Biological Evaluation (01-09-03) for Threatened and Endangered Species Regional Forester Sensitive Species

National Forests and Grasslands of Angelina and Jasper Counties, Texas

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning

PREPARED BY:

Jason A. Engle Wildlife Biologist Angelina/Sabine National Forests 111 Walnut Ridge Road Zavalla, Texas 75980 (936) 897-1068

DATE: August 14, 2009

Table of Contents

I. Summary ...... 3 II. Introduction ...... 3 III. Project Area ...... 4 IV. Proposed Management Action ...... 4 V. Coordination History ...... 6 A. Reviewers and Collaborators ...... 6 VI. Species Reviewed ...... 6 VII. Field Survey and Results...... 7 A. Available Inventories ...... 7 B. Field Work Conducted Specific to This Project...... 7 C. Species with Potential for Occupying Treatment Area ...... 7 VII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...... 9 A. Terrestrial Animals ...... 9 VIII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...... 11 A. Terrestrial Animals ...... 11 B. Aquatic Animals ...... 14 C. (Communities)...... 16 VIV. Signature Page ...... 18 X. References ...... 19 Appendix A. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List ...... 22 Appendix B. Survey Records and Reports ...... 28

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 2 of 32 I. Summary The purpose for this project is to reduce hazardous fuels in the Upland Island Wilderness. The effects to thirty threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species are addressed in this biological evaluation (1 threatened – Black Bear, 1 endangered – red-cockaded woodpecker, and 28 sensitive animal and species). The determinations for the proposed action are as follows… Louisiana black bear – is not likely to adversely affect Red-cockaded woodpecker – is not likely to adversely effect The twenty eight sensitive species listed in Table 4 – may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. The remaining T&E species and sensitive species listed in Appendix A – no effect and no impact, respectively. II. Introduction Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2672.43 requires a biological evaluation (BE) and/or biological assessment (BA) for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities. This biological Evaluation was prepared in accordance with the Forest Service manual 2670 and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The objectives of this BE are to: 1) ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native species or contribute to trends toward federal listing, 2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that federal agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat (as defined in ESA) of federally listed species, 3) ensure compliance with Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and 1989 Vegetation Management standards, 4) provide a process and standard to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process, and 5) To consider the best available science when evaluating TES species through a review of scientific literature, a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. The Angelina National Forest supports known occurrences and suitable habitat for several Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, all of which are considered in this analysis. This BE documents the analysis of potential effects of the proposed project to sensitive species and associated habitat. It also serves as biological input into the environmental analysis for project-level decision making to ensure compliance with the ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 3 of 32 III. Project Area The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) is proposing to use prescribed fire in order to reduce hazardous fuels in Upland Island Wilderness (UIW) on the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District. UIW is located approximately 5-to-15 miles south of Zavalla, Texas in Angelina and Jasper Counties. The following map displays the location of UIW.

IV. Proposed Management Action The NFGT proposes to conduct prescribed burning on approximately 11,990 acres in Upland Island Wilderness to reduce hazardous fuels. In addition, the project proposes to conduct prescribed burns on approximately 990 of adjacent private property, state lands, and national forest lands for an approximate total of 12,980 acres. The proposed action includes approximately 1,260 acres in a No Burn Area in the vicinity of Graham and Cypress Creeks inside UIW that would be excluded from prescribed fire (Figure 1). The project is planned as a series of cool season burns in individual burn units of approximately 220-to-5,180 acres. These prescribed burns would occur on a 1-to-3 year cycle depending on weather, fuel, and habitat conditions using hand ignition and aerial ignition methods.

This proposal includes approximately 16.4 miles of fire control lines on the exterior of UIW. These lines will be located on private lands adjacent to UIW. These lines will use existing control lines where they exist on adjacent private property, and be established with mechanical tools (e.g., bulldozer) or hand tools on private property with permission from the land owners. In addition, this proposal includes 14.4 miles of interior control lines within UIW. Approximately 6.3 miles of interior control lines would be established using hand tools on abandoned roads that accessed the area prior to the establishment of the wilderness in 1984. No hand line would be constructed on previously undisturbed surfaces inside UIW. However, there are approximately 4.7 miles of creeks or naturally wet fuel breaks that would be used as control lines where the minimum required hand clearing may be necessary to eliminate fuel bridges. In addition, approximately 3.4 miles of existing roads on non-wilderness lands would be used as fire breaks to separate burn units or burn blocks.

The project would occur primarily in upland sites dominated by pine or pine-hardwood in Management Area 7 (MA-7), Wilderness, as identified in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (USDA Forest Service 1996). The desired future condition of MA-7 is lands that are administered to maintain or achieve a natural state. MA-7 permits prescribed fire to manage wilderness as determined through site-specific environmental analysis that addresses: (1) the role of fire in fire dependent or related ecosystems, and (2) fuel loadings which are a fire risk to resources and values outside of wilderness (see LRMP). Historically, frequent fires maintained the open character of the communities in Upland Island Wilderness and promoted an herbaceous understory dominated by perennial grasses. Riparian areas that lie adjacent to upland sites would be included in the prescribed burns where they cannot be excluded without the construction of ground-disturbing fire control lines. Riparian areas within UIW will be managed similarly to Streamside Management Zones (MA-4).

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 4 of 32

Alternative 2 - Burn Units and Control Lines

Total length of interior hand lines = 6.3 miles Total area prescribed burned = 12,980 acres Total wilderness area prescribed burned = 11,990 acres Aerial ignitions allowed

Boulware Road Hwy 63

Project Area Wilderness Burn Area Wilderness No Burn Area

Burn Area - Private

Big Creek Burn Area - USFS 1 Burn Area - TxDOT No Ignition Area Burn Unit Boundary Adjacent Lands Forest Service Private 200 Interior Hand Lines Abandoned Road Bed No Interior Natural Lines Ignition Area Natural Wet Line Control Lines Bladed Dozer

Creek Mowed Line Road Wetland 2

Unit Acres 1 4980 201 FS 303 202 2 5190 3 1700 Graham 4 580 Cypress 5 310 6 220 3 73 5 74 FS 314 Creek

72 4 6 70 No Rx Burns 1260 ac

Hwy 69 ¯ The exterior lines displayed on the map represent the preferred configuration subject Miles to landowner approval Draft 04-23-09 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 1. Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burn Project within the Angelina National Forest.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 5 of 32 V. Coordination History This biological evaluation is completed in accordance with Forest Service Manual 2670 direction and the 1989 Coastal Plain Record of Decision and 1996 Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. The findings of this biological evaluation are consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) March 1996 Biological Opinion of the revised Forest Plan. A. Reviewers and Collaborators Jason Roesner (Vice USFWS, Wildlife Biologist) Robert Allen (USFWS, Wildlife Biologist) Jeff Reid (USFWS, Wildlife Biologist) Tom Philipps (USFS NFGT, Botanist) Dave Peterson (USFS NFGT, Fisheries Biologist) Bill Bartush (Vice USFS NFGT, Forest Wildlife Biologist) Jason Nolde (USFS NFGT, Forest Wildlife Biologist) Ike McWhorter (USFS NFGT, Fire Ecologist) David Betz (USFS NFGT)

VI. Species Reviewed This evaluation was conducted during December 2006 through February 2008 and the evaluation is based upon: 1. Review U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s website (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/) for county listings of endangered, threatened, and candidate species (checked June 2007). 2. Review of U.S. Forest Service, Region 8’s threatened and endangered species list. 3. Review the current Regional Forester’s (Region 8) sensitive species (August 2007), as well as other globally and/or state imperiled species known to occur on the Forest. 4. Review NFGT TES list updated by NFGT letter to Tom Cloud, USFWS, dated January 8, 2008. 5. Review element occurrence records for sensitive species as maintained by National Forest and Grasslands in Texas GIS database, including the Texas Natural Heritage inventory (Orzell 1990). 6. Review of the National Forest in Texas crayfish and fish data for 1995-2004 prepared by Dave Peterson, National Forest in Texas fisheries biologist. Email correspondence received July 17, 2008. 7. Consult (via email) with Tom Phillips (NFGT botanist) regarding flora and special vegetative communities in the project area. Email correspondence received July 15, 2008. Specialist report received July 30, 2008. 8. Consult with individuals who are knowledgeable about the area and its flora and/or fauna. 9. Review sources listed in the reference portion of this report. 10. Review the results of field surveys that have been conducted in the area. Appendix A documents all 46 TES plant and animal species currently known or expected to occur on or near National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. All TES species listed in Appendix A were considered during the analysis for this project. Most sensitive species known to occur on the Forest have unique habitat requirements, such as bogs, pine savannas, bottomland hardwood forest, wet-mesic seeps, glades and barrens. A “step down” process was followed to eliminate species from further analysis and focus on those species that may be affected by proposed project activities. Species not eliminated are then analyzed in greater detail. Results of this “step down” analysis process are displayed in the Occurrence Analysis Results (OAR) column of the table in Appendix A. First, the home range of a species was considered. Species’ ranges on the Forest are based on current records, USFWS county listings, and NatureServe Explorer, but are refined further when additional information is available, such as more recent occurrences documented in scientific literature, field surveys, or in the Natural Heritage inventory. Many times historic range information clearly indicates a species will not occur in the project area due to the restricted

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 6 of 32 geographic distribution of most sensitive species. When the project area is outside a known species range, that species is eliminated from further consideration by being coded as OAR code “1” in the Appendix A table. For the remaining species the results from past surveys, knowledge of the project area, and potential for suitable habitat are considered.

VII. Field Survey and Results A. Available Inventories 1. Rafinesque’s Big-eared bat and southeastern myotis: (Mirowsky 1998) 2. Crustaceans: Surveys were conducted in Cypress Creek in 2001, Mill Creek in 1997 and 1999; and Graham, Falls, Big and Oil Well Creeks in 2008 via Dave Peterson. 5. Botanical Surveys specific to this project conducted by Tom Phillips (Forest Botanist) and Jason Engle (Wildlife Biologist) June 14 and 15, 2007; September 7, 12, 17, 18, 2007; and July 23, 2008. 7. Red-cockaded woodpecker: 2008 and 2009 roost checks in adjacent compartments, conducted by Kellon Harris, Thad Choate, Jason Garrett, Daniel Jauregui, Ron Hasken, and Jason Engle. Walk through surveys conducted September 2007 of unoccupied suitable RCW habitat along perimeter of the UIW by Jason Engle. Approximately 200 acres were surveyed. 9. : Helicopter flights surveys conducted February 2008 for nesting activity along shoreline for the ANF. 10. Emerald Dragonfly: (Price 1989). 11. Louisiana pine snake: (Rudolf et. al.2006) and 15 snake traps located on the southern ANF (trapping conducting in 2007 through 2009).

B. Field Work Conducted Specific to This Project. This evaluation considers all available inventories of TES species populations and their habitat for the proposed treatment area. When adequate population inventory information is unavailable, it has been collected when the site has high potential for occupancy by a threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species. Inventory information is detailed in the effects discussion for each species. The project area and surrounding area were surveyed for occurrence of the PETS species utilizing a meander search methodology (Goff et al. 1982) in which new habitat variations or unique areas are constantly being searched for in order to maximize floristic variation. Animal surveys consist of searching for individuals, signs of their presence (such as scat, tracks, calls, or nests), and/or potential habitat. An on site field survey was conducted in September 2007 and July 2008 to search for various TES species and habitat by Jason Engle (wildlife biologist) (Appendix B). A cursory survey of the area was conducted noting vegetative conditions and any TES species or MIS seen. Tom Phillips conducted plant surveys June 2007 and July 2008, and Dave Peterson (fisheries biologist) and David Betz conducted crayfish surveys June 2008. Additional surveys were conducted by Ike McWhorter, Fire Ecologist, to determine fire lines.

C. Species with Potential for Occupying Treatment Area All PETS species for the NFGT have been considered, and occurrence analysis results (OAR) area documented in Appendix A. From these field surveys and knowledge of the area, species were eliminated from further consideration because of: a) project located out of species known range; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) – 10 species (OAR code 1); b) no habitat present within the area affected by the project; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) – 8 species (OAR code 2); and c) aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment areas, but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant) – 0 species (OAR code 7). For this project, 18 species were eliminated from further consideration because of one of the above reasons. From past field surveys and knowledge of the area, and given the proposed action, those species which are analyzed and discussed further in this document are those that: a) have a high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 7 of 32 because of observed habitats in the treatment areas, and the species has been found in similar habitats – 11 species (OAR code 5), b) have a high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because it has been documented within these areas – 6 species (OAR code 6), or c) aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), and inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area – 10 species (OAR code 8). Species having moderate potential for occupying the treatment areas are those that have: a) marginal habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described in Appendix A – 1 species (OAR code 3); or b) habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because inventories are adequate enough to confirm that species are not present – 0 species (OAR code 4). Based on the occurrence analysis results the following species listed in Table 4 are evaluated further in this BE.

Table 4. The following species or their habitat occur within the vicinity of the project area and are further analyzed in this document. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Mammals Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Forest Service Sensitive Species Mammals Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Birds Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Reptiles Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni) Fish Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae) Insects Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Crayfish Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) Blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) Mollusks Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi) Triangle pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis) Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana) Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii) Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphiachaenus) Plants Upland inhabiting plants Incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa) Mohlenbrock’s umbrella sedge (Cyperus grayioides) Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis) Seep and Bog inhabiting plants Panicled indigobush (Amorpha paniculata) Texas bartonia (Bartonia texana) Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum) Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) Large beakrush (Rhynchospora macra) Sabine bog coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia) Texas trillium (Trillium texanum)

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 8 of 32 Forest Service Sensitive Species Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii) Louisiana yellow-eyed grass (Xyris louisianica) Harper's yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia)

VII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species A. Terrestrial Animals 1. Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Environmental Baseline: The historic range of the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) once encompassed all of Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and eastern Texas. Its current range is now limited to two subpopulations in Louisiana’s Atchafalaya and Tensas River basins (USDI 1995). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) endangered and threatened species account of the Louisiana black bear notes that preferred habitat is in river basin bottomland hardwood forests although the bear does roam far and wide into the pine forests. The bears also need escape cover including extensive areas of minimal human disturbance. The most suitable habitat in appears to be the Middle Neches River Corridor because not only does it have suitable food and cover, this area also had low levels of human/bear conflict zones and relatively low open road density. Frequently traveled roads are hazardous to bears and manmade structures, such as multi-lane highways, are one of the reasons that quality bear habitat has been reduced. Black bear home ranges are from 1 to 76 square acres in size. The USFWS considers good bear habitat to be remote. Remoteness should be at least ½ mile from major roads and be in blocks of at least 2,500 acres (USDI 1995). Available Inventories: Since 1977, sightings of black bears have been reported in 22 East Texas counties. It is likely that most of the bears in northeast Texas are juvenile or sub-adult males that roamed into the region from expanding populations (reintroduced from Minnesota) in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (TPWD 2005). However, black bears sighted in southeast Texas (including the Angelina and Sabine National Forests) are more likely to be the protected Louisiana black bear. A sighting of a mother bear with two cubs has been confirmed in Shelby County, one bear has been sighted along FS 314, which is within the project area. For this analysis, all black bear sighting are considered to be Louisiana black bears until proven otherwise. Other than gathering of data concerning sightings of black bears within East Texas, there has been no formal survey work done to confirm Louisiana black bear occurrence within East Texas. Site specific surveys are not feasible and would not improve effects analyses or allow improved project design.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 9 of 32 Direct and Indirect Effects: Some bottomland habitat, river basin bottomland hardwood, is found within UIW, especially in the southern portion, near the Neches River. Forest Service Road 314, which is heavily used, bisects the southern portion of the UIW, making one half mile on either side of the road unsuitable habitat. Some areas in the central and northern portion of the project area would be considered remote by the USFWS standards mentioned above. The implementation of the Action Alternatives would increase human disturbances in the interior of the wilderness, which could directly affect bears if present. Prescribe burning could destroy some potential den trees but could create new ones. Indirect effects could result in increased soft mass production, but may negatively result in less cover and increased human disturbance. Areas previously inaccessible, because of thick understory vegetation, would become more open and easier to walk through. However, the proposed action alternatives would have minimal direct or indirect effects because very little preferred habitat is present in UIW and large portions of riparian habitats would either be completely excluded (i.e. Graham and Cypress Creeks) or will have no direct ignitions (i.e. Big Creek). Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around UIW is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40- acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect black bears. If bears are present during line construction and ignitions they would probably move to the untreated portions or onto private lands. Possible long- term cumulative effects include disturbances from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. However, most of the bottomland hardwood forest in and around the UIW would remain undisturbed. Thus, this project would have minimal cumulative effects to Louisiana black bears. Determination: There is no habitat with a high potential for occupancy in the project area, no bears or bear sign were discovered during surveys, and no den trees were seen. However, there is one reported sighting in the project area, but there has been no new sighting near the project area since 1999. Thus, any effects would be insignificant and discountable, and the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect this species.

2. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Environmental Baseline: The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) has a high potential to occur on drier ridge tops in open-canopy, fire-maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods (Jackson 1994; Conner et al. 2001; USDI 2003). The RCW excavates cavities in live pine trees, using old trees infected with red heart fungus (Phellinus pini), thin sapwood, and a large diameter of heartwood (Conner et al. 1994; Conner et al. 2001). Generally, pine trees ≥60 years old are needed for cavity excavation (Rudolph and Conner 1991; USDI 2003). Threats to this species include conversion of mature forest to short-rotation plantations or non-forested areas, hardwood proliferation resulting from fire exclusion, lack of forest management to develop and maintain open stand conditions, and habitat fragmentation that affects population demographics. On the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT), the red-cockaded woodpecker is distributed within three populations: (1) Sam , (2) Davy Crockett, and (3) Angelina/Sabine. The RCW population on the Angelina National Forest (ANF), considered one population together with the , is classified as a primary core population. This type of population is identified in recovery criteria as important to conserving this species in varied habitats and geographic regions, reducing threats of , and delisting (USDI 2003).

The RCW populations in Texas are located within Habitat Management Areas (HMA), delineated around known occupied and potential RCW habitat, managed for the productivity and recovery of this species, and identified in the Plan as MA 2 (the Plan, pp 96-134) and MA 6. The ANF currently supports 46 of the 350 group objective for the Angelina-Sabine population (USDI 2003). The ANF population is comprised of two subpopulations, the northern and southern HMA’s, each managed specifically with an emphasis on RCW habitat requirements. Based on annual survey data, over the last ten years, RCW populations are increasing. This information is available in the annual Forest monitoring report which is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/projects/index.shtml. There are no active clusters within UIW. However, historically the project area supported up to 6 clusters, and 2 clusters were active as of 1987 (USDI 1996). These clusters became inactive due to fire suppression. Available Inventories: Annual survey data, over the last ten years, RCW populations appear to be slightly increasing. Much of the perimeter of the project has had cursory walk-through surveys, approximately 200 acres. RCW’s were observed foraging in summer 2007 along the UIW’s northwest perimeter. These birds likely came

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 10 of 32 from two active clusters in compartment 67, which are less than 2.5 miles away. Nesting habitat inside the wilderness is unsuitable because of the very dense midstory and understory; therefore, the interior was not surveyed for RCWs. Direct and Indirect Effects: The project will have no direct effects to RCW since no RCW are expected to be within the project area. However, the project will have positive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. With continued landscape scale prescribe burning, the UIW could become good quality RCW foraging habitat. After fire has been restored to this ecosystem, RCW will begin using the burned areas for foraging and may over time create natural cavities for nesting. By using a helicopter, prescribe burns can be larger and conducted more often (e.g. 1 to 3-year rotation).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands within ½-mile of the wilderness over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect the RCW. All activities on the NFGT are undertaken with strict guidelines on when and how work is performed near RCW clusters so the bird is not disturbed. The effects associated with non-federal actions could be negative, because of the loss of managed RCW habitat on surrounding private lands. Some of the private timberlands could be logged heavily, developed, or have no management whatsoever. Therefore, this analysis does not address private lands as potential suitable habitat. Possible long-term positive cumulative effects include improved nesting and foraging habitat from additional prescribed burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. Determination: The proposed action would be completely beneficial to RCW by restoring fire to the UIW. All effects resulting form the proposed action would be discountable, insignificant and completely beneficial, as defined in the USFWS Consultation Handbook, pg. E-12 (USDI 1998). There would have no additional effects beyond those described in the USFWS biological opinion (USDI 1996) and the Forest Plan (USDA 1996). Thus the propose project is not likely to adversely affect red-cockaded woodpeckers.

VIII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species A. Terrestrial Animals 1. Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Environmental Baseline: Rafinesque’s big-eared bat reaches the western limit of its range in east Texas. This species are experiencing population declines because of the loss of adequate roosting habitat. In east Texas, this bat roost in a variety of places that may include; crevices behind loose bark, hollow trees, under dry leaves, caves, wells, old mine shafts, buildings and cisterns, or other protected cavities or structures (Harvey 1999, Mirowsky et al. 2004). Preliminary research on habitat associations for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in eastern Texas indicates a strong preference for roosting within bottomland hardwood communities (Mirowsky et al. 2004). Available Inventories: Rafinesque's big-eared bat has been recorded from 16 counties in eastern Texas, including San Augustine and Jasper Counties (Mirowsky et al. 2004). There is a summer roost approximately 3 miles from the project area at the Old Aldridge Sawmill. This roost site was last inventoried by Jason Engle and April Crawley in June 2009 with approximately seventy Rafinesque’s big-eared bats counted. Additional site specific surveys are not feasible and would not improve effects analyses or allow improved project design. Direct and Indirect Effects: Smoke and noise disturbance would have the most impact on bats. Noise disturbance from line construction and burning operations may force unknown populations of bats into other areas of the forest, or cause abandonment of unknown roosts sites. Smoke levels would increase temporarily during burning which could cause temporarily displaced bats into other areas nearby. However, the proposed project would have minimal direct or indirect effects because very little preferred habitat is present in this project area, and large portions of riparian habitats would either be completely excluded (i.e. Graham and Cypress Creeks) or will have no direct ignitions (i.e. Big Creek). Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. Cumulative effects of project noise along with other non-connected noise (i.e. highway noise, private land activities)

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 11 of 32 in the area would be temporary. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect Rafinesque’s big-eared bat. Possible long-term cumulative effects include disturbances from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. These activities have a cumulative potential to disturb roosting sites by the removal of trees, noise disturbances, and smoke. However, no long-term negative impacts to this species or its population are expected as minimal activities are planned in bottomland hardwood forests and numerous acres of available habitat for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat can be found near the Neches River. Determination: There is habitat with a high potential for occupancy in the project area because bottomland hardwood habitat occurs along major drainages in the project area. The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.

2. Bachman's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Environmental Baseline: The Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), a sensitive species, is an inhabitant of open pine forests with grassy understories or other open areas with thick grassy cover (Hamel 1992). This species is a permanent resident of the ANF in areas that are frequently burned and maintained in an open condition. It has been reported several times during annual point surveys. Foraging occurs on the ground; therefore an herbaceous cover is necessary. Nesting occurs from mid April to late May in areas with a high density of herbaceous cover and a low density of midstory and overstory (Dunning 1993). Decline of this species is attributed to the loss of pine forest containing a grassy understory. Direct and Indirect Effects: The project will have no direct effects to Bachman’s sparrow since none are expected to be within the project area. However, the project will have postive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. With continued landscape scale prescribe burning the UIW could become good quality habitat by promoting more grassy understory. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect Bachman’s sparrow. Possible long-term positive cumulative effects include improved nesting and foraging habitat from additional prescribed burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. Determination: The effects of the proposed project will be beneficial to Bachman’s sparrow. Therefore, the proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.

3. Louisiana Pine Snake (Pituophis ruthveni) Environmental Baseline: The Louisiana pine snake is a Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and a candidate species for federal listing. Louisiana pine snakes inhabit areas with sandy, well-drained soils in open, pine forests with minimal midstory and a well developed grassy understory (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). A primary component of the pine snake’s habitat is the presence of Baird’s pocket gophers (Geomys breviceps). Pocket gophers serve an essential role in pine snake ecology by serving as the primary source of food and by supplying shelter. Studies have shown that pine snakes utilize pocket gopher burrow systems for escape cover, nest sites, and hibernation sites (Rudolph et al 1998, Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). Pocket gopher abundance is directly related to the presence of extensive herbaceous ground cover, which is in turn related to the amount of sunlight able to reach the forest floor. Frequent low intensity fires are also responsible for maintaining the grassy, herbaceous understory required by both gophers and pine snakes. In the absence of fire, a woody midstory quickly develops, greatly reducing the habitat effectiveness of the area (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). No pine snakes have been documented or captured in areas where fire has been effectively suppressed. Because of this association, absence of fire has been proposed as the greatest current threat to Louisiana pine snake populations, by decreasing both habitat quality and quantity (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997).

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 12 of 32 On November 16, 2003 the National Forests of Texas (NFGT), entered into and signed a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service Southern Research Station, Fort Polk Military Reservation in Louisiana, and the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana to establish a framework for conservation and management of the pine snake within the its current and potential range. This CCA was initiated in order to conserve the pine snake on Federal land by protecting known populations and habitat, reducing threats to its survival, maintaining its ecosystem and, where possible, restoring degraded habitat. A renewal of the CCA is currently underway. The project area could provide high quality habitat for the pine snakes, if fire was restored to the ecosystem. Sandy soils are prevalent, but the thick midstory and lack of herbaceous layer prevent the UIW from being suitable for pine snakes. We have documented captures of Louisiana pine snakes on the south ANF in the Longleaf Ridge Management Area, which is adjacent to the UIW. The closest capture is 2 miles from the UIW. Direct and Indirect Effects: Dry sandy ridgetops with sparse woody vegetation may provide pockets of pine snake habitat. However, the lack of fire has resulted in the majority of UIW being poor quality habitat. Some pine snakes may be within UIW, but most are likely associated with managed, primarily prescribe burned, Forest Service lands with sandy soils adjacent to UIW. The ground disturbances associated with constructing the exterior dozer lines could have negative direct affects on pine snakes, if present. However, the project will have positive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect pine snakes. The effects associated with non- federal actions could be negative, because of the loss of managed pine snake habitat on surrounding private lands. Some of the sold Temple-Inland lands could be logged heavily, developed, or have no management whatsoever. Possible long-term positive cumulative effects include improved habitat from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.

4. Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Environmental Baseline: The Texas emerald dragonfly, also known as the Big Thicket emerald dragonfly, has been found in San Jacinto, Sabine, and San Augustine counties, but its potential range may exceed 10,000 square miles in southeast Texas, including all of the National Forests in Texas. Habitat requirements are poorly understood, especially for the larvae which seem to be associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2007). Larval characteristics are largely unknown, but members of the genus generally disappear when forests are cleared along with associated activities (Price et al. 1989). Adults have been observed foraging over forest openings, such as roads. This dragonfly has been recorded at various locations throughout the northern Angelina National Forest (Price et al 1989). Given the habitat it is believed that there is high potential for occupancy by the adults within the treatment area. Site specific surveys are not feasible and would not improve effects analyses or allow improved project design. Direct and Indirect Effects: Project activities could force any unknown individuals to other available foraging areas away from the area. But, because they generally forage high above the forest canopy, and over open areas, direct impacts to adult dragonflies would be minimal. When dozer lines intersect streams, bogs, or seeps, hand tools would be used to construct fire lines down to the stream bank or around the bogs and seeps. Thus, any direct or indirect effects to larva would be minimal. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect this species of dragon fly. A compounding negative effect

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 13 of 32 on the dragonfly and its habitat is not expected. Long-term impacts to the dragonfly are unknown but a permanent loss of dragonfly habitat would not occur. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.

B. Aquatic Animals 1. Lotic Habitats (Moving Water) - Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae), blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus), Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), Triangle Pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), Sandbank Pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), and Texas Heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) Environmental Baseline (Sabine shiner): The Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae) lives in creeks and small to medium sized rivers with sandy bottoms. Its range extends from east Texas to the Mississippi river drainage, and north to Missouri. Spawning takes place April through September in Texas and Louisiana, and multiple clutches are likely (NatureServe 2007). It is probable that the Sabine shiner may tolerate higher turbidity waters, precluding the need for silt free sand substrates. Threats to this species include alterations to stream flow, such as culverts that block fish passage, fragmentation, and siltation. Habitat for the Sabine shiner is available in Graham, Big, Cypress, Mill, and Oil Well Creeks within the project area. However, Sabine shiner has not been documented in any of these creeks (McCullough et al. 1980 and Geeslin 2001). Given this information it is believed that the Sabine shiner has a potential for occupancy within the project vicinity. However, Sabine shiners are difficult to survey for, and site specific surveys are not feasible and would not improve effects analyses or allow improved project design. Sabine shiner Sabine shiner lives primarily in lotic habitats, and its effects are addressed along with the blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus), which is also uses lotic habitats. Environmental Baseline (blackbelted crayfish): The blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) lives primarily in lotic environments, and the Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) and Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) live primarily in lentic habitats. Surveys were conducted in Cypress Creek in 2001, Mill Creek in 1997 and 1999; and Graham, Falls, Big and Oil Well Creeks in 2008. None of these species were captured. Blackbelted crayfish is a lotic stream inhabiting crayfish known to occur among debris in streams with sandy bottoms. Little is known about this species. NatureServe (2007) lists land development and habitat draining or surfacing as possible threats. Generally, crayfish are most closely associated with small stream riparian habitats generally associated with intermittent streams and small perennial streams with narrow floodplains. Environmental Baseline (mollusk): Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), triangle pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphiachaenus) are freshwater mussels that may inhabit a variety of water-body types including large and small rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, canals, and reservoirs (Howells et al. 1996). These six sensitive mussel species have high potential to occur in mud, sand, or gravel substrates in streams and small rivers. They do not occur in deep shifting sands or deep soft silt (Howells et al. 1996), which can contribute to smothering. Mussels filter feed on algae, detritus, and small particles in the water, and may be able to absorb some organic material in solution (Howells et al. 1996). Impoundment of river systems is believed to be the most significant threat facing freshwater bivalves. Impoundment alters flow regimes, increases sediment accumulation, and may impede movement of fish hosts. Impoundments of streams, such as dams, alter flow and temperature regimes; disrupt the timing of reproduction and associated behavior of fish and mussels. Pollution, over harvest, reduced spring and river flows, introduction of exotic species, and sedimentation are other probable causes of decline (Williams 1993, Howells et al. 1996, Watters 2000). In addition, any impacts to fish may negatively affect mussels, which use certain fish as hosts for larval development (Howells et al. 1996). The Texas pigtoe, sandbank pocketbook, southern hickorynut, and Louisiana pigtoe have been documented in the Angelina County. However, the triangle pigtoe and Texas heelsplitter could possibly occur in the project watersheds. Direct and Indirect Effects: Equipment crossing streams when doing fire line construction and during implementation may have some direct impacts on blackbelted crayfish, Sabine shiner, and mussels, if present at the crossing. However, equipment will only cross when necessary, usually upstream and on level ground so as to avoid resource

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 14 of 32 damage. Indirect effects could result from burned areas being more susceptible to erosion. Runoff could temporarily increase siltation and phosphate levels. However, lines would be constructed with water control structures (i.e. water bars) to minimize erosion. There would be no long-term adverse direct or indirect effects to any of these stream species. Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect these species. The construction of Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend Reservoirs reduced the amount of high potential habitat for most of these species. Species intolerant of conditions created by impounded water are now restricted to the short reaches upstream. In the vicinity of the project, the result is isolated habitat. The watersheds for most streams in the project vicinity are located on both private and National Forest land. There are no expected changes in management activities of adjacent private lands. High potential habitat is likely scarce on private lands, since protective measures for streams are less stringent, and are optional for landowners. Other planned Forest Service activities, such as prescribed burning thinning, and fire breaks between private and public lands would have little effect on aquatic habitat, since the Plan contains measures to reduce or prevent impacts to aquatic habitats. Activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, thus minimal cumulative effects are anticipated. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for these species.

2. Lentic Habitats (Still Water) - Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) and Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) Environmental Baseline: Sabine fencing crayfish and Neches crayfish lives primarily in lentic habitats (still water). These crayfish occur in temporary and permanent pools or roadside ditches and in individual burrows. Limiting factors for these crayfish include land development, agricultural runoff, and competition with other crayfish (NatureServe 2007). Habitat for these species can be found within Upland Island Wilderness. Creeks and drainages throughout the project area experience pooling during periods of low water flow. Temporary pooling of water outside creek channels occurs when rainfall is higher. Roadside ditches along the exterior of the wilderness have ditches that pool water during rain events. Surveys were conducted in Cypress Creek in 2001, Mill Creek in 1997 and 1999; and Graham, Falls, Big and Oil Well Creeks in 2008. Neither of these species was captured. Direct and Indirect Effects: Crayfish that inhabit roadside pools could be directly affected (injured or killed) during line construction activities and through a temporary increase in traffic on the roads during project implementation. Interior roads will be less affected since minimal vehicle traffic is expected to be used. Long-term negative indirect effects to these species or its population are unknown but are expected to be minimal as the work is expected to occur during dry periods. Disturbance in one particular area of the forest during project implementation may temporarily displace individuals into other areas of suitable habitat. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect these species. High potential habitat is likely scarce on private lands, since protective measures are less stringent, and are optional for landowners. Other planned Forest Service activities, such as prescribed burning, thinning, and fire breaks would have little effect on aquatic habitat, since the Plan contains measures to reduce or prevent impacts to aquatic habitats. Activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, thus minimal cumulative effects are anticipated. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 15 of 32 C. Plants (Communities) The sensitive plant species listed in Table 4 have suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the project vicinity. Several fire lines with higher potential for sensitive plants were surveyed June 14 and 15, 2007; September 7, 12, 17, 18, 2007; and July 23, 2008. Approximately 200 acres were surveyed. However, no sensitive plants were found during these surveys. Orzell (1990) documented slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis), large beakrush (Rhynchospora macra), Sabine bog coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia), Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii), and Harper's yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia) within the UIW natural heritage area. These species are grouped based on their similar life histories and habitat requirements.

1. Upland Pine Forestland Environmental Baseline: These sensitive plant species have a high potential for occupancy within the project area due to presence of the upland longleaf and sandy habitat they are associated with. However, due to fire suppression the habitat has degraded. None of these species were found during the most recent surveys. Direct and Indirect Effects: Plants may be directly destroyed as result of fire line construction. The dozer lines will have the greatest direct effects; however, most of these lines have been surveyed and no sensitive plants have been found. The proposed project would have approximately 17 miles of exterior dozer lines. Prescribe fire would have very beneficial indirect effects to these species, as it would dramatically improve habitat for each of these species. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. These plants are considered sensitive because of the loss of their habitat due to fire exclusion, conversion to pine plantations, and loss of open space to development. Habitat on surrounding private lands is limited. Habitat on surrounding National Forest land is of varying quality, with open forest conditions and prescribed fire frequency being the most important components for improving and maintaining habitat. Ongoing and future prescribed burning, thinning, and fuel break projects should aid in maintaining and improving habitat for these species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect these species due to applied mitigation measures and/or project design criteria. The coupling of these activities on Forest Service lands is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for these species.

2. Seep and Bog Communities Environmental Baseline: These sensitive plant species have a high potential for occupancy within UIW. Seventeen bogs have been identified and GPS mapped within UIW (ca. 50 total acres). Many others likely exist, but have not been mapped. Nearly all the bogs are in the southern portion of the wilderness, north of FS road 314. Orzell (1990) documented large beakrush, Sabine bog coneflower, Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass, and Harper's yellow-eyed grass within the bogs in southern UIW. Lower hillside seeps and wet claypan pine savannas are ideal habitat for Louisiana yellow-eyed grass. Baygalls are prevalent within the riparian areas of the large creeks in the area, thus providing habitat for Texas trillium and panicled indigobush. Side drainages and small creeks are partially vegetated with sphagnum on the banks, habitat common for Texas bartonia. Pitcher plant bogs are described by Orzell (1990), Correll and Johnston (1979), and Godfrey and Wooten (1979) as wetland communities that support pineland bogbutton, Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass, large beakrush, yellow fringeless orchid, Sabine bog coneflower, and Harper's yellow-eyed grass. Direct and Indirect Effects: Hand lines would not be constructed within any bog communities and other wet mesic areas and seeps, preferably they would be constructed around the bogs to include them inside the burn area. Dozer would not be allowed within bogs and seeps. Several bogs and seeps have been identified and would be avoided. The botanist, wildlife biologists, and other personnel would continue to identify bogs and seeps during line construction to ensure these areas are avoided by heavy equipment. The proposed action would have very beneficial indirect effects to these species, as it would reduce woody encroachment.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 16 of 32 Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. These plants are considered sensitive because of the loss of their habitat. Exclusion of fire, conversion to pine plantations, and loss of open space to development are all contributors. Habitat on surrounding private lands is limited. Ongoing and future prescribed burning, thinning, and fuel break projects should aid in maintaining and improving habitat for this species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect these species due to applied mitigation measures and/or project design criteria. The coupling of these activities in Forest Service lands is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for these species.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 17 of 32 VIV. Signature Page

Prepared by

/S/ Jason A. Engle Date: 08-14-2009

Jason A. Engle Wildlife Biologist Angelina/Sabine National Forests

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 18 of 32 X. References Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, R.R. Schaeffer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):728-734. Conner, R.N., Rudolf, D.G., and Walters, J.R. 2001. An introduction. Pages 1-12 in The red-cockaded woodpecker: survival in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Austin Press. Austin, Texas. Conner, R.N., Rudolf, D.G., and Walters, J.R. 2001. Cavity treein fire-maintained southern pine ecosystem. Pages 79-115 in The red-cockaded woodpecker: survival in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Austin Press. Austin, Texas. Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas, Second Printing. The University of Dallas, Richardson, Texas. p. 1210. Davis, W.D. and D.J. Schmidly. 1994. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Nongame and Urban Program Dept. Austin, Texas. 338pp. Dunning, J. B., Jr. 1993. Bachman’s sparrow. Pages 1-16 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 38. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC. Geeslin, D.K. 2001. An ichthyological study of fish communities in six streams in the Angelina National Forest, TX. MS thesis, SFA, Nacogdoches. Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern : Monocotyledons. 1979. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 736 pp. Goff, G.F., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow. 1982. Site Examination for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Environmental Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 307-316. Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 437pp. Hardin, K.I. and G.E. Probasco. 1983. The Habitat Characteristics and Life Requirements of Bachman’s Sparrow. Birding 15(4/5):89-197. Harvey, M.J.; Altenbach, J.S.; Best, T.L. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. Little Rock, Arkansas. p. 54. Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1990. On the crayfishes of the Neches River basin of eastern Texas with the Descriptions of three new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 103(3), pp. 573-597. Howells R.G., R.W. Neck, H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. pp. 1-32, 53, 57, 67, 86, 91, 95. Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In The Birds of North America, No. 85 (A. Poole and F. Gil, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 20 p. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. 867 p. LeGrand, H. E., and K. J. Schneider. 1992. Bachman’s sparrow, Aimophila aestivalis. Pages 299-313 in K. J. Schneider and D M. Pence, eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400pp. McCullough, J.D. et al. 1980. An ecological investigation of Graham Creek, a proposed wilderness area. National Science Foundation grant report SPI 8004098. McDougal, L.A., K.M.Russell, K.N. Leftwich, eds. 2001. A Conservation Assessment of Freshwater Fauna and Habitat in the Southern National Forests. USDA Forest Service. Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 141 pp. Mirowsky, K., P.A. Horner, R.W. Maxey, and S.A. Smith. 2004. Distributional records and roost of southeastern myotis and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in East Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 49, No. 2 (Jun., 2004), pp. 294-298

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 19 of 32 NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2007. Version 6.1. Arlington, Virginia. USA: NatureServe. Available: http://natureserve.org/explorer. Oberholser, H. C. 1974. Bachman’s sparrow. Pages 917-918 in The bird life of Texas, Vol. 2. Univ. Of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Orzell, S.L. 1990. Texas Natural Heritage Program Inventory of National Forests and National Grasslands in Texas. Texas Natural Heritage Program. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 526pp. Philipps, Thomas. 2007. Species descriptions for the proposed additions to the sensitive species list. On file at the Angelina Ranger District, Zavalla, Texas, 111 Walnut Ridge Road, 75980. Price, A.H., R.L. Orr, R. Hornig, M. Vidrine, S.L. Orzell. 1989. Status Survey for the Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). Draft Report. Prud’homme, B.A., and J.G. Greis. 2002. “Chapter 22 (AQUA-4): Best Management Practices in the South.” In Southern Forests Resource Assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Rudolph, D.C. and R.N. Conner. 1991. Cavity selection by red-cockaded woodpecker in relation to tree age. Wilson Bulletin 103(3), pp 458-467. Rudolph, D.C., R.N. Conner, R.R. Schaeffer. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker detection of red heart infection. in Kulhavy, D.L. et al. eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Nacogdoches, Tx: Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin Univ. 338-342. Rudolph, D. C. and S. J. Burgdorf. 1997. Timber rattlesnakes and Louisiana pine snakes of the west gulf coastal plain: hypothesis of decline. Texas J. Sci. 49 (3) Supp. 111-122. Rudolph, D.C., S. J. Burgdorf, J.C. Tull, M. Ealy, R.N. Conner, R.R. Schaeffer, and R.R. Fleet. 1998. Avoidance of Fire by Louisiana Pine Snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni). Herpetological Review, 29(3). Rudolph1, D.C., S.J. Burgdorf1, R.R. Schaefer, R.N. Conner1, and R.W. Maxey. 2006. Status of Pituophis ruthveni (Louisiana Pine Snake). Southeastern Naturalist. 5(3):463-472. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan. 2005- 2015. Austin, TX. 56 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Southern National Forests. Atlanta, Georgia. 758 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1996. Final Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. Lufkin, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 2004. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas; Monitoring and Evaluation Report. (On file with the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas, Supervisor’s Office, Lufkin, Texas). U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern states bald eagle recovery plan. Prepared by Thomas M. Murray. April 1989. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 52pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Biological Opinion on the U.S. Forest Service National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision of 1996. Prepared by Jeffrey Reid. March 1996. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook. Procedures for conducting Section 7 consultations and conferences. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Loggerhead Shrike Status Assessment. Bloomington, Indiana. 101pp.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 20 of 32 U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 296pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 22pp. Van Kley J.E., R.L. Turner, L.S. Smith, and R.E. Evans. 2007. Ecological classification system for the national forests and adjacent areas of the West Gulf Coastal Plain: 2nd approximation. The Nature Conservancy and Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA. 379 pp. Watters, G.T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Proceedings of the First Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Symposium, 1999. 2000 Ohio Biological Survey. pp 261-274. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center, Gainesville, FL. 18(9).

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 21 of 32 Appendix A. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List

Distribution, habitat, and project area occurrence of animal and plant species designated as Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species on the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

Federally Listed Threatened or OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination of Effect Endangered Code ** For High Potential Habitat

Birds

Open, fire-maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E 6 ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods (Jackson 1994; All National Forest Not likely to adversely affect Conner et al. 2001; USFWS 2003).

Blacked-capped vireo Vireo atricapilla E 1 LBJ No effect

Mammals

Extensive forests (at least 2500 ac.) dominated by mature hardwoods; river basin Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus T 3 bottomland hardwood forests. Needs areas with minimal human disturbance and Sabine & Angelina - Not likely to adversely affect low open road density (TPWD 2005)

Insects

The American burying beetle occurs in a variety of habitats, including sandy American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E 1 Caddo - No effect grassland and oak-pine woodlands.

Mollusks

Caddo - Bois D' Ark Creek Ouachita rock pocketbook Arkensia wheeleri E 1 No effect Watershed

Plants

It is most often found in poorly drained depressions or at the base of mima mounds (small (usually 10-50 ft. in diameter) low (usually less than 12 inches Adjacent to the Davy Crockett - Texas prairie dawn * texana E 1 high) mounds of sandier soil than the surrounding flat area) in open grassland in Comp 116, 118, 120, and 121 No effect almost barren areas with Limnosciadium pumilum, peppergrass, little barley, and (Habitat ONLY, No Occurrences) .

Open areas associated with exposed calcareous Weches Formation outcrops that are seepy and wet most of the year. Soils are thin, poorly drained, and alkaline. In contrast, most of the surrounding soils are acidic and sandy. The surrounding White bladderpod Physaria pallida E 1 vegetation type is pine-oak-hickory woodland. Associated species include the rare Sabine - No effect Texas golden glade cress (Leavenworthia texana), as well as Drummond's onion (Allium drummondii), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) (NatureServe 2007).

Grows on forb-dominated barrens, on shallow, nutrient-poor soils from the Angelina - Post oak woodlands and Navasota ladies’-tresses Spiranthes parksii E 2 Catahoula Formation. Found under a 50% canopy of post oak and black hickory barrens over Catahoula Formation, No effect in small openings (Orzell 1990). nearest pop. in Angelina Co.

* USFWS Listed species that have no known occurrences on National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 22 of 32

** OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES:

1 = Project located out of known species range; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s).

2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s).

3 = Marginal habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described.

4 = Habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because inventories are adequate enough to confirm that species are not present.

5 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because of observed habitats in the treatment area(s), and the species has been found in similar habitats.

6 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because it has been documented within these areas.

7 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment area(s), but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant).

8 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), but inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 23 of 32 Distribution, habitat, and project area occurrence of animal and plant species designated as Regional Forester’s sensitive species on the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas.

Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code ** For High Potential Habitat

Birds

Open, frequently burned pine forests with a dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal May Impact, not cause Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis S 5 woody understory (Oberholser 1974; LeGrand and Schneider 1992; Hardin and Probasco All National Forest trend toward Federal listing 1983; Hamel 1992).

All Forest and Grasslands. Coastal areas, and around large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers Nest commonly found along San Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S 2 (USFWS 1995). Nests and associated pilot trees are typically located in large trees within No Impact Rayburn and Toledo Bend two miles of open water. reservoirs.

Breeding habitat is varied, but must include open grassland areas with scattered trees or shrubs. Shrikes are generally absent from closed canopy forests and grasslands without Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus migrans S 2 All Forest and Grasslands. No Impact trees or shrubs. Historic habitat included open pine-grasslands; however, pastures and hayfields are considered suitable (USFWS 2000).

Mammals

Roosts within mature bottomland hardwood communities within 1 km of water, showing a preference for large, hollow black gum trees with large triangular basal openings. Commonly Rafinesque’s big-eared Corynorhinus rafinesquii S 2 use abandoned buildings in the southern parts of their range. Maternity colonies consist of a All National Forest No Impact bat few dozen individuals and males are usually solitary (Davis and Schmidly 1994; Harvey et al. 1999).

Reptiles

Open, frequently burned pine forests with little midstory vegetation, a well-developed May Impact, not cause Louisiana pine snake Pituophis ruthveni S, C 5 understory of grasses and forbs, sandy, well-drained soils, and the presence of pocket Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing gophers (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997).

Crustaceans

Sabine, Angelina, & Davy May Impact, not cause Sabine fencing crayfish Faxonella beyeri S 8 Roadside ditches that are intermittently filled (NatureServe 2005). Crockett trend toward Federal listing

Simple burrows in temporary or semi-permanent pools in roadside ditches (Hobbs 1990; Angelina - Comp 2, SFA Exp. May Impact, not cause Neches crayfish Procambarus nechesae S 8 NatureServe 2005). Forest; & Davy Crockett trend toward Federal listing

Sabine, Angelina, & Davy May Impact, not cause Blackbelted crayfish Procambarus nigrocinctus S 8 Occurs among debris in streams with sandy or rocky bottoms (Hobbs 1990). Crockett trend toward Federal listing

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 24 of 32 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code ** For High Potential Habitat

Insects

Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2005). Adults are generalist, and they forage May Impact, not cause Texas emerald dragonfly Somatochlora margarita S 5 All National Forest for insects at canopy level over mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings trend toward Federal listing (Price et al. 1989).

Mollusks

Streams with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas associated with fallen May Impact, not cause Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi S 8 All National Forest trees or other structures (Howells et al. 1996). trend toward Federal listing

May Impact, not cause Triangle Pigtoe Fusconaia lananensis S 8 Mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in streams (Howells et al. 1996). Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing

Small to large rivers with moderate flows on gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms May Impact, not cause Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura S 8 All National Forest (Howells et al. 1996). trend toward Federal listing

May Impact, not cause Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana S 8 Creeks and rivers with moderate current, often in gravel (Howells et al. 1996). Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing

May Impact, not cause Louisiana pigtoe Plerobema riddellii S 8 Found in streams (Howells et al. 1996). All National Forest trend toward Federal listing

May Impact, not cause Texas heelsplitter Potamilus amphiachaenus S 8 Found in quiet waters in sand and mud (Howells et al. 1996). All National Forest trend toward Federal listing

Fish

Closely restricted to a substrate of fine, silt-free sand in smaller streams and rivers having May Impact, not cause Sabine shiner Notropis sabinae S 8 All National Forest slight to moderate current (Lee et al. 1980). trend toward Federal listing

Plants

Fire-maintained longleaf pine savanna on well-drained but not xeric sandy soils (Orzell May Impact, not cause Incised groovebur Agrimonia incisa S 5 Sabine & Angelina - 1990). trend toward Federal listing

It occurs in deep acid woodlands and bogs over Letney (Arenic Paleudults) soils within Sabine & Angelina - comp 90 & May Impact, not cause Panicled indigobush Amorpha paniculata S 5 the Catahoula Formation. Amorpha paniculata is a stout shrub that grows in deep acid 92 trend toward Federal listing woodlands and bogs in East Texas (Philipps 2007).

Along wooded streams, bogs, and creek bottoms in swampy tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) Sabine, Angelina, & Sam May Impact, not cause Texas bartonia Bartonia texana S 5 forests and bay-gall (Ilex coriacea) thickets. Often on elevated clumps of sphagnum moss Houston trend toward Federal listing or other organic matter (NatureServe 2007).

Open, deep sandy soils, where it is restricted to areas with periodic disturbance by fire, Warner’s hawthorn Crataegus warneri S 1 Davy Crockett - No Impact wind, and/or erosion (NatureServe 2005).

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 25 of 32 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code ** For High Potential Habitat

Fairly abundant where it occurs, in open areas of deep, disturbed sands. It is restricted to areas with periodic disturbance by fire, wind, and/or erosion, however, and is vulnerable Mohlenbrock’s umbrellas- May Impact, not cause Cyperus grayioides S 5 to encroachment by woody or weedy plant species. Sand prairie habitats have declined Sabine & Angelina - sedge trend toward Federal listing severely as a result of agricultural and residential development, fire suppression, and grazing (NatureServe 2007).

Near wooded seepage areas, on stream floodplains, and in mesic hardwood ravines on Southern lady’s-slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact lower mesic slopes or on stream terraces (Orzell 1990).

Grasslands (e.g., Little bluestem-side oats grama prairie) or openings in post oak Commanche Peak Prairie Dalea reverchonii S 1 (Quercus stellata) woodlands on shallow calcareous clay to sandy clay soils over LBJ No Impact Clover limestone. Often among sparse vegetation in barren, exposed sites (NatureServe 2007).

Neches river rose mallow Hibiscus dasycalyx S, C 1 Open marsh, nearest population from Harrison Co. Davy Crockett - No Impact

Hillside seepage bogs, wet pine savannas, wet sphagnum bogs in pine savannas May Impact, not cause Pineland bogbutton Lachnocaulon digynum S 5 (NatureServe 2005). Pitcher plant bogs and wetland pine savanna with herbaceous Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing groundcover

Leavenworthia aurea var. Restricted to small, treeless glades found on rocky outcrops of the Weches Geologic Texas golden gladecress S, C 2 Sabine No Impact texana Formation. Weches Formation outcrops, known only from San Augustine and Sabine Cos.

Open pine forests on sandy soil in eastern Texas (Orzell 1990). Habitat requirements May Impact, not cause Slender gayfeather Liatris tenuis S 6 Sabine & Angelina - include fire maintained dry, upland longleaf pine savanna. trend toward Federal listing

Frequently burned hillside seepage bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs and wet May Impact, not cause Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera integra S 5 Sabine & Angelina - savannas w/ herbaceous understory trend toward Federal listing

Rich, mesic hardwood forests, and near rivers and streams. Mesic hardwood or riparian Barbed rattlesnake-root Prenanthes barbata S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact forests with unique associates, nearest populations in Nacogdoches and Jasper Cos.

Bogs, wet pine savannas, and wet flatwoods. Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous May Impact, not cause Large beakrush Rhynchospora macra S 6 Sabine & Angelina - seeps trend toward Federal listing

Hillside seepage bogs and associated broadleaf semi-evergreen acid seep forests May Impact, not cause Sabine coneflower Rudbeckia scabrifolia S 6 (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous seeps, nearest known pop. In Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing Sabine Co.

Grows on forb-dominated barrens, on shallow, nutrient-poor soils from the Catahoula Formation (Orzell 1990). In east Texas and southern Arkansas this taxon generally Texas sunnybell Schoenolirion wrightii S 2 Angelina No Impact inhabits open savannas canopied by a mixture of pine and hardwoods (NatureServe 2007).

Deep, usually well drained sands or sandy loams in partially shaded longleaf forests with an open, herbaceous understory. Grows in the ecotone between upland longleaf pine Scarlet catchfly Silene subciliata S 1 savannah and forested ravines that were historically maintained by natural low-intensity Sabine No Impact ground fires (Orzell 1990). Deep, sandy soils usually on transition zone from upland to streamside over Catahoula Formation

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 26 of 32 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code ** For High Potential Habitat

Moist, open woodlands and glauconitic outcrops (the latter are not known to occur on Clasping (Oklahoma) Streptanthus maculatus S 1 the ANF). Open calcareous glades usually on Weches Formation in Texas, nearest pop. in Sabine No Impact twistflower Sabine Co.

Low, boggy hardwood bottoms; seep borders of ravine streams. Often in sphagnum May Impact, not cause Texas trillium Trillium texanum S 5 Sabine & Angelina - mats (NatureServe 2005).. Baygalls and forested seeps trend toward Federal listing

Drummond’s yellow-eyed Hillside seepage bogs, in areas of exposed fine wet sand or peaty sand (Orzell 1990).. May Impact, not cause Xyris drummondii S 6 Sabine & Angelina - grass Pitcher plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps trend toward Federal listing

Sabine & Angelina - comp 79 Louisiana yellow-eyed It occurs on the lower edges of hillside seepage slopes and wet claypan pine savannas May Impact, not cause Xyris louisianica S 5 (Dan Lay Bog) & comp 95 grass (Philipps 2007). trend toward Federal listing (Upland Island Wilderness)

Hillside seepage bogs, in open boggy areas and in partial shade of boggy evergreen Harper’s yellow-eyed May Impact, not cause Xyris scabrifolia S 6 shrub thickets. Often on hummocks of sphagnum moss in bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher Sabine & Angelina - grass trend toward Federal listing plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps

** OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES:

1 = Project located out of known species range; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s).

2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project; therefore, species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s).

3 = Marginal habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described.

4 = Habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because inventories are adequate enough to confirm that species are not present.

5 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because of observed habitats in the treatment area(s), and the species has been found in similar habitats.

6 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because it has been documented within these areas.

7 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment area(s), but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant).

8 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), but inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area.

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 27 of 32

Appendix B. Survey Records and Reports

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 28 of 32

Checklist for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Survey (Attach map showing project location and proposed access!!)

Surveyed By: Jason Engle Date(s) Completed: Sept and July 2008

Project Description: Upland Island Wilderness Prescribed Burning

Compartment # 68, 70, 99, 94, 98, Stand # N/A Road # N/A County Angelina/Jasp. 95 er ______

1. RCW: Acres Surveyed ca. 200 ac x Cavity trees or start trees within or near project area? Yes No

Active x Recruitment Distance from project 2.5 miles **Flag and GPS tree location(s) if new cavity tree or start is found** ______

2. Other TE&S Species Acres Surveyed ______

3. Other TE&S Species Acres Surveyed ______

4. Other TE&S Species Acres Surveyed ______

5. Wetland vegetation present (example: pitcher plants)? Yes x No **GPS locations**

Type Pitcher plant bogs

6. Stream course in or near the project area? Yes x No Distance from project Throughout *Note in remarks and on map any stream crossings or other information regarding stream course protection and/or needs

7. NNIS within or near project area? Yes x No Approx. Size vary Japanese climbing fern, throughout Type **Flag and GPS location(s)**

**Always flag findings** **Show locations of positive findings on an attached map** **All GPS data must be turned in to GIS Tech** Remarks / Other findings: See Appendix B of BE for map of areas surveyed.

District Wildlife/T&E Coordinator: Jason A. Engle Date: 5/8/2009

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 29 of 32

Aquatics Surveys for Upland Island Wilderness RXBurning – Dave Peterson

Jason- We don't have any documented sensitive aquatics from the area. I've referenced an MS thesis on fish communities in six streams on the ANF, by Paul Dakus Geeslin, 2001, SFA. And also the "Ecological Investigation of Graham Creek, A Proposed Wilderness Area," 1980, SFA. I looked at populations in Boykin, Graham and Big Creeks, which showed good diversity, but no TES. My own samples go back to 1993 and include Big Creek, Cypress, Oil Well Creek and multiple samples in Mill Creek, all of which are in the Wilderness. No TES were found. Refer to the spreadsheet for crayfish sampling in the area. See Mill and Cypress Creeks. We trapped in there intensively this year, but results won't be in for a couple weeks. Unfortunately, we have no mussel data. I will send you a spreadsheet for County records. Keep in mind that the triangle pigtoe was last seen in Sandy Creek off the Attoyac upstream in the same watershed. Howells believes it to now be extinct, but we need to address it seriously here since we have no real efforts to find it in the wilderness or elsewhere. The main impacts to mussels from fire would be burns that are too hot leading to erosion, siltation and phospate leaching into streams. Holler if you have questions.

Geeslin, D.K. 2001. An ichthyological study of fish communities in six streams in the Angelina National Forest, Texs. MS thesis, SFA, Nacogdoches.

McCullough, J.D. et al. 1980. An ecological investigation of Graham Creek, a proposed wilderness area. National Science Foundation grant report SPI 8004098.

Mussels

Dave,

It may be jumping the gun a bit, but here is a first draft of a table listing unionids by county for those counties that include USFS forests and grasslands in Texas. Note that this includes records for each given county and does not necessarily mean that the mussel species listed actually occurs on Forest Service land within that county...only the critter was somewhere in the county.

Cap X's are historic records prior to 1980 and lower case x's are additional species recorded since 1980 (I didn't take time to distinguish when a species was found both in the past and present). I also added o's to indicate species that could well occur in the counties listed, but haven't been formally documented there yet and for the Fannin County-Caddo grasslands, a "o" to indicate important species found in just to the east in Lamar County.

As I have time to compare collection locations with each county to actual forest service lands, I will no doubt delete some species and perhaps add others. This table is just an early rough draft. Still, the list contains some 40 species (over 75% of the unionid taxa known from Texas) that have been documented on or near U.S. forests and grasslands.

More later.

Bob H. <>

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 30 of 32

Susan Adams/SRS/USDAFS

08/21/2008 11:54 AM

O.K. patient one, here's what I've got on your crawdaddies.

Collection #2, 6/3/08, unnamed creek: Procambarus (Pennides) dupratzi 1-M1, 1-M2; Procambarus (Scapulicambarus) clarkii 1-M2.

Collection #4, 6/3/08, Big Creek: TENTATIVE: Procambarus (Ortmannicus) acutus (?) or possibly P. zonangulus 1-F. Since there was only a F and she was not particularly large, this was a tough call. Several characters didn't match the P. zonangulus description which is why I made P. acutus my first call. Also, I have never seen P. nechesae and it is not in Hobbs' checklist, but this is the area for it. I should have the species description paper in a few days and will take another look at this specimen once I get the description.

Collection #5, 6/3/08, Big Creek: Procambarus (Pennides) dupratzi 1-M1.

Collection #6, 6/3/08, Oil Well Creek: Procambarus (Pennides) dupratzi 1-M1, 3-M2

Do you have latitude/longitude for these collections? If so, would you send them because I can't find most of the road numbers on TopoUSA. Thanks!

Let me know if you have questions.

Susie

Susan B. Adams, Ph.D. Research Aquatic Ecologist USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, RWU-4155 1000 Front St., Oxford, MS 38655 phone: (662) 234-2744 ext. 267 fax: (662) 234-8318 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/cbhr/

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 31 of 32

Field Notes on Crayfish / Aquatic Monitoring

 On June 3, 2008 I accompanied David Peterson to collect data on crayfish. Six traps were put out in the vicinity of Upland Island Wilderness on the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District. 1. Graham Creek – Bridge on FDR 314 – 1.6 miles West of the parking area and intersection with JAS 010 2. “unnamed creek” – Bridge on FDR 314 – 0.2 mile East of the UIW/private boundary 3. Falls Creek – Bridge on FDR 303 – 0.4 mile North of the intersection with FDR 314 4. Big Creek – Slough approximately ¼ mile West-Northwest of the south side of bridge on FDR 303 – 3.0 miles North of the intersection with FDR 314 5. Big Creek – Bridge on FDR 303 – 3.3 miles North of the intersection with FDR 314 6. Oil Well Creek – Backwater above culvert on the Boulware-Hudspeth Road – 2.3 miles West of the intersection with FDR 303 In addition, David took measurements of the drop from the apron of the culvert to the water surface on the downstream side of two creeks, and a water sample was collected from Trout Creek and later measured for conductivity and stream pH. Mill Creek – South side of Boulware-Hudspeth Road – the drop was 26 inches Trout Creek – South side of FDR 333A – the drop was 32 inches Trout Creek – Conductivity: 27 pH: 6.2

 On June 4, 2008 I accompanied David Peterson to check the six traps for crayfish in the vicinity of Upland Island Wilderness on the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District. Data was also collected on conductivity and stream pH. 1. Graham Creek – Empty trap, 0 crayfish – Trap was re-baited Conductivity: 263 pH: 6.6 2. “unnamed creek” – 5 crayfish; 1 green sunfish; 1 mosquitofish (female) – Trap was pulled – Crayfish: 2 male (Form 1–), 1 male (Form 2 juvenile), 1 female adult, 1 female juvenile Conductivity: 64 pH: 6.3 3. Falls Creek – 0 crayfish; 10 yellow bullhead – Trap was pulled Conductivity: 87 pH: 5.9 4. Big Creek – 1 crayfish (female adult); 1 Gulf Coast (lesser) siren (Siren intermedia) Conductivity: 40 pH: 5.9 Trap was re-baited and moved to a new location: Slough approximately 250 feet West-Northwest from south side of bridge on FDR 303 – 3.3 miles North of intersection with FDR 314 (moved to the same general location as point #5) Conductivity: 49 pH: 5.5 5. Big Creek – 0 crayfish; 1 blackstripe topminnow; 1 longear sunfish – Trap was re-baited Conductivity: 538 pH: 6.4 6. Oil Well Creek – 0 crayfish; 5 green sunfish; 1 yellow bullhead – Trap was re-baited Conductivity: 93 pH: 7.3 This appears to be the first documented report of a Gulf Coast (lesser) siren in Angelina County, Texas.

 On June 5, 2008 I accompanied David Peterson to check the four remaining traps for crayfish in the vicinity of Upland Island Wilderness on the Angelina/Sabine Ranger District. 1. Graham Creek – Empty trap, 0 crayfish – Trap was pulled 2. “unnamed creek” – N/A 3. Falls Creek – N/A 4. Big Creek – 0 crayfish; 5 longear sunfish – Trap was pulled 5. Big Creek – 1 crayfish (male (Form 1–)); 1 longear sunfish – Trap was pulled 6. Oil Well Creek – 9 crayfish; 4 green sunfish; 2 yellow bullhead (1 adult, 1 juvenile); 1 bullhead (sp.); 1 (freckled) madtom; 1 tadpole; 1 broadbanded water snake – Trap was pulled – Crayfish: 1 male (Form 1), 1 male (Form 1–), 4 male (Form 2), 3 female adult Big Creek was measured for conductivity on the north side of TX 63 (Conductivity: 118).

The crayfish specimens collected on June 4 and 5 are being sent to a laboratory for identification.

David Betz

Upland Island Wilderness Prescribe Burning Biological Evaluation Page 32 of 32