow periods such as late summer and fall. The increased flow would be negligible by the time it reaches the lower reaches of the Big Muddy River in the analysis area. This increase in the flow regime may cause an increase in turbidity and sediment transport in the stream reaches within the project analysis area. Transport of suspended sediment is unlikely to have adverse effects on the lower reach of the Big Muddy River within the analysis area. It is unlikely that an indirect effect, such as sedimentation from heavy rains would adversely affect aquatic species. The short duration of the sedimentation events would not affect the viability of the species considered.

40

Acute incidents of sedimentation of aquatic habitats within the project and analysis areas could result in populations of aquatic species using these areas (mayflies, dragonflies and caddisflies) being locally extirpated. Spawning areas for fish in the downstream reaches in the aquatic analysis area could be reduced or lost due to sediment deposition. Flow regimes within the Big Muddy river are sufficiently dynamic to allow natural flushing of excess sediment. Indirect effects of these alternatives on aquatic species could include altered reproductive or foraging success, increased rates of disease as a result of increased sedimentation and degraded water quality, and altered aquatic community structure caused by migration of other species out of the affected areas. Indirect effects on aquatic habitat include changes in the quality, quantity or diversity of available habitat resulting from impacts to the riparian vegetation. Specifically, the transport of large woody debris, an important component of aquatic habitat diversity, to stream channels is a function of the structure and composition of the riparian corridor. The Forest Plan does not allow vegetation management within 100 feet of perennial streams unless management activity is specifically designed for the enhancement of riparian values. Implementation of the recommended protection measures and management practices would ensure that the action alternatives would contribute to an increase in available habitat for the bird-voiced tree frog, a beneficial indirect effect. Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Wildlife This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV. 1. Alternative 1 Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in adverse, cumulative effects on aquatic species from the continued decline of wetland habitat within the project and analysis area. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Implementation of either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would result in minimal, adverse cumulative effects in the short term from temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation that are not expected to affect aquatic habitat quality or quantity or aquatic populations. Turbidity levels would return to normal once soil disturbance stops, and erosion control measures would be established and functioning during the project. The amount of sediment entering streams within the aquatic analysis area is not expected to measurably contribute to the sedimentation of aquatic habitats due to flow volume, sediment transport rates and mitigation methods employed during project implementation. Once soil disturbance stops, turbidity levels would quickly return to normal. The amount of sediment potentially entering streams within the aquatic analysis area is not expected to be enough to measure or to contribute to the sedimentation of aquatic habitats due to flow volume and sediment transport rates. In the long term, implementation of either alternative would result in beneficial, cumulative effects from the increase in available wetland habitat that would lead to an increase in biodiversity. The restoration of existing of bottomland hardwood forests and the creation of

41

additional greentree reservoir areas and other wetland habitats would increase the amount of available amphibian habitat and positively benefit the bird-voiced tree frog. The improvement of water quality of the Big Muddy River would benefit all aquatic species in the project and analysis areas. F. Heritage Resources The project area has been surveyed for heritage resources for a number of previously proposed projects. Twenty-three heritage resources have been identified to date, including eleven prehistoric sites, one prehistoric isolated find, and eleven historic (early twentieth century) sites. The prehistoric isolated find was not rated by investigators as significant and is not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Therefore, it does not require protection/mitigation measures. The remaining 22 heritage resources are considered to be potentially eligible for inclusion on the NRHP and require protection from all project activities until their significance is determined. These heritage resources would be avoided during planned project activities. Effects on Heritage Resources 1. Alternative 1 Implementation of this alternative would have no direct or indirect effects on heritage resources. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Twenty-two heritage resource sites of potential significance are recorded within the analysis area. These would be avoided during any earth-disturbing project activities under all alternatives. Implementation of either of these alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects on heritage resources. Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV. Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in no cumulative effect on heritage resources in the area. G. Recreation Among the management opportunities for the Forest as discussed in the Forest Plan is “providing desirable forest settings and facilities for recreation.” A broad variety of recreational opportunities are provided on the Forest, including camping, hiking, fishing, hunting and horseback riding. The Plan provides Forest-wide standards and guidelines for providing opportunities, maintaining facilities, providing, maintaining, and use of trails, vehicle use, signage, ATV/OHM use, seasonal restrictions, and other aspects involved in providing the range of recreation experiences desired. The Plan also provides standards and guidelines by management prescription area. All the management prescriptions within the project area provide for a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting, hiking, camping and viewing wildlife.

42

Effects on Recreation 1. Alternative 1 Under this alternative, current maintenance activities would continue. There would be no direct or indirect effect on recreation. 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 Under each of these alternatives, recreational experiences would be enhanced in the long term. Both would result in minimal adverse effects on recreation in the short term, but would have minimal beneficial effects in the long term. Cumulative Effects on Recreation This discussion of cumulative effects takes into consideration the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions specified at the beginning of Chapter IV. Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in minimal cumulative effects on recreation in the area. V. REFERENCES (1) Gaylord Memorial Laboratory. Wetland Management Series Number 1. Greentree Reservoir Management Handbook. (2) USDA Forest Service. 1992. Shawnee National Forest Amended Land and Resource Management Plan. (3) Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Illinois Water Quality Report Update. Springfield, IL. (4) USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Jackson County, Illinois. (5) McKee, Wm H., Jr. 1982. “Changes in soil fertility following prescribed burning of Coastal Plain pine sites. Research Paper SE-234. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 23 pp. (6) Jorgensen, J.R. and Wells, C.G. 1971. “Apparent nitrogen fixation in soil influenced by prescribed burning.” Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 35:806-810. (7) Boerner, R.E.J. and Brinkman, J.A. “Fire frequency and soil enzyme activity in southern Ohio oak-hickory forests,” Applied Soil Ecology 23 (2003) 137-146. (8) Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Conrad, Carol E.; Dietrich, John H. 1979. “Effects of Fire on Water: A State-of-Knowledge Review.” Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-10. Washington, D.C.; USDA Forest Service, 28 pp.

43

(9) Brender, Ernst V; Cooper, Robert W. 1969. “Prescribed Burning in Georgia’s Piedmont Loblolly Pine Stands.” Journal of Forestry 66:31-36. (10) Douglass, James E.: Van Lear, David H. 1983. “Prescribed Burning and Water Quality of Ephemeral Streams in the Piedmont of South Carolina.” Forest Science 29: 181-189. (11) Douglass, James E. and Goodwin, O.C. 1980. “Runoff and Soil Erosion from Forest Site Preparation Practices.” U.S. Forestry and Water Quality; What Course in the ‘80s?, proceedings, 1980. Richmond, VA. Water Pollution Control Federation: 50-74. (12) Illinois Natural History Survey. 1995. “Plants of Oakwood Bottoms.” Survey Document #2175. (13) USDA Forest Service. Field notes from reconnaissance-level field inventories in the Oakwood Bottoms, 2004. (14) Gus Raeker and Mike Stambaugh, “Too Much Sugar,” Missouri Conservationist, Vol. 65, Issue 3, March 2004. (15) Ladd, D. “Reexamination of the Role of Fire in Missouri Oak Woodlands.” The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL 60532. (16) Carter, T. C. 2003. Summer Habitat Use of Roost Trees by the Endangered Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) in the Shawnee National Forest of Southern Illinois. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Zoology Graduate School, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. (17) Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. USDA Forest Service General technical Report RMGS-GTR-42-vol. 2. December 2000.

44