Biological Evaluation Department of Agriculture BE 04-11-01

Forest Service Prescribed Burning

Compartments 26, 32, 33, 41, 42, 50, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 119

Sam National Forest, National Forests & Grasslands in

San Jacinto, Montgomery, and Walker Counties, Texas

October 2011

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this proposal is to conduct prescribed burning and associated activities to reduce woody understory and small diameter midstory vegetation in eleven compartments to improve for the Red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and other species of wildlife. The proposed activities will help to accomplish the objectives in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (Forest Plan; USFS 1996).

This document is a site-specific Biological Evaluation (BE) to identify and evaluate the effects of proposed Forest Service actions on Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species, and to ensure that these actions do not adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for any sensitive species. This BE will provide biological information to ensure USDA Forest Service and National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Forest Service Manual 2670, Endangered Species Act (as amended), and 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the NFGT. This document complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects on listed species and their . Additionally, this document provides a standard process to provide full consideration of federally threatened or endangered, and sensitive species, and their habitats in the decision-making process.

Objectives

The objectives of this biological evaluation are to:

1) Ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non- native plant or or contribute to trends toward federal listing of any species.

2) Comply with the requirement of the Endangered Species Act that actions of Federal Agencies not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species.

3) Provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered and proposed species receive full consideration in the decision making process (FSM 2672.41).

4) Identify the need for any additional mitigation measures to protect TES species, habitat, or potential habitat from negative effects of the proposed management actions.

Area Description

Eleven compartments are included in this proposal. Five compartments are in San Jacinto County on the eastern part of the Forest, approximately 8-14 miles NW of Cleveland, Texas. The other six are on the western part of the Forest. Two are in Montgomery Co., 6-10 miles NNE of Montgomery Texas. The remaining four are farther north. One is just west of Lake Conroe and north of FM 1375, one is just east of the lake and north of FM 1375, and two are just east of the lake and south of FM 1375. See the attached maps for the exact locations.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 1

The Forest Service proposes to prescribe burn approximately 11,740 acres in eleven compartments. Table 1 shows the acres to be burned in each compartment, and the year that each was last burned.

Table 1. Compartments to be burned, with burn acreage and year each was last burned.

Year Last Year Last Compt. Burn Acres Compt. Burn Acres Burned Burned 26 1365 2009 115 2009 310 32 1245 2008 116 2009 No record 33 1530 117 990 2009 since 1985 41 1465 2010 118 675 2010

42 1820 2010 119 795 2009

50 1545 2009 TOTAL 11,740

Additional work associated with burning includes fireline construction using bulldozers to clear vegetation and litter to expose mineral soil, and fireline reclamation, including seeding.

EXPECTED LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS

The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan emphasizes management actions in MA-2 that produce habitat conditions that “provide the best possible habitat for the recovery of RCW populations and sub- populations” (USFS 1996, p.102). Management in MA-2 is directed toward attaining future conditions consisting of “open pine forests mixed with some hardwoods species” (USFS 1996, p.98). This includes a frequent fire regime that would create an “open, grass-like understory.”

The proposed prescribed burning would help to move the eleven compartments toward the open stand structure desired in MA-2. Prescribed fire would reduce the density of woody understory vegetation, with the most notable reductions occurring in upland areas. This would allow for the establishment or expansion of herbaceous understory vegetation. The composition and diversity of vegetation in riparian areas would essentially remain unchanged.

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED

The species considered in this document are categorized into the following groups: A) federally listed species which appear on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county list; and B) those species listed for the DCNF as Sensitive, on the Regional Forester (R8) approved list, updated Jan. 2008. Those species or their habitat(s) that may be affected by the proposed project are evaluated in this BE (See Appendix I for a listing of those species that were considered, but eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale therein).

A. Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that these species are threatened or endangered. Species in this category are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

B. Sensitive Species

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 2

These are species identified by the Regional Forester for which there is concern for population viability across their range, and all occurrences contribute significantly to the conservation of the species.

EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION

The need to conduct project-level inventories of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species was assessed using the 1989 Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain. See Appendix A for a list of those species addressed in this evaluation and those that were considered but eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale therein. For those species not discussed in detail, this project will have no effect (Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species) or no impact (Sensitive species).

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat within proposed treatment areas are current enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of these species.

EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

An assessment of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed burning and associated actions on selected species is presented in this document. The analysis area is the compartments included in this project. The treatment area is defined as land on which management actions would take place, while the cumulative effects analysis area includes those areas where direct and indirect effects may occur, not merely those areas on which actions would take place. The cumulative effects analysis area, unless otherwise noted, includes national forest in or near the treatment area and/or adjacent private land. Determinations of effect in this document represent the overall expected effect of the proposed management actions on TES species.

The evaluation is based upon: 1. Review of the literature related to the ecology of TES species - see “Literature Cited” at the end of this document.

2. Review of the following documents:

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan, second revision (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 1995) Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service, NFGT, 1996) National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007)

3. Review of Sam Houston National Forest TES species records.

4. Evaluation of habitat conditions in and near the analysis area.

5. This Biological Evaluation is based upon the best available science, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 3

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

This proposal encompasses about 11,740 acres, in eleven compartments, of the Sam Houston National Forest. All compartments are within Management Area (MA)-2, Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis. A goal of MA-2 is to “provide the best possible habitat for the recovery of RCW populations and sub- populations” (USFS 1996, p.102). Management in MA-2 is directed toward developing future conditions consisting of “open pine forests mixed with some hardwood species” (USFS 1996, p.98). This includes a frequent fire regime that would create an “open, grass-like understory.”

An overstory of primarily loblolly pine, with some shortleaf pine, dominates most of the stands in the compartments. Hardwood tree species occurring in the overstory and midstory include white oak, southern red oak, sweetgum, and hickory. Understories range from dense thickets of yaupon, wax myrtle, and various small hardwoods to somewhat more open in nature, with grasses beginning to dominate in some areas.

Riparian areas of various sizes occur in these compartments. Hardwood trees dominate along some streams, while pines prevail along others. Larger riparian areas are generally dominated by hardwoods with some pines mixed in the overstory. In general, snags are more common in these riparian areas. Several regeneration areas are present in both compartments.

Specific information on the distribution, status, habitat associations, and limiting factors for the species evaluated in this BE are provided in the following sections.

EVALUATION OF EFFECTS

A. Threatened & Endangered Species

Federally Listed Threatened & Endangered Species Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Birds - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Environmental Baseline The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has high potential to occur on drier ridgetops in open-canopy, fire- maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods (Hovis and Labisky 1985; Jackson 1994; Conner et al. 2001; Walters et al. 2002; USFWS 2003). The species has moderate potential to occur in mature, pine-dominated stands with a mixture of hardwoods and hardwood midstory, as is present throughout much of the Sam Houston National Forest. The RCW excavates cavities in live pine trees, using older 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, pines ≥60 years old are needed for cavity excavation (Rudolph and Conner 1991; USFWS 2003). Threats to this species include conversion of mature forest to short-rotation plantations or non-

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 4

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.

This species has a high potential to occupy some proposed treatment areas because it has been previously documented within these areas.

The RCW population trend is presently increasing steadily on the National Forests in Texas (Fig.1; USFS 2010, Appendix A, p. 23).

Active Clusters 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009

Fig. 1. National Forests in Texas-wide RCW population trend 1988-2009 (USFS 2010, Appendix A, p. 23).

Following a period of growth, the SHNF population’s growth rate slowed, and the population then began to decline slightly in 2002, after a restraining order restricted prescribed burning for several years, beginning in 1999, mostly to areas having existing NEPA decisions. Most of these areas were those in which timber sales had recently been completed, and these contained relatively few active RCW clusters. Thus, midstory conditions worsened rapidly in many active clusters, leading to abandonment of some sites. However, the population began to rebound after lifting of the restraining order allowed burning in other compartments to resume at increased levels (Fig. 2), and occupied RCW habitat was aggressively targeted for burning. This increased burning, targeting occupied RCW habitat, generated significant gains in habitat quality and quantity, and the birds responded by reoccupying abandoned sites and colonizing new ones as well.

Groups

250

200

150

100

50

0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Fig. 2. Red-cockaded Woodpecker population trend (# of groups) on the Sam Houston National Forest, 1991-2010. Numbers for 1991-2005 are 100% survey; numbers for 2006-2010 are estimates from 50% sample.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 5

The RCW population on the SHNF consists of the western, central, and eastern sub-populations. The compartments proposed for burning are located within the western and eastern sub-populations. The SHNF presently (2010) supports 214 of the 350 group objective for the Forest (USFWS 2003). The compartments to be burned contain 50 active and 27 inactive/recruitment clusters.

Available Inventories District personnel survey a sample of clusters and recruitment stands annually for status (active/inactive) and document new cavity trees (including starts) at that time. The most recent surveys were completed during March – June 2010.

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat within proposed treatment areas are current enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of this species.

The cumulative effects analysis area for this species consists of contiguous national forest lands west of interstate 45 (compartments 1-54), contiguous national forest lands East of I-45 and south of Hwy 150 (compartments 100-124), and private lands surrounding these national forest lands.

All compartments are in Management Area (MA)-2, Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis. A goal of MA-2 is to “provide the best possible habitat for the recovery of RCW populations and sub-populations” (the Plan, p.102). Management in MA-2 is directed toward developing future conditions consisting of “open pine forests mixed with some hardwoods species” (the Plan, p.98). This includes a frequent fire regime that would create an “open, grass-like understory.”

Direct and Indirect Effects Prescribed fire is essential to developing and maintaining high potential RCW habitat. Fire reduces woody understory and retards the regrowth of woody shrubs, while promoting the establishment or expansion of grasses and herbaceous groundcover. Such habitat benefits the RCW by not only reducing the negative effects of hardwood midstory, but by increasing the populations upon which the birds feed. Negative effects to RCW nesting habitat are possible from the potential ignition of resin-covered cavity trees. However, the threat of cavity trees being harmed is minimized by preventative measures taken before and during prescribed burning operations (USFS 2006, p.115). The benefits prescribed burning has on habitat structure outweigh the risks of cavity loss.

The fireline clearing would have little or no impact on the RCW, as work would be largely limited to reclearing of existing firelines used for previous burns. Clearing of some new firelines may be necessary. Surveys for undocumented cavity trees would be done along existing and any new firelines needed. Care would be taken if cavity trees were present adjacent to firelines to avoid damaging root systems (USFS 1996).

Cumulative Effects Most of the compartments surrounding those covered under this proposal are being appropriately managed toward producing high potential habitat for the RCW. Since the lifting of the restraining order, many compartments with active RCW clusters have been burned on a 2-3 year cycle, which has provided greater control of woody understory and smaller midstory stems than the prior 3-5 year cycle. The greatest benefits have been seen when compartments are repeatedly burned every two years for three or more burns. With the exception of c-33, all of the compartments covered in this proposal have been burned within the past 3 years or less. This proposed burn would continue the short return frequency that has begun to gain control of woody species, complementing burning in surrounding compartments. The planned growth in the burn program will benefit the RCW in these compartments and other areas of the forest by providing

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 6

for a shorter return frequency and thus better control of woody vegetation. Further improvements in habitat quality and quantity are anticipated from continued prescribed burning, and the RCW population is expected to respond with further growth .

Private lands surrounding the Sam Houston NF are presently a mix of subdivisions to the south, and rural pastures, short rotation pine plantations, and some older pine stands elsewhere. Increasing development is leading to the clearing of both the older and younger pine stands for residential development and pasture. Habitat for the RCW is increasingly restricted to National Forest land.

B. Sensitive Species

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Birds Fish Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Sabine shiner ( sabinae) Mammals Freshwater Mussels Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) rafinesquii) pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii) Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) Texas emerald ( margarita)

Birds - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Environmental Baseline The bald eagle has high potential to occur in coastal areas and within two miles of large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers (USFWS 1995). In eastern Texas, this high potential habitat contains mature pines with an unobstructed line of sight and flight path, which the eagles select for nest trees. In the southeast, the nesting period usually occurs from October to May (USFWS 1995). Bald eagles primarily forage on fish, but their diet also includes waterfowl, rodents, reptiles, and carrion (USFWS 1989). After decades of decline, eagle populations have recovered steadily in recent years. The primary threats facing the species today are the loss of habitat to alteration and development, and disturbance at existing nest sites (USFWS 1989).

The SHNF supports four bald eagle territories, one of which is in c-33. The Forest Plan (Plan, p. 84) states that “limitations on certain management activities may be needed within a one-mile radius of active nest sites during the breeding season.” Current guidelines, enacted since the species was delisted, recommend protection of a zone extending 660 feet outward from the nest (USFWS 2007). This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because it has been previously documented in some of those treatment areas (c-33)

Available Inventories Eagle nests and territories on the Sam Houston NF have been monitored annually by the USFS to determine status (active/inactive) and nest success. Proposed treatment areas were inventoried for nests during October – November 2009.

This available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat within the proposed treatment areas are current enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of this species.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 7

Direct and Indirect Effects Because there are two eagle nests in c-33, there is the potential for direct effects to the bald eagle. However, any work within and near nest territories would be carefully monitored to ensure that the nest tree was not damaged.

The greatest potential for indirect effects lies in the potential for disturbance of nesting eagles, leading to possible nest abandonment or nestling injury or death. Although there are two nests known in c-33, they are believed to be alternate nests belonging to one nesting pair. Thus, once the nest for a given season has been selected by the birds and nesting has been confirmed, protection of the year’s active nest site from disturbance by establishing a buffer zone would greatly reduce the potential for negative indirect effects. This protection would include keeping the helicopter at least 600 feet away from the nest, using wind direction to minimize the amount of smoke that blows over the nest, and other measures to reduce the amount of disturbance nesting eagles experienced.

Cumulative Effects The proposed burning would reduce fuels around the eagle nest trees, thus reducing the potential for wildfires that could ignite the nest trees. This would benefit the eagles by providing increased protection for the nest trees.

As previously noted, much of the nearby private land is short rotation timber management, subdivisions, pasture, or other unsuitable cover type, none of which represents high potential eagle habitat. This makes national forest lands important for this species. This project would help to maintain quality eagle habitat on the SHNF.

Mammals - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius)

Environmental Baseline These two species of bats reach the western limit of their ranges in eastern Texas. These species are addressed together in the effects analysis because they have similar habitat requirements and effects of this project are expected to be similar.

The Rafinesque’s big-eared is primarily a solitary species that roosts in hollow trees, crevices behind loose bark, and under dry leaves (Davis and Schmidly 1994). It has also been observed roosting in buildings, abandoned mines, and wells (BCI 2001; Menzel et al. 2003).

The southeastern myotis is a colonial bat that roosts in caves, mines, bridges, culverts, and tree hollows (BCI 2001, p.48). This species is associated with aquatic habitats, such as ponds and streams, over which it forages for insects (Rice 1957; Schmidley 1991; BCI 2001).

Research on habitat associations for both species in eastern Texas indicates that these two species of bats have high potential to occur within mature bottomland hardwood communities containing large diameter, hollow hardwoods, often of the genus Nyssa, within one kilometer (0.6 mile) of water (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). This research found that both species of bats preferred to roost in these large, hollow hardwoods. Lance et al. (2001) found big-eared bats, and occasionally southeastern myotis, roosting under concrete bridges as well as in large hollow Nyssa in Louisiana. Bridges used by these bats were always associated with a higher percentage of surrounding mature hardwood forest than were unused

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 8

bridges. A similar affinity for hardwood-dominated roosts near water was found for big-eared bats in South Carolina (Bunch et al. 1998). Thus, two important components of high potential habitat across the range of the two species are mature bottomland hardwood forest and the close proximity of water.

High potential foraging habitat for these bats is bottomland hardwood forest. Both bats consume moths, but the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is considered a moth specialist (Hurst and Lacki 1997; Lacki and Ladeur 2002). The big-eared bat usually forages by gleaning; that is, picking insects off vegetation, and has been observed to forage quite low, within 1 m of the ground (Mirowsky and Horner 1997; BCI 2001). The myotis shows a marked preference for foraging over water, where it skims the surface of the water in search of insects (Rice 1957; Schmidley 1991; BCI 2001).

Both species of bats display a bimodal pattern of foraging activity, common to a number of bat species; that is, they forage for several hours soon after dark, and again for a few hours in the morning before returning to their day roosts before dawn (Reynolds and Mitchell 1998; Menzel et al. 2001). Between foraging bouts, they likely rest in temporary night roosts in or near their foraging areas. Bats may use a variety of sites for these temporary roosts, depending upon what is available. The big-eared bat, which occasionally forages in upland areas or non-hardwood stands adjacent to high potential bottomland foraging areas, may use snags with loose bark or cavities, or upland hardwoods with cavities, as temporary roost sites.

Both species are experiencing population declines across their ranges. The greatest threat facing the big- eared bat is loss of bottomland forest roost habitat (Bunch et al 1998; NatureServe 2010), particularly the large hollow trees needed for maternity roosts. The species is also vulnerable to nondestructive intrusion, that is, disturbance of roosting colonies, and may abandon roost sites if disturbed (NatureServe 2010). The myotis is similarly threatened by loss of maternity roost habitat.

Two of the compartments included in this proposal, c-115 and c-116, contain habitat somewhat similar to the the kind of large bottomland or floodplain forests that represent high potential habitat for this species. The East fork of the San Jacinto River runs through these two compartments. Although this river does not have an extensive floodplain forest in these compartments, there are some large diameter hardwoods along the river that could provide suitable roost sites for the bats. More moderately-sized streams, which might support some larger diameter, hollow trees that could provide roost habitat for these species, are present in several locations on the Forest, including compartments 41/42 (Gum Branch, which forms the boundary between the two compartments) and compartment 50 (Smith Branch). However, past prescribed burns have either failed to burn into/through these bottomland areas due to their mesic nature, or else have only burned into them patchily, burning off surface grasses and leaves. Thus, these larger bottomlands are considered to be outside the burn area (treatment area) in terms of effects on the large roost trees used by these species.

However, these bats will also roost in abandoned buildings and other structures, which are often present on private tracts in this area. Bats roosting in such sites could occasionally forage on one or more of the treatment areas.

These species of bats does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described above. However, the big-eared bat has been known to occasionally forage in upland areas adjacent to their preferred bottomland foraging habitat, although such upland areas represent quite marginal habitat.

Available Inventories No inventories were conducted for these species, because high potential habitat does not occur in the actual treatment areas and the species do not have high potential to occur in the treatment areas. Any use

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 9

of the treatment areas by these bat species would be rare, and would occur only occasionally during foraging. Even though the large, low-lying bottomland areas (high potential habitat) would not be excluded by firelines during prescribed burns, experience has shown that prescribed fire seldom enters such large bottomlands. Therefore, it was determined that such areas are, in effect, excluded from the effects of fire by their mesic, low-lying nature. Thus, it was determined that no inventories were needed.

The cumulative effects analysis area for these species consists of contiguous national forest lands west of interstate 45 (compartments 1-54), contiguous national forest lands East of I-45 and south of Hwy 150 (compartments 100-124), and private lands surrounding these national forest lands.

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed burning could displace any individuals that might be day roosting in the compartments. However, these species have a strong affinity for roosting in low-lying hardwood communities, in which fires tend to burn at low intensity or not at all. Prescribed fire would be of low intensity and very patchy in nature in such high potential habitat. The Rafinesque’s big-eared bat does not hibernate in Texas, while the southeastern myotis likely also remains active throughout the year (Davis and Schmidly 1994; BCI 2001). These species would therefore be mobile and alert during winter, allowing for a higher likelihood of escape from an encroaching fire or other disturbing activity.

Direct or inadvertent removal of snags in uplands may occur during project activities. Despite possible losses, this habitat component would continue to exist for the bats (USFS 2006, p. 55). According to Van Lear (1993), prescribed fire would result in both the loss and production of snags. Snags are more frequent in lowlands and riparian zones than on upland sites (Van Lear 1993). High potential roosting habitat for these species is located in the extensive low-lying areas of MA-4. In general, fire in MA-4 does not burn well, resulting in patchy or incomplete burning of vegetation. Because prescribed fire tends not to carry well in such areas, adverse effects to high potential roosting habitat of these species are not anticipated. However, even snags in upland areas will persist for a number of years in the face of prescribed burning. Over two thirds of dead pines in RCW clusters monitored on the Angelina NF were still standing and averaged 45 ft. tall five years after death (Conner and Saenz 2005). Thus, prescribed fire does not consume snags immediately.

Cumulative Effects Surrounding compartments are managed similarly to the compartments covered by this proposal. High potential habitat is limited to the larger river drainages, such as along the East fork of the San Jacinto River. These areas would be little affected by prescribed fire, due to their mesic nature and high hardwood component, which would result in fires being naturally extinguished.

Forest management on adjacent private land provides little opportunity for the retention or development of high potential roosting habitat for these species. Pine on these lands is usually managed for short rotations (20-40 years). Lands managed intensively for wood production generally have lower densities of snags than national forests (Van Lear 1993). Bottomland forests and larger riparian forests have been largely cut over on private lands, leaving few large hollow trees that could provide high potential roost habitat for this species. Because forest management on private lands is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, habitat in these areas would likely remain limited.

Insects - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita)

Environmental Baseline

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 10

The Big Thicket emerald dragonfly has a potential range that may exceed 10,000 square miles in southeastern Texas, including all four national forests in Texas (Price et al. 1989). This species was originally described from the Sam Houston National Forest (Price et al. 1989). High potential habitat for larvae is associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2010). Adults are generalists, foraging for insects at canopy level in mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings. Because of its specific needs, the larval stage of this species is considered the critical life stage.

Threats to this species include clearing of large areas of mature forest for conversion to agricultural land or similar use, which would displace adults; sedimentation of larval habitat is a serious threat as well (Price et al. 1989; Natureserve 2010).

Price et al. (1989) noted that the Big Creek Scenic Area (eastern portion of the Forest) supports perennial, sandy-bottomed, spring-fed streams, whereas the far western portion of the SHNF does not.

Larvae of this species do not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat (clear, sandy-bottomed streams) as described above for larvae. Although prescribed fire may burn into some streamside zones, effects on vegetation would be minimal. Fire will not affect streams directly. However, because of the small chance of indirect effects to larval habitat (streams), this species is included in the analysis.

Available Inventories No systematic inventories for this species have been conducted recently on the SHNF. Price et al. (1989) documented this species from several locations on the Forest. However, because high potential habitat (small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps) is not included in proposed treatment areas, availability of site specific survey data would not improve effects analyses or allow improved project design. Available inventory data are adequate, because high potential habitats do not occur in proposed treatment areas.

Due to potential downstream impacts to water quality, the cumulative effects analysis area for this species includes streams in adjacent compartments and private lands that flow into the analysis areas, as well as downstream areas in adjacent compartments and on private lands.

Direct and Indirect Effects Given that the adult Texas emerald dragonfly is highly mobile, negative direct effects from prescribed burning are unlikely to occur. Indirect effects on adults are also not anticipated. No large areas of mature timber would be removed.

This alternative would involve prescribed burning and the construction of fire lines within MA-4. Dragonfly larvae are susceptible to management actions that impact stream habitats. A major problem associated with prescribed fire and water quality is potential increases in sedimentation (Stanturf et al. 2002). However, most studies in the south indicate that effects of prescribed fire on water quality are minor and of short duration when compared with the effects of other forest practices (Stanturf et al. 2002). Prescribed fires in MA-4 tend to consist of low intensity backing fires. Even intense burns may result in only minor disturbance to the root mat, leaving its soil-holding properties intact (Stanturf et al. 2002).

In addition, fire lines constructed near streams are constructed by hand, minimizing soil disturbance and the extent of sediment movement. Compartments 50 and 116 contain streams that could potentially support dragonfly larvae, and that would be crossed by firelines. However, construction of these lines by hand, beginning 50 feet from the streams, would protect these streams from impacts.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 11

Cumulative Effects Downstream effects to aquatic habitats are of concern. However, adverse effects downstream of the analysis area are not anticipated. Similar protective measures for MA-4 are used during activities in other compartments as previously described for this project. Although a small temporary increase in sediment may be generated from fireline construction, any degradation of water quality in streams due to sediment delivery would be of short duration. Thus, there is little or no potential for water quality degradation to occur in that area.

National forest land provides the best opportunity for the protection and maintenance of habitat for this species in the long-term. Management practices near streams on National Forest land are more restrictive than on private lands, on which protection measures for streams are voluntary.

Fish and Freshwater Mussels - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

While specific habitat requirements for the fish and mussels differ, they are all impacted by sedimentation. Therefore, they are considered together in the effects analysis.

Fish Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae)

Environmental Baseline The Sabine shiner has high potential to occur over a substrate of fine, silt-free sand in small streams and rivers having slight to moderate current (Lee et al. 1980). Threats to this species’ habitat include sedimentation and obstructions to fish passage. Historic records from 1968-1971 indicate that the Sabine Shiner was originally found in a number of streams on the NFT. There are no current records of the species on the SHNF; the last sighting was in 1998. However, the goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), a species closely associated with the Sabine shiner, has been found in several streams on the Forest. This species inhabits clear, sandy bottomed streams that are spring fed. The goldstripe darter requires unimpeded waterways that allow passage to headwaters, needed for fulfilling life cycle requirements and for survival during summer droughts. Streams occupied by this species may indicate the presence of habitat conditions necessary to support the bottom dwelling Sabine shiner, although recent findings indicate that the shiner requires longer reaches of streams, 13 miles or more, in order to thrive and support sustainable populations. According to Forest fisheries biologist Dave Peterson, impediments to fish passage such as poorly designed and/or placed culverts are a major factor contributing to the decline in distribution experienced by this species.

The Sabine shiner does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because numerous previous inventories of high potential habitat distributed across the forest have not located this species.

Available Inventories Numerous fisheries surveys and inventories have been conducted on the SHNF. Surveys have been completed in several compartments covered by this proposal, but no shiners have been found. Following (Table 2) is a list of the most recent (since 1980) inventory work.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 12

Table 2. Fisheries inventory work on the Sam Houston National Forest since 1980.

Sabine Sabine Comp. Water Body Date(s) Shiner Comp. Water Body Date(s) Shiner Found? Found? 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, off Casidy Branch 10 Sand Branch no 5/97 no 11/97 forest (FM 1791) 2/97, 5/97, 17/21 Caney Creek 11/97, 6/99, no 56 Prairie Trib. 1/97 no 2/00, 4/00 2/97, 6/97, 8/97, Big 18 Bay Branch 11/97, 6/99, no 57 Chinquapin 6/99, 9/99, 2/00 no 9/99, 4/00 Creek 18 Caney Creek 2/97, 5/97, 11/97 no 59 Wayne Creek 3/98 no 21 Green Branch 2/97 no 61 Harmon Creek 1/97 no West Sandy 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 24 6/99, 3/00, 4/00 no 75 Briar Creek no Creek 11/97 W. Fork San 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 25 4/00 no 75 Boswell Creek no Jacinto River 11/97 Unnamed 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 6/97, 6/99, 9/99, 33* no 78 Roark Creek no Stream 11/97 2/00, 4/00 2/97, 4/97, 8/97, 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 37 Sand Creek 11/97 6/99, 9/99, no 83 Pea Creek 11/97, 6/99, no 2/00, 4/00 9/99, 2/00, 4/00 E. Fork Caney 2/97, 5/97, 39 Peach Creek 7/98 YES# 84 no Creek 11/97, 7/99, 2/00 3/97, 5/97, 8/97, 5/97, 8/97, 42* Gum Branch no 84 Winters Bayou no 11/97 11/97, 6/99, 4/00 Unnamed 3/97, 4/97, 8/97, Double Lake 43 no 93 2/00 no Creek 11/97 Branch 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 2/97, 3/97, 8/97, 44 Smith Branch no 94 Clear Creek 11/97, 7/99, no 11/97 2/00, 4/00 3/97, 4/97, 8/97, Neblett’s 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 44 Brown Branch no 98 no 11/97 Creek 11/97 W. Fork San 7/99, 9/99, 2/00, 46 4/00 no 106 Little Creek no Jacinto River 4/00 2/97, 5/97, 8/97, 6/99, 9/99, 2/99, 47 Maple Branch no 106 Big Creek no 11/97 4/99, 5/00 East Sandy 2/97, 6/97, 8/97, E. Fork San 48 no 114 4/00 no Creek 11/97, 6/99 Jacinto River 5/97, 8/97, 6/99, 9/99, 2/00, Unnamed 50* Smith Branch no 116* 11/97, 7/99, no 4/00 Creek 9/99, 2/00, 4/00 51 Brown Branch 10/99 no 120 Winters Bayou 4/00 no 5/97, 8/97, 6/99, 10/99, 52 Gum Branch no 121 Rocky Branch 11/97, 7/99, no 3/00, 4/00 2/00, 4/00 # Species not relocated in subsequent surveys

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat on the SHNF are current enough and widespread enough to guide project design, support determinations of effect, and meet requirements for conservation of this species.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 13

Freshwater Mussels Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii) Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus)

Environmental Baseline Freshwater mussels 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 three 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 1996; 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 1996).

Impoundment of river systems is believed to be the most significant threat facing freshwater bivalves (Neck 1982). 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 (Healy and Gelwick undated). Pollution, over harvest, reduced spring and river flows, introduction of exotic species, and sedimentation are other probable causes of decline (Neck 1982; Howells 1996; 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).

These species do not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because previous inventories of high potential habitat in streams distributed across much of East Texas have not located these species in recent years.

Available Inventories Howells et al. (1996) summarized surveys completed for these species in Texas. Only two live specimens of the Texas heelsplitter have been found in the past 15 years, and none of the other two species have been located. Texas freshwater mussel communities have declined greatly, and have disappeared from the majority of sites from which they once were found. Surveys from a study conducted from 1999-2000 on the Sam Houston NF, which included a large number of streams throughout the forest, did not result in the detection of these sensitive mussel species (Healy and Gelwick undated). In addition, live mussels were rarely collected in streams on the SHNF during this study. Evidence of mussels was found at 8 of 18 sites (17 streams), at which three of these sites only dead individuals or valve fragments were collected (Healy and Gelwick undated).

Table 3. Mussel inventory work on the Sam Houston National Forest since 1980.

Sensitive Sensitive Comp. Water Body Date(s) Species Comp. Water Body Date(s) Species Found? Found? E. Fork Caney 17/21 Caney Creek 5/99 no 84 7/99 no Creek 18 Bay Branch 4/00 no 84 Winters Bayou 9/99, 8/00 no West Sandy 24 5/99, 3/00 no 94 Clear Creek 5/99 no Creek W. Fork San 25 4/00 no 106 Little Creek 9/99 no Jacinto River 37 Sand Creek 8/00 no 106 Big Creek 9/99, 4/99 no

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 14

Sensitive Sensitive Comp. Water Body Date(s) Species Comp. Water Body Date(s) Species Found? Found? East Sandy E. Fork San 48 6/00 no 114 5/99, 9/99 no Creek Jacinto River Unnamed 50* Smith Branch 8/00 no 116* 9/99 no Creek 52 Gum Branch 8/00 no 120 Winters Bayou 9/99, 4/00 no 78 Roark Creek 8/00 no 121 Rocky Branch 5/99 no * Indicates compartment contains one or more treatment areas

Available inventory information is adequate because inventories of high potential habitat are current enough and widespread enough to guide project design, support determination of effects, and meet requirements for conservation of these species.

Effects Analysis – Fish and Freshwater Mussels

There would be no direct effects to these species, since streams themselves are not in the treatment areas. However, because there is a slight potential for indirect effects to downstream aquatic habitats, primarily from fireline construction, these species are included in the analysis.

Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would involve prescribed burning and the construction of fire lines within MA-4. The Sabine shiner and the mussels are susceptible to management actions that impact aquatic habitats and water quality. A major problem associated with prescribed fire and water quality is potential increases in sedimentation (Stanturf et al. 2002). However, most studies in the south indicate that effects of prescribed fire on water quality are minor and of short duration when compared with the effects of other forest practices (Stanturf et al. 2002). Prescribed fires in MA-4 tend to consist of low intensity backing fires. Even intense burns may disturb the root mat very little, leaving its soil-holding properties intact (Stanturf et al. 2002).

Fire lines constructed near streams are to be constructed by hand within the primary zone, which extends 50 feet either side of the stream. This will minimize soil disturbance and the extent of sediment movement. Provided this direction is followed, there would be little potential for indirect effects to aquatic habitat, provided these hand lines are constructed so as to prevent or minimize sediment delivery to streams.

Cumulative Effects Downstream effects to aquatic habitats are of concern. However, adverse effects downstream of the analysis area are not anticipated. Similar protective measures for MA-4 are used during activities in other compartments as previously described for this project. Although a small temporary increase in sediment may be generated from fireline construction, any degradation of water quality in streams due to sediment delivery would be of short duration. Compartment 50 has the greatest potential for effects on aquatic habitat, due to Smith Branch and its tributatires transecting the compartment. But adherence to Forest Plan standards and guides for fireline construction in MA-4 would protect this stream from significant downstream impacts.

National forest land provides the best opportunity for the protection and maintenance of habitat for these species in the long-term. Management practices near streams on National Forest land are more restrictive than on private lands, on which protection measures for streams are voluntary.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 15

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

The following table displays the determinations of effect for the species evaluated in detail, and summarizes the rationale for those determinations.

Table 4. Determinations of effect for species analyzed.

Determination Species Scientific Name Rationale Of Effect

Federally

Listed/Proposed

Cavity trees will be protected from Red-cockaded Not likely to adversely Picoides borealis damage during prescribed burning; Woodpecker affect project will improve habitat quality.

R8 Sensitive

Species

May impact individuals but Helicopter activity near active nests will is not likely to cause a Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus be minimized, and efforts will be made trend to federal listing or a to minimize smoke over the nest. loss of viability.

Individuals may be disturbed during burning. Numbers of upland temporary Corynorhinus rafinesquii May impact individuals but Rafinesque’s Big-eared roost sites may be reduced, but many is not likely to cause a Bat would remain. Preferred maternity trend to federal listing or a Southeastern Myotis roost trees (high potential habitat) are Myotis austroriparius loss of viability. in large river bottoms and would not be affected.

May impact individuals but Stream protection measures (USFS Texas Emerald is not likely to cause a Somatochlora margarita 1996 and project design criteria) would Dragonfly trend to federal listing or a minimize sedimentation. loss of viability.

May impact individuals but Stream protections measures (in USFS is not likely to cause a Sabine Shiner Notropis sabinae 1996 and project design criteria) would trend to federal listing or a minimize sedimentation. loss of viability.

Sandbank Pocketbook Lampsilis satura May impact individuals but Stream protections measures (in USFS is not likely to cause a Louisiana Pigtoe Pleuobema ridellii 1996 and project design criteria) would trend to federal listing or a minimize sedimentation. Texas Heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus loss of viability.

A. Threatened and Endangered Species

Formal consultation with the USDI, Fish and Wildlife service is not required. The proposed project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed Threatened or Endangered species.

B. Sensitive Species

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 16

The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability of R8 Sensitive species evaluated.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation measures above and beyond those included in the project proposal are necessary to protect TES species from the management actions that would occur with this project.

PREPARED BY:

By signing below, I certify that I have prepared this Biological Evaluation and have made the effects determinations.

Dawn K. Carrie 25 October 2010

Dawn K. Carrie Date Wildlife Biologist Sam Houston National Forest

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 17

LITERATURE CITED

Bat Conservation International. 2001. Bats of eastern woodlands. Report prepared by Bat Conservation International for the Southern Region Offices of the USDA, Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 311 p.

Bunch, M. J. Sorrow, and A. Dye. 1998. Rafinesque’s big-eared bat surveys and prelisting recovery: final report. South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources. 82pp.

Burt, D.B., and R.J. Allen. 2004. Bachman’s sparrow, brown-headed nuthatch and pine warbler habitat preferences in east Texas. Final Report. Dept. of Biology, SFA State University. Nacogdoches, TX. 18 p.

Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R. R. Schaefer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. J. of Wildl. Manage. 58:728- 734.

______, ______, and J. R. Walters. 2001. The Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Surviving in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Texas Press. Austin, TX. 363 p.

______, and D. Saenz. 2005. The longevity of large pine snags in eastern Texas. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:700-705.

Correll, D. S. and M. C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Second printing. The University of Texas at Dallas. Richardson, TX.

Davis, W. D. and D. J. Schmidly. 1994. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Nongame and Urban Program Dept. Austin, TX. 338 p.

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, NC. 433 p.

Healy, B. D. and F. P. Gelwick. undated. Assemblages of Native Mussels in the Sam Houston National Forest, East Texas. Depart. of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M Univ. College Station, TX. Draft publication submitted to unknown journal. 16 p.

Hobbs, H. H., Jr. 1990. On the crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of the Neches River basin of eastern Texas with the descriptions of three new species. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 103(3): 573-597.

Hovis, J. A. and R. F. Labisky. 1985. Vegetative associations of red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in Florida. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13:307-314.

Howells, R. G. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of B.A. Steinhagen reservoir and adjacent Neches river drainage. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Branch, Heart of the Hills Research Station. Ingram, TX. 22 p.

______, R. W. Neck, and H. D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Division. Austin, TX. 218 p.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 18

Hurst, T. E., and M. J. Lacki. 1997. Food habits of Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in southeastern Kentucky. J. Mammal. 78:525-528.

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.

Kelly, J.P. 1995. An ichthyological survey of the Davy Crockett National Forest, Texas. Unpubl. M.S. thesis, Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA), Nacogdoches, TX, 212 pp.

Lacki, M. J., and K. M. Ladeur. 2002. Seasonal use of lepidopteran prey by Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Amer. Midl. Nat. 145:213-217.

Lance, R. F., B. T. Hardcastle, A. Talley, and P. L. Leberg. 2001. Day-roost selection by Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) in Louisiana forests. J. Mammal. 82:166-172.

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.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, W.M. Ford, J. W. Edwards, T. C. Carter, J. B. Churchill, and J. C. Kilgo. 2001. Home range and habitat use of male Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii). Am. Midl. Nat. 145:402-408.

Menzel, M. A., J. M. Menzel, J. M. Kilgo, and others. 2003. Bats of the Savanna River Site and vicinity. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-68. Ashville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 69 p.

Mirowsky, K. and P. Horner. 1997. Roosting ecology of two rare vespertilionid bats, the southeastern myotis and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, in east Texas: 1996 Annual Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Endangered Resources Branch. Austin, TX. 48 p.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: March 2010).

Neck, R. W. 1982. A review of interactions between and freshwater mussels in Texas. Pages 169-182 in J. R. Davis, ed. Proc. of the Texas Academy of Science, Austin, Texas.

Price, A. H., R. L. Orr, R. Honig, M. Vidrine, S. L. Orzell. 1989. Draft Report. Status Survey for the Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). 17 p.

Reynolds, L. A., and W. A. Mitchell. 1998. Species profile: southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) on military installations in the southeastern United States. Tech. Rep. SERDP-98-8, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 26pp.

Rice, D. W. 1957. Life history and ecology of Myotis austroriparius in Florida. J. Mammal. 38:15-32.

Rudolph, D. C., and R. N. Conner. 1991. Cavity tree selection by red-cockaded woodpeckers in relation to tree age. Wilson Bull. 103(3): 458-467.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 19

Schmidley, D. J. 1991. The bats of Texas. Texas A&M Univ. Press. College Station, Texas. 188pp.

Stanturf, J. A., D. D. Wade, T.A. Waldrop, D.K. Kennard, and G.L. Achtemeieret. 2002. Chapter 25 (Background Paper FIRE): Fire in Southern Forest Landscapes. In Wear, D.N. and J.G. Greis, eds. 2002. Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635p.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region.

______. 1996. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

______. 2010. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Report.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1989. Southeastern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 41 pp. + appendices.

______. 1995. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), species account. Arlington Ecological Services Field Office. Arlington, TX. 1 p.

______. 2000. Loggerhead shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bloomington, IN. 169 p.

______. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 296 p.

______. 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23p.

Van Lear, D. H. 1993. Dynamics of Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forest Ecosystems. Pages 10-17 in J.W. McMinn, SRS, and D.A. Crossley Jr., editors. Biodiversity and Coarse Woody Debris in Southern Forests: Proceedings of the workshop on coarse woody debris in southern forests: effects on biodiversity. Athens, GA.

Walters, J. R., S. J. Daniels, J. H. Carter III, and P. D. Doerr. 2002. Defining quality of red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat based on habitat use and fitness. J. Wildl. Mange. 66:1064-1082.

Watters, G. T. 2000. Freshwater mussels and water quality: a review of the effects of hydrologic and instream habitat alterations. Pages 261-274 in Proceedings of the first freshwater mollusk conservation society symposium, 1999. Ohio Biological Survey.

Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 20

Appendix I Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Considered

Habitat Potential for Species to Habitat Requirements Present in Species Status1 Occur in Treatment Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Area Area This species has a high potential to Yes – The proposed work will Open, fire-maintained, mature pine occupy proposed occur in high potential habitat stands with forb and/or grass dominated Red-cockaded Woodpecker treatment areas for this species and in future E ground cover and a midstory relatively Yes (Picoides borealis) because it has been high potential habitat for this devoid of hardwoods (Jackson 1994; previously species and could result in Conner et al. 2001; USFWS 2003). documented within impacts. these areas. This species has a Coastal areas, and around large bodies high potential to Yes – The proposed work will of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and occupy some occur in high potential habitat Bald Eagle rivers (USFWS 1995, 2007). Nests and proposed treatment for this species and in future S Yes (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) associated pilot trees are typically areas because it has high potential habitat for this located in large trees within two miles of been previously species and could result in open water. documented within impacts. these areas. This species does not No – This species is not have high potential to considered further in this Open, frequently burned pine forests occupy proposed analysis because it is not Bachman’s Sparrow with a dense bunchgrass ground cover treatment areas S No expected to occur within the (Aimophila aestivalis) and minimal woody understory (Hamel because these areas area affected by the project. 1992; Burt and Allen 2004). do not include high Therefore, this project will not potential habitat as affect this species. described. This species does not No – This species is not have high potential to Open grassland areas with widely considered further in this occupy proposed scattered trees or shrubs. Species is analysis because it is not Migrant Loggerhead Shrike treatment areas S generally absent from closed canopy No expected to occur within the (Lanius ludovicianus migrans) because these areas forests, and grasslands without trees or area affected by the project. do not include high shrubs (USFWS 2000). Therefore, this project will not potential habitat as affect this species. described.

Appendix I Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 i

Habitat Potential for Species to Habitat Requirements Present in Species Status1 Occur in Treatment Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Area Area This species does not Roosts within mature bottomland Yes – This species is have high potential to hardwood communities within 1 km of considered because it may occupy proposed water, showing a preference for large, occasionally use uplands Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat treatment areas S hollow black gum trees with large No adjacent to high potential (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) because these areas triangular basal openings. May also use bottomlands; these uplands do not include high abandoned buildings (Mirowsky and will be impacted by this potential habitat as Horner 1997). project. described. Associated with aquatic habitats, such as This species does not ponds and streams (BCI 2001). Roosts have high potential to Yes – Temporary roost sites within mature bottomland hardwood occupy proposed and marginal foraging habitat Southeastern Myotis communities within 1 km of water, treatment areas S No in upland areas adjacent to (Myotis austroriparius) showing a preference for large, hollow because these areas bottomlands may be affected black gum trees with large triangular do not include high by management actions. basal openings (Mirowsky and Horner potential habitat as 1997). described. This species does not have high potential to Closely restricted to a substrate of fine, occupy proposed Yes – This species is Sabine Shiner silt-free sand in smaller streams and treatment areas considered because indirect S No (Notropis sabinae) rivers having slight to moderate current because these areas effects could occur to high (Lee et al. 1980). do not include high potential habitat downstream. potential habitat as described. This species (larvae) Larvae associated with small, clear, does not have high sandy-bottomed streams and boggy potential to occupy Yes – This species is Big Thicket Emerald seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine No proposed treatment considered because indirect Dragonfly S stands (NatureServe 2010). Adults (larvae) areas because these effects could occur to high (Somatochlora margarita) forage for insects at canopy level over areas do not include potential habitat downstream. mature forest and over gravel roads and high potential habitat small openings (Price et al. 1989). as described.

Appendix I Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 ii

Habitat Potential for Species to Habitat Requirements Present in Species Status1 Occur in Treatment Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Area Area This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – This species is Louisiana Pigtoe treatment areas considered because indirect S Streams (Howells et al. 1996). No (Pleurobema riddellii) because these areas effects could occur to high do not include high potential habitat downstream. potential habitat as described. This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – This species is Small to large rivers with moderate flows Sandbank Pocketbook treatment areas considered because indirect S on gravel, gravel-sand, and sand No (Lampsilis satura) because these areas effects could occur to high bottoms (Howells et al. 1996). do not include high potential habitat downstream. potential habitat as described. This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – This species is Texas Heelsplitter Found in quiet waters in sand and mud treatment areas considered because indirect S No (Potamilus amphichaenus) (Howells et al. 1996). because these areas effects could occur to high do not include high potential habitat downstream. potential habitat as described. This species does not No – This species is not have high potential to considered further in this occupy proposed analysis because it is not Texas Bartonia Wet seepage areas, stream edges, treatment areas S No expected to occur within the (Bartonia texana) sphagnum bogs. because these areas area affected by the project. do not include high Therefore, this project will not potential habitat as affect this species. described. * Sources: USFWS & Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, 2008.

1 Status: E = Federally Endangered, T = Federally Threatened, S = Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species.

Appendix I Prescribed Burning FY11 BE 04-11-01 iii

Appendix II Gum Branch Project BE 04-08-04 i