EA Template ADD PROJECT NAME, FOREST NAME HERE

United States Department of Agriculture Environmental

Forest Service Assessment for Silhouette Southern Region Ecosystem Management May 2018 Project

Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District, Grant Parish, Louisiana

T6N R1W and T7N R1W

A 1937 version of the bordeaux sprayer being used on longleaf beds.

Printed on recycled paper Month Year 2

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – May 2018

Content Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...... 5 Document Structure ...... 5 Location ...... 5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 12 Decision Framework ...... 9 Relationship to the Forest Plan ...... 9 Management Direction...... 9 Public Involvement ...... 9 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ...... 13 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 13 Design Features, Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures Common to Alternative B and C ...... 16 Design Features, Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures Specific to Alternative C ...... 16 Alternative B and C Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring ...... 16 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ...... 36 Soils and Watershed ...... 40 Air ...... 52 Vegetation ...... 53 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ...... 70 Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species ...... 70 Plants ...... 86 Heritage Resources ...... 101 Recreation ...... 102 Transportation ...... 107 Scenery ...... 109 Socio-Economics ...... 112 Climate Change ...... 115 Public Health and Safety ...... 122 Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ...... 126 ID Team Members: ...... 126 Federal and State Officials and Agencies...... 126 Others ...... 127 Chapter 5 – References ...... 129 Appendix A-Alternative B and C Maps ...... 137 Appendix B – Alternatives B and C Design Features, BMPs and Mitigation ...... 147 Appendix C – Kisatchie NF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Direction ...... 165 Appendix D – Alternative B and C Proposed Vegetation Treatments by Silvicultural Method, Stand, and Acres ...... 1 Appendix E – Soil and watershed BMP’s ...... 5 Appendix F – Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) ...... 13 Appendix G – Public Comment Summary ...... 46 Appendix H – Transportation Specialist Report ...... 49 Appendix I – Biological Evaluation...... 68 Appendix J – Botany Report ...... 2 Appendix K – SHPO Concurrence ...... 178 Appendix L – USFWS Concurrence ...... 184

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF i

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 3 Table 2. Alternative B and C Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) Roads to be Managed as Closed ...... 15 Table 3. Alternative B and C Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) Closed Roads to be Managed as Open for Highway-Legal Vehicles Only ...... 15 Table 4. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ...... 18 Table 5. Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternative ...... 31 Table 6. Summary of Past Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Projects (2011 to 2016) ...... 38 Table 7. Summary of Current and Ongoing Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Projects ...... 38 Table 8. Current and Ongoing Other (Non Vegetation/Fire) Projects ...... 39 Table 9. Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Within the Project Area ...... 39 Table 10. Soil Types and Characteristics within the Silhouette Project Area ...... 40 Table 11. Soil Erosion, Rutting and Compaction Potential by Soil Type ...... 41 Table 12. Proposed, Committed and Predicted future Activities within Big Creek – Middle Subwatershed ...... 49 Table 13. Big Creek – Middle subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield 49 Table 14. Proposed, Committed and Predicted Future Activities within Big Creek - Upper Subwatershed ...... 50 Table 15. Big Creek - Upper Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield .. 50 Table 16. Proposed, Committed and Predicted Future Activities within Dyson Creek – Han Branch ...... 51 Table 17. Dyson Creek – Han Branch Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield ...... 51 Table 18. Project Area Cover Type by Compartment ...... 54 Table 19. Silhouette Alternative an Existing and Projected Trees per Acre, Basal Area and Tree Mortality ...... 65 Table 20. Project Area Prescribed Burn History (2007-2017) ...... 66 Table 21. Alternative B and C Proposed Old Growth by Community Type ...... 68 Table 22. Stands Added To Old Growth Management ...... 68 Table 23. Stands Removed From Old Growth Management ...... 69 Table 24. PETC Addressed in Detail ...... 70 Table 25: Sensitive Species Addressed in Detail ...... 73 Table 26: Conservation Species That Occur Near Or Within The Project Area ...... 76 Table 27. Project Area Suitability for MIS Species and Associated Landscapes ...... 80 Table 28. Forest Service Sensitive Species Evaluated in Detail ...... 84 Table 29. NNIP Found in the Silhouette Project Area ...... 95 Table 30. Alternative Effects on NNIP ...... 99 Table 31. Silhouette Project Area Transportation System (TAP, 2018) ...... 104 Table 32. High SIO Classification by Compartment and Acres ...... 110 Table 33. Population Attributes within Planning Area ...... 113 Table 34. Race and Ethnicity in the Silhouette Project Area ...... 114 Table 35. Current and Projected Temperature and Precipitation Extremes at Regional and State Scale ...... 117 Table 36. Silhouette Alternative B and C Design Features, BMPs and Mitigation ...... 147 Table 37. Botany-Related Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction ..... 174

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF ii

List of Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ...... 7 Figure 2. Cut-over land in Louisiana ...... 8 Figure 3. Dedication of the Stuart Nursery at the Robert Young Stuart Memorial ...... 9 Figure 4. Stuart reservoir dam construction by Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees...... 9 Figure 5. Construction of reservoir pump house ...... 10 Figure 6. Seedbed water spray lines at nursery ...... 11 Figure 7. Stuart Lake with dam in background 2017 ...... 11 Figure 8: Desired Future Condition ...... 12 Figure 9: RCW Habitat with Mid-story and Wood Vegitation Encroachment ...... 13 Figure 10. Dense Loblolly Pine Plantation within the Project Area ...... 13 Figure 11. Japanese Climbing Fern ...... 14 Figure 12. Subwatersheds within Proposed Silhouette Treatment Areas ...... 45 Figure 13. Project Area Stand Structure (2017) ...... 55 Figure 14: Average trees per acres by species post harvest (2019) ...... 55 Figure 15: Alternative B and C Uneven-aged Stand Structure (2024) ...... 56 Figure 16. Desired Future Condition for Pine Stands with Uneven-aged Management ...... 57 Figure 17: Pretreatment (left side photo) and Post Treatment (right side photo) Using Mechanical Site Preparation ...... 58 Figure 18: High SPB hazard loblolly acres expressed as % on Ranger Districts of KNF ...... 61 Figure 19: Loblolly acres on Ranger Districts of KNF by hazard type to Southern Pine Bettle ...... 61 Figure 21: KNF acres (in percent) by SPB-hazard type ...... 62 Figure 20: KNF acres by SPB-hazard type ...... 62 Figure 22: Loblolly acres in National Forest in Mississippi by hazard type to Southern Pine Beetle ...... 63 Figure 23: Southern Pine Beetle hazard ratings on the Catahoula Ranger District ...... 64 Figure 24. Typical Foreground Off Designated Roads And Trails...... 110 Figure 25: Immediate Post Treatment (mechanical site prep) conidition ...... 111 Figure 26: Site Condition Up To 5 years After Clear-cut ...... 112 Figure 27. Proposed “No Hunting” Map ...... 137 Figure 28. Proposed “No Public Access” Map ...... 138 Figure 29. Proposed Road Designation Map ...... 139 Figure 30: Proposed Helipad ...... 141 Figure 31: Proposed Treatment Map ...... 142 Figure 32: Undesireable Vegetation Treatment Map ...... 143

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF ii

Summary The Forest Service is proposing to restore the native longleaf pine ecosystem, promote forest health and public safety, and improve current and future Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat on approximately 8,704 acres on the Catahoula Ranger District. The project area is located in the RCW habitat management area/native community restoration area, as designated by the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised LRMP) of the Kisatchie National Forest. The project is located in T6N R1W and T7N R1W of Grant Parish in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87.

The purpose and need of the project is to restore native, fire dependent longleaf pine communities, reduce non-native invasive plant species (NNIP), remove midstory tree species, reduce woody brush/competition, reduce the risk of insects and diseases, improve the habitat conditions for local RCWs, restore productivity and function to soil and water resources that have been degraded.

The proposal was initially sent to 167 interested parties on September 13, 2017 and the legal notice requesting comments was published in The Town Talk (newspaper of record) on September 15, 2017. Eleven comments were received. Seven comments were either in support of the project or requested clarification regarding the project proposal. One comment of concern was related to our management practices of clearcutting, thinning and burning that has eliminated the variety of hardwood species. Another comment of concern was related to close proximity of the Breezy Hill Trail Project. This individual was concerned that the Silhouette Project may expand and hinder the Breezy Hill Trail Project. Another comment of concern was related to harmful effects to wildlife by cutting hardwood species. The proposal has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Catahoula Ranger District since 2013.

Issue 1: Cutting of hardwood would be harmful to wildlife. Both action alternatives evaluate residual cover and browse for wildlife. The indicator used to evaluate impact is a qualitative assessment on disturbance from activities.

Issue 2: Lack of variety of hardwood species throughout the forest. The lack of variety of hardwood species is evaluated in each alternative. The indicator for this issue is the stand composition change post harvest and qualitative assessment.

Issues identified by the interdisciplinary team include potential disturbance to red-cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the district ranger (responsible official) decided to develop a third

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 1

alternative (alternative C) that would not include the use of chemicals in order to better compare and contrast environmental consequences.

Alternatives Two alternatives related to roads were considered but eliminated from detailed study (see chapter 2) and three alternatives were analyzed in detail (Table 1). The alternatives evaluated in detail include:

Alternative A is the no action alternative. There would be no changes in current management and the forest plan would continue to be implemented. Projects with previous NEPA decisions (the use of prescribed fire) would continue to be implemented. Alternative A is the point of reference for assessing action alternatives B and C.

Alternative B is the proposed action alternative. Activities would occur on approximately 8,704 acres within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87. This alternative would insert 160 artificial RCW cavities and predator excluders, commercially thin about 3,942 acres of yellow pine (loblolly, slash and longleaf) and hardwoods (free thinning), site-specifically remove undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within approximately 8,704 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or machinery, and commercially thin approximately 364 acres of loblolly (first thinning) within the RCW habitat management area.

Approximately 689 acres of loblolly and slash pine would be clear-cut and restored to the native longleaf pine plant community. Longleaf reserve tree areas would be established to provide a future seed source. Site preparation would take place on approximately 695 acres, this would include mechanical chopping, herbicides (such as Triclopyr and Imazpyr) and prescribed fire. The acres that are site prepped would be artificially planted in longleaf pine seedlings, released using herbicides (such as Triclopyr and Imazpyr), machinery and prescribed fire. Approximately 6 of the 695 acres were previously clearcut under the Stuart Seed Orchard EA decision signed on 4/12/12. These acres would be site prepped and hand planted to restore the longleaf pine plant community.

Stuart Lake recreation area (66 acres) would be enhanced through treating aquatic weeds in Stuart Lake (4 acres) by use of herbicides (Endothall, Fluidone, Glyphosate, Imazamox, Imazapyr & 2,4-D), deepening the shoreline of the lake, adding sand on the beach area, adding rock to day-use area & campground sites, replacing lake valve, conducting rehabilitation on dam structure & parking areas, enhancing the nature trail and replacing interpretive signs.

Cavity nesting structures for non-game wildlife i.e. bluebirds, martins and bats would be maintained and/or replaced within the project area.

Soil erosion and sedimentation issue would be controlled on approximately 1 acre within stand 25 of compartment 87.

The boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction would be modified on approximately 381 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative sites. Also, the boundary of the existing “No Hunting and No Shooting” restriction would be modified on approximately 758 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative sites.

A permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. (0.3 acres) in size would be constructed with water & electrical hookups and a permanent pole for wind sock. The construction of

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 2

the helipad will enhance the prescribed burning efforts for longleaf restoration and emergency response.

Approximately 51.4 miles of existing, open roads would be improved (including culvert replacement and road resurfacing). Approximately 5 miles of existing Forest Service roads that are in poor condition would be closed to motorized vehicles. The status of approximately 1.2 miles of road would change from closed to open for highway legal vehicle use only. To ensure project activities remain on national forest system lands, about 25 miles of property boundaries (landlines) would be re- established and maintained.

Alternative C was developed to compare and contrast the environmental consequences associated with using herbicides. Treatments (and treatment locations) are the same as described for alternative B with one exception. No herbicides would be used. Design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation to be used as part of alternatives B and C are located in Appendix B.

Table 1. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Alternative Proposed Activities Units A B C

Herbicides and machinery invasive plant species treatment Acres 0 8,704 0 Machinery only invasive plant species treatment Acres 0 0 8,704 Stuart Lake recreation enhancement Acres 0 66 66 Stuart Lake aquatic weed treatment with herbicide Acres 0 4 0 Erosion and sedimentation control Acres 0 1 1 “No Public Access” restriction boundary modification Acres 0 381 381

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 3

“No Hunting and No Shooting” restriction boundary Acres 0 758 758 modification Helipad construction w/water and electrical hookups Acres 0 0.3 0.3 Close existing open roads to motorized use Miles 0 5 5 Open road to highway legal vehicle use only Miles 0 1.2 1.2 Improve (including culvert replacements and road Miles 0 51.4 51.4 resurfacing) existing, open roads for prehaul maintenance Property Boundary (landline) maintenance Miles 0 25 25 *The proposed action for non-game wildlife structures are not included.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 4

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts:

Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the public was informed of the proposal and how the public responded.

Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures and monitoring. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative.

Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the no action alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment.

Appendices: Appendices A-H provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Catahoula Ranger District Office in Bentley, LA and on the project’s website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41295.

Location

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 5

The 8,704-acre project area consists of pine stands located in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 6

and 87. It is within forest plan management areas 5CL of the Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie NF. Forest plan direction for this management area emphasizes the management of RCW habitat and the restoration of native, fire dependent longleaf pine communities. The legal description is Township 6

North; Range 1 West and Township 7 North; Range 1 West in Grant Parish. The project is located adjacent to the community of Pollock, Louisiana (Figure 1). Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 7

Background

In the late 1800's virgin forests covered 85 percent of Louisiana. Much of the land was in pure stands of yellow pine which was harvested in the short span of roughly 25 years. This cut-out-and-get-out practice left Louisiana a blackened-stump landscape, just as the Great Depression gripped the nation and affected the people of Louisiana.

The Forest Service was able to acquire some of the Gulf Lumber Company and other lands that later became known as the Kisatchie National Forest. Within the first 30 years, the Kisatchie acquired land in Vernon, Rapides, Grant, Natchitoches and Winn parishes.

In October, 1929, the Forest Service Directory listed the Catahoula as the forest's first ranger district. P.E. Ackerman headed that unit with his headquarters at Pollock, Louisiana. In 1930 the Secretary of Agriculture Hyde proclaimed the Kisatchie as a National Forest. (Kisatchie National Forest - History

Figure 2. Cut-over land in Louisiana

& Culture, n.d.)

The Silhouette Project contains a seed orchard and former nursery that was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1934. The Orchard and its water reservoir, which is now Stuart Lake, was named in honor of Robert Y. Stuart who was Chief of the Forest Service (1928-1933). Stuart Forest Nursery was initially established for the purpose of reforestation. It operated as a seedling nursery until 1964 when it evolved into a seed production and genetic research orchard, now known as the Stuart Genetic Resource Management Area (GRMA). With this change, the area of the Stuart Nursery expanded to include stands of genetically superior trees of the four pine species the nursery had been producing (i.e., Longleaf, Loblolly, Shortleaf, and Slash). The objective in 1964 was to produce genetically superior seeds for shipment to other nurseries, (Gutzman, 2010). Currently, the Stuart (GRMA) Orchard supplies pine seed to support reforestation efforts for the Kisatchie National Forest

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 8

and The National Forests in Texas. Additional information on the historical nature of the site is available in the project record and on the project’s website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=41295.

Figure 3. Dedication of the Stuart Nursery at the Robert Young Stuart Memorial

Stuart Lake was originally constructed in 1934 and used as a reservoir to water the nursery beds throughout the growing season.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 9 Figure 4. Stuart reservoir dam construction by Civilian Conservation Corps enrollees.

Figure 5. Construction of reservoir pump house

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 10

Figure 6. Seedbed water spray lines at nursery

The reservoir is currently known as Stuart Lake and is a part of a recreation site on the Catahoula

Environmental AssessmentFigure for Silhouette 7. Stuart Ecosystem Lake with Management dam in background Project, Kisatchie 2017 NF 11

Ranger District.

Purpose and Need for Action The project objective is to move towards forest plan desired conditions in the RCW habitat management area (HMA), restore native fire dependent longleaf pine communities, promote forest health, and improve soil productivity and watershed function (USDA 1999, pages 3-7 and 3-15).

RCW HMA Existing and Desired Conditions Currently, the project area (approximately 8,704 acres) includes longleaf, loblolly and slash pine that provide nesting and foraging RCW habitat. There are 7 active clusters and numerous recruitment cluster sites within the project area. The entire project area is within the RCW HMA. There is currently a lack of suitable habitat for growth of the RCW population. Past management actions reduced the amount of old-growth uneven-aged forests through harvesting and replanting. This created dense, younger, even-aged forests (USDI 2003). The desired condition is to increase the quality of the habitat with more open stands of pine trees. Improvement in the quality of the habitat through active management is the single most effective way to increase the population of RCW.

The current forest structure and condition is reducing the quality of RCW nesting and foraging habitat. The average basal area (BA) on about 4,995 acres is 105 BA and considered unsuitable for RCW habitat. High stand density is also inhibiting tree vigor and growth (forest health). This is delaying how soon trees would reach the larger diameter-sized trees that RCW use for nesting and foraging. The high stand density has reduced the productive understory of grass and forbs that improve RCW foraging habitat. The desired condition is to manage RCW habitat at approximately 40 to 60 BA to encourage population growth and dispersal. There is a need to improve forest health and restore the herbaceous grasses and forbs. Figure 8 displays the desired condition in RCW habitat – larger trees with no mid-story and woody vegetation encroachment and a productive grassy understory.

Figure 8: Desired Future Condition

At least 2,500 acres of RCW habitat is being encroached by a mix of mid-story (small diameter trees) and woody vegetation and overstory trees that average 72 feet in height. The Recovery Plan cites hardwood encroachment as a cause of cluster abandonment. It is contributing to the decline in RCW and is a major cause of the endangerment status (USDI 2003). The desired condition is to improve the quality of RCW habitat and reduce the potential for cluster abandonment in the HMA.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 12

Figure 9: RCW Habitat with Mid -story and Wood Vegitation Encroachment

Currently, there is approximately 364 acres of dense loblolly pine plantations that were planted after the native longleaf pine was removed (Figure 10). There is approximately 689 acres of loblolly and slash pine that should be restored to native longleaf pine plant community. There is approximately 6 acres that was clearcut from a previous timber harvest that wasn’t re-planted. The desired condition is to create restoration areas and move towards restoring the native longleaf pine plant community in order to provide future quality habitat for RCW. There is a need to reduce tree density within loblolly pine plantations as the first step to gradually restoring these acres to a native longleaf pine plant community. There is a need to use methods that ensure successful regeneration of longleaf pine.

Figure 10. Dense Loblolly Pine Plantation within the Project Area

Forest health is defined by the vigor and condition of the forest stands (see previous discussion on stand density) and the presence of insects and disease that affect the sustainability of the forest. Loss of cavity trees resulting from both epidemic and endemic southern pine beetles (SPB) can substantially impact woodpeckers, particularly small populations in the loblolly and shortleaf pines of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and elsewhere (Rudolph, 1995).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 13

In dense stands of timber, particularly in the non-native loblolly stands, trees compete heavily for light, nutrients and water, making them vulnerable to insect and disease infestations. Data from the Southern Research Station (USDA 2012) indicates the project area has a medium to high risk rating for SPB. The desired condition is to reduce the percent of high hazard SPB rating to low and move towards a forest structure that would allow SPB to function at naturally occurring or historic levels. There is a need to reduce the potential of a SPB event that would remove RCW habitat.

Approximately 18 non-native invasive plants (NNIP) such as Japanese Climbing Fern (Figure 11) Chinese Privet scattered throughout approximately 8,704 acres in the project area. Without treatment, the NNIP have the potential to grow so well that the native understory plants will be unable to compete with these non-natives. In time, the sustainability of the pine ecosystem, especially the longleaf pine ecosystem, would be at risk. The desired condition and need for change is to move towards eliminating NNIP.

Figure 11. Japanese Climbing Fern

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 14 Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Decision Framework The Catahoula District Ranger is the official responsible for deciding whether to select the actions as proposed (alternative B), select the other action alternative (alternative C), select an alternative that combines attributes from the alternatives or another variation, or, select no action (alternative A). The decision includes determining: (1) which alternative best meets the purpose and need, (2) how each alternative addresses the issues developed by the interdisciplinary team and public, (3) the location and treatment methods for all activities, and (4) design criteria, mitigation, and monitoring requirements.

Relationship to the Forest Plan The Kisatchie Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan) provides the direction for managing the land and resources of the Forest. The desired conditions for the project are based on forest plan objectives, goals, standards, and guidelines. This analysis tiers to the Forest’s final EIS (USDA 1999) as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20. Best available scientific information was used to evaluate and support the analysis.

Management Direction The project area includes management area (MA) 5CL as described in the forest plan (3-15 to 3- 17). Forest plan (forestwide and MA-specific) direction that is applicable to the project is located in Appendix C.

Public Involvement The proposal was initially sent to 167 interested parties on September 13, 2017 and the legal notice requesting comments was published in The Town Talk (newspaper of record) on September 15, 2017. Eleven comments were received. Seven comments were either in support of the project or requested clarification regarding the project proposal. One comment of concern was related to our management practices of clearcutting, thinning and burning that has eliminated the variety of hardwood species. Another comment of concern was related to close proximity of the Breezy Hill Trail Project. This individual was concerned that the Silhouette Project may expand and hinder the Breezy Hill Trail Project. Another comment of concern was related to harmful effects to wildlife by cutting hardwood species (see wildlife section of the EA and wildlife biological evaluation for PETSC). Another comment of concern was related to the lack of variety of hardwood species throughout the forest (see vegetation section of the EA).

Due to additional analysis of treatment acres in the proposal, public engagement was reinitiated on December 8, 2017. Scoping letters were mailed to 167 interested or affected agencies, organizations and individuals informing them of the proposed action and requesting their input. No responses were received. A complete response to comments will be posted in the project record and on the project website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/kisatchie/landmanagement/projects after the public comment period ends. The proposal has been listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Catahoula Ranger District since 2013.

This environmental assessment (EA) is subject to pre-decisional objection regulations under 36 CFR 218 as it discloses impacts of a project or activity implementing the Kisatchie National Forest’s Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. This project is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. According to 36 CFR 218.5, all interested and affected parties

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 9

Chapter 2 - Alternatives who provided written comments as defined in § 218.2 during scoping or the comment period will be eligible to participate in the objection process. A legal notice establishing the 30-day comment period on this preliminary EA was published March 9, 2018 in The Town Talk. The opportunity to comment ends 30 days following the date of publication of the legal notice in the newspaper of record which was on April 8th. During this time seven comments were received.

Issues The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record. Six topics were raised by the public during scoping and 30-day comment period. These issues include:

Issue 3: Closing Forest Service roads, specifically C069G may adversely affect access for hunting opportunities. The 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) (36 CFR 212.5) directs the Forest Service to designate travel routes and areas on a map. Subpart B (designation of roads, trails and areas for motor vehicle use) of the TMR require each National Forest to designate Forest Service roads, trails and areas on a Motor Vehicle Use map. This decision will close, to motorized vehicles, approximately five miles of existing Forest Service roads that are in poor condition. Closure of these roads will improve soil and water conditions and reduce public health and safety risks. Upon further review we determined that this road is well traveled road for hunters during the season. In response we have decided to keep this road open.

Issue 4: The use of the herbicide “Glyphosate” causes cancer and adversely affect human health and harm the environment. The project analysis is based on best available scientific information. The Forest Service continuously evaluates new information relative to risks of using herbicides and includes the best available science in our NEPA documents. The Forest Service risk assessments for all proposed in this project can be located at: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/protecting-forest/integrated-pest-management/pesticide- management/pesticide-risk-assessments.shtml.

Issue 5: Allow some land, or include in the areas you have designated, for wildlife such as quail, doves, turkey and deer. To include wildlife in the sanctuary you would need some hardwood such as saw tooth oak intermingled with the pine timber and some food plots with sunflowers and brown top millet. The management of the entire project area seeks to improve vegetation species composition for game and nongame species. The management is to create and sustain diverse forest wildlife habitats by managing towards desired future conditions

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 10

Chapter 2 - Alternatives that meet habitat objectives for selected management indicators. A variety of woody and herbaceous species suited to site conditions and burning regime are maintained to assure year round quality habitat (FW-702 and 703).

Issue 6: Concerned that the proposed road closures might adversely affect the consulting forester’s ability to assess Foster Investment Corporation and other clients’ land for timber marketing and other forest management purposes. After contacting and discussing the closures we found that road closures are not in the proximity of their managed tracts.

Issues identified by the interdisciplinary team include potential disturbance to red-cockaded woodpecker. In addition, the district ranger (responsible official) decided to develop a third alternative (alternative C) that would not include the use of chemicals in order to better compare and contrast environmental consequences.

Changes to the Proposed Action Since Scoping After public scoping comments were reviewed and more intensive analysis was performed by resource specialists, the proposed action was modified as allowed by 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii). A summary of key changes include:

Reducing approximately 740 acres to 689 acres of clearcutting offsite loblolly and slash pine species reserving longleaf pine where present; Reducing approximately 786 to 695 acres of site preparation by use of mechanically chopping, burning, herbicide application (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; Reducing approximately 786 acres to 695 acres of native longleaf pine planting; Reducing approximately 786 acres to 695 acres of longleaf pine seedling release on by use of burning, herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; Eliminating the construction of 0.1 mile of road for helipad access; Enhancing nature trail and replacing interpretive signs at Stuart Lake recreation area; Eliminating the closure of road C069G (0.14 miles).

Final Proposed Action In response to the purpose and need for action, the Forest Service proposes to conduct the following activities on approximately 8,704 acres within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 & 87 over a period ranging from 5 to 10 years:

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 11

Chapter 2 - Alternatives Releasing longleaf pine seedlings on approximately 695 acres by use of burning, herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; Installing approximately 160 artificial Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) cavities and predator excluders; Maintaining and/or replacing cavity nesting structures for non-game wildlife i.e. bluebirds, martins and bats; Removing site-specific undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within approximately 8,704 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or machinery. The treatment areas will be identified and assessed for the most effective method for ecosystem management of the project area; Enhancing Stuart Lake recreation area through: treating aquatic weeds in Stuart Lake by use of herbicides (Endothall, Fluidone, Glyphosate, Imazamox, Imazapyr & 2,4-D); deepening the shoreline of the lake; adding sand on the beach area; adding rock to day- use area & campground sites; enhancing nature trail and replacing interpretive signs; replacing lake valve; conducting rehabilitation on dam structure & parking areas; Modifying the boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction on approximately 381 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative boundaries; Modifying existing “No Hunting & No Shooting” boundary on approximately 758 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative areas; Constructing a permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. in size with water & electrical hookups and permanent pole for wind sock. Permanently opening approximately 1.2 miles of Forest Service roads to highway legal vehicles; permanently closing approximately 5 miles of Forest Service roads to motorized vehicles; and improving approximately 51.4 miles of forest roads by maintenance and/or reconstruction; Controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on approximately 1 acre. Maintaining approximately 25 miles of Forest Service boundary lines. Figure 31: Proposed Treatment Map to Figure 32: Undesirable Vegetation Treatment Map (Appendix A) show the general locations of vegetation treatments for the proposed action alternative (Alternative B).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 12

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

Chapter 2 – Alternatives This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Silhouette Ecosystem Management project. Maps for each action alternative are located in Appendix A. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study The interdisciplinary team considered but eliminated one alternative: (1) Alternative C would have completely rehabilitated 5 miles of road to their original condition. Rehabbing roads in Alternative C was eliminated because completely rehabilitating the roads to their original condition is not economically feasible at this time. Alternatives Considered in Detail Alternative A – No Action There would be no changes in current management and the forest plan would continue to be implemented. Projects with previous NEPA decisions would continue to be implemented. Normal operations such as prescribed burning to reduce fuels and road maintenance would continue. Alternative A is the point of reference for assessing action alternatives B and C.

Alternative B – Proposed Action In response to the purpose and need for action, the Forest Service proposes to conduct the following activities on approximately 8,704 acres within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 & 87 over a period ranging from 5 to 10 years:

Thinning approximately 3,942 acres of yellow pine and hardwood species to favor longleaf pine; First thinning approximately 364 acres of loblolly plantations; Clearcutting approximately 689 acres of offsite loblolly and slash pine species reserving longleaf pine where present. Site preparing approximately 695 acres by use of mechanically chopping, burning, herbicide application (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; Planting native longleaf pine on approximately 695 acres. Releasing longleaf pine seedlings on approximately 695 acres by use of burning, herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; Installing approximately 160 artificial Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) cavities and predator excluders; Maintaining and/or replacing cavity nesting structures for non-game wildlife i.e. bluebirds, martins and bats; Removing site-specific undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within approximately

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 13

8,704 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or machinery. The treatment areas will be identified and assessed for the most effective method for ecosystem management of the project area; Enhancing Stuart Lake recreation area through: treating aquatic weeds in Stuart Lake by use of herbicides (Endothall, Fluidone, Glyphosate, Imazamox, Imazapyr & 2,4-D); deepening the shoreline of the lake; adding sand on the beach area; adding rock to day-use area & campground sites; enhancing nature trail and replacing interpretive signs; replacing lake valve; conducting rehabilitation on dam structure & parking areas; Modifying the boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction on approximately 381 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative boundaries; Modifying existing “No Hunting and No Shooting” boundary on approximately 758 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative areas; Constructing a permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. in size with water & electrical hookups and permanent pole for wind sock. The construction of the helipad will enhance the prescribed burning efforts for longleaf restoration and emergency response; Permanently opening approximately 1.2 miles of Forest Service roads to highway legal vehicles; permanently closing approximately 5 miles of Forest Service roads to motorized vehicles; and improving approximately 51.4 miles of forest roads by maintenance and/or reconstruction; Controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on approximately 1 acre.

Alternative B and C Tables and Figures Table 2 and Table 3. Alternative B and C Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) Closed Roads to be Managed as Open for Highway-Legal Vehicles Only displays road actions common to alternatives B and C. In Appendix A, Figure 31: Proposed Treatment Map and Figure 32: Undesirable Vegetation Treatment Map display the general locations of vegetation treatments for alternatives B and C. Appendix A includes figures of the open road system by compartment and the open road system during hunting season (by compartment) for alternatives B and C. Table 4 summarizes the alternatives considered in detail.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 14

Table 2. Alternative B and C Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) Roads to be Managed as Closed

Proposed Route ID Miles Current MVUM MVUM

C069I 0.08 Open Closed C071E 0.34 Open Closed C073J 0.11 Open Closed C087I 0.05 Open Closed C074D 0.23 Open Closed C086J 0.16 Open Closed C070F 0.09 Open Closed C086I 0.19 Open Closed C087H 0.14 Open Closed C070E 0.12 Open Closed C086Q 0.26 Open Closed C074H 0.44 Open Closed C086S 0.24 Open Closed C072I 0.38 Open Closed C071C 0.49 Open Closed C072G 0.11 Open Closed C072E 0.19 Open Closed C070L 0.12 Open Closed C086O 0.19 Open Closed C069E 0.15 Open Closed C072L 0.14 Open Closed C072D 0.46 Open Closed C072H 0.09 Open Closed Total Miles: 4.8

Table 3. Alternative B and C Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) Closed Roads to be Managed as Open for Highway-Legal Vehicles Only

Route ID Miles Current MVUM Proposed MVUM

C072 0.68 Closed Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only C072G 0.48 Closed Open to Highway Legal Vehicles Only Total Miles: 1.16

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 15

Alternative C Alternative C was developed to compare and contrast the environmental consequences associated with using herbicides. Treatments (and treatment locations) are the same as described for alternative B with one exception. No herbicides would be used on the 695 acres where longleaf pine would be planted, for pine seedling release, or to treat up to 8,704 acres of non-native invasive plants. No herbicides would be used to treat Stuart Lake. See Figure 31: Proposed Treatment Map and Figure 32: Undesirable Vegetation Treatment Map for vegetation treatment locations and Appendix A for maps of the open road system by compartment.

Design Features, Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures Common to Alternative B and C Design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation were developed to reduce potential impacts. They are integral to alternative B and are located in Appendix B.

Design Features, Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures Specific to Alternative C Design features, best management practices (BMPs), and mitigation for alternative C are the same as described for alternative B with one exception. Alternative C would not include herbicide design features. See Appendix B.

Alternative B and C Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Implementation monitoring is designed to determine the extent to which a management action was carried out as designed (did we do what we said we were going to do).

Effectiveness monitoring tracks the extent to which the management action achieved its ultimate objective. Effectiveness monitoring refers to an assessment of treatment effects, rather than to measuring whether they were applied as intended or whether they validate a pre-existing concept (e.g., did we reduce the risk of insect and disease, was the quality of RCW habitat improved).

Heritage Resources

Provide archaeological monitors during mechanical activities (implementation) to avoid impacts to heritage resources Conduct condition surveys to assess the conditions of any newly discovered cultural features throughout this area and to delineate the sensitive areas that will require protection during logging and maintenance activities. This will be performed by an individual meeting the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Professional Qualifications (48 FR 447358-44739) or the Office of Personnel Management’s X118 (OPMX 118). Pedestrian survey will occur after vegetation management in and around ruins according to Louisiana Division of Archaeology Guidelines. Vegetation Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring:

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 16

Areas proposed for harvest under selection cutting can be regenerated using standard reforestation techniques. The reforestation technique and range of desired stocking would be documented in a formal silvicultural prescription. These areas would be monitored by the implementation silviculturist to ensure the areas meet the prescribed post treatment stocking. If the areas do not meet desired stocking after 5 years, conditions that are inhibiting regeneration would be identified and remedial action may be prescribed to ensure regeneration. Site Preparation Prescribed Fire Monitoring

Monitoring of fire behavior and post-burn evaluations will be used to govern program implementation within prescription parameters. If it is observed that fire is carrying into and through the riparian areas, firing techniques will be modified or the program suspended until rainfall moderates burning conditions. Soil and Water Implementation (Post-treatment) Monitoring Evaluation:

Mechanical equipment only during dry conditions (FW-600)

No more than 15% of an area rutted, compacted, eroded (FW-601)

Erosion control measures implemented effectively (FW 450, 605)

SHPZs meet S&Gs for layout (FW-510))

RAPZs meet S&Gs for layout (FW-515)

SHPZs meet S&G restrictions for protection of soil and water – disturb., bare soil, bank stability, etc. (FW-510,513,523,524)

RAPZs meet S&G restrictions for protection of soil and water – disturbance, bare soil, dry conditions, etc. (FW-518)

Stream crossings (skid trails, roads) minimize impacts to water quality

(FW-100,513,525,527,530, 531,559)

Wildlife

Monitor effects of timber treatments and prescribed fire activities (BE 2014)

Botany

Monitor slash pile sites after burning and control non-native invasive plants (NNIP) to controls weeds, reduces risk of invasion and reduce risk to native species by reducing weed competition. Monitor the effects of treatment on SC (sensitive and conservation) plants after treatments are completed to provide opportunities to obtain knowledge on local species that are often poorly understood.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 17

Table 4. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail

Alternative Proposed Activities Units A B C

Insert artificial RCW cavities/predator excluders Each 0 160 160 Commercially thin (free thinning) yellow pine and hardwood Acres 0 3,942 3,942 to a range of 60 to 70 BA to improve the quality of forest health and RCW habitat Remove undesirable vegetation including midstory tree Acres 0 8,704 0 species and woody brush with machinery and herbicides to improve quality of forest health and RCW habitat Remove undesirable vegetation including midstory tree Acres 0 0 8,704 species and woody brush with machinery to improve quality of forest health and RCW habitat Commercially thin (first thinning) loblolly pine plantations to Acres 0 364 364 a range of 60 BA to reduce tree density and SPB hazard Clear-cut loblolly and slash pines with longleaf tree reserves Acres 0 689 689 Site preparation using machinery, herbicides, prescribed fire, Acres 0 695 0 and longleaf pine seedling hand-planting, pine seedling release through machinery, herbicides and prescribed fire Site preparation using machinery, prescribed fire, and Acres 0 0 695 longleaf pine seedling hand-planting, pine seedling release through machinery and prescribed fire Hand plant non-stocked longleaf pine stands Acres 0 6 6 Herbicides and machinery invasive plant species treatment Acres 0 8,704 0 Machinery only invasive plant species treatment Acres 0 0 8,704 Stuart Lake recreation enhancement Acres 0 66 66 Stuart Lake aquatic herbicide treatment Acres 0 4 0 Erosion and sedimentation control Acres 0 1 1 “No Public Access” restriction boundary modification Acres 0 381 381 “No Hunting and No Shooting” restriction boundary Acres 0 758 758 modification Helipad construction w/water and electrical hookups Acres 0 0.3 0.3 Close existing open roads to motorized use (approximate) Miles 0 5 5 Open road to highway legal vehicle use only Miles 0 1.2 1.2 Improve (including culvert replacements and road Miles 0 51.4 51.4 resurfacing) existing, open roads for prehaul maintenance Property Boundary (landline) maintenance Miles 0 25 25

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 18

Table 5. Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternative

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) & Alternative C (Hand tools)

Soils and Water

Soil No direct effect The short and long term effects to soil productivity from all activities, with mitigation, Productivity would be negligible.

Water Quality There would be no direct The effects to water quantity and quality would be minimal and short term. In and Quantity impacts to water quality and alternative B, the effects of herbicide use would be minimized with the use of quantity. Continued usage if streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZ), lowest effective application rates, and the roads could increase direct application. In alternative C, there would be no potential effects from herbicides. compaction, rutting, rill, and In both alternatives closing and/or limiting access to roads would reduce resource sheet erosion, therefore damage and decrease soil disturbance and erosion. affecting water quality. Air Quality Air Quality No direct effects. Indirectly There would be direct, adverse impacts to air quality (release of particulates from and cumulatively, as fuel smoke during prescribed burning) that are of short duration, lasting approximately 1 day loadings increase the amount as the acres to be treated with fire are minimal. Effects include decreased visibility on of smoke produced from the roads, discomfort for local residents and forest visitors, and the nuisance of the smell of routine prescribed fires may smoke in and around residences. Effects are expected to be minimal with be higher than if the stands implementation of the design features and mitigation. Cumulatively, there would be no had been mechanically long term adverse effects to air quality. treated. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife – Threatened and Endangered Red-cockaded Habitat would not meet Direct effects limited to damage or destruction of a cavity tree or bird during logging or woodpecker quality conditions needed to prescribed burning. The short term impacts to foraging and cluster expansion would be (RCW) increase population though minimal because of the unit placement. clusters may stay active. All active, inactive and recruitment clusters have the required 120 acres of suitable Foraging would not be of the foraging. Thinning creates (and fire maintains) open stands where herbaceous ground highest quality. Lack of cover increases foraging quality and moves stands closer to the description of good management may make the quality foraging. All recruitment clusters benefit from more open stands. In long term, entire area unsuitable over greater reproduction may result. Foraging and overall RCW habitat would be improved time. by opening the stands and inviting bird movement and dispersal. Restoration cuts assure future longleaf pine habitat and should not result in fragmentation (cuts are located away from active clusters and existing longleaf would be retained). In alternative C, there would be no effects from herbicides. Effects Determination: Alternative B or C would benefit the RCW and its habitat and are not likely to adversely affect the RCW. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife – Forest Service Sensitive Species Louisiana pine No direct effects but eventual Increased habitat and maintenance of what already exists into the long term. Direct snake elimination of suitable effects on unknown populations could be negative but unlikely to impact even if present habitat. as snakes live primarily underground with limited (seasonal and daytime) above ground movement. No impact from herbicides due to design features and application. Effects Determination: Proposed actions may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for any sensitive species. The proposed actions will improve the habitat and increase the likelihood of increasing the populations of sensitive species. Northern In alternative A, there are no direct, indirect and cumulative effects. In alternatives B and C, direct, indirect and Long-Eared cumulative effects should be minimal. Although the Catahoula District has a known maternity roost tree, the known maternity roost tree location is approximately 12 miles from the northern edge of the project area. Therefore, in

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 31

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) & Alternative C (Hand tools)

Bat accordance with the final 4 (d) rule and the 2016 BO, incidental take of NLEB from this proposed action is NOT prohibited. No impact from herbicides due to design features and application. Effects Determination: Same as described for Louisiana pine snake. Rafinesque’s In alternative A, there are no direct, indirect and cumulative effects. In alternatives B and C, direct, indirect and Big-eared bat cumulative effects should be minimal since the integrity of the SMZ would be maintained and pine thinning would only occur in areas where pine density is greater than 35 basal area. No impact from herbicides due to design features and application. Effects Determination: Same as described for Louisiana pine snake. Bachman’s In alternative A, there are no direct, indirect and cumulative effects. In alternatives B and C, direct effects are logging and sparrow burning done during the nesting season and in nesting habitat but the production of more suitable habitat over time. No impact from herbicides due to design features and application. Effects Determination: Same as described for Louisiana pine snake. Louisiana In alternative A, there are no direct, indirect and cumulative effects. In alternatives B and C, limited thinning and burning slimy would take place within the streamside zones and limited direct effects would be expected. Indirect and cumulative effects salamander would be minimal since habitat would remain intact. Effects Determination: Same as described for Louisiana pine snake. Plants – Forest Service Sensitive Species Carolina In alternative A there would be a continued loss of understory vegetation and therefore, a loss of understory services. In crownbeard alternative B and C thinning activities could damage or destroy plants if present. In alternative B, herbicide use for site preparation and invasive plant treatment could damage or destroy plants, if present. Alternative B and C may impact individuals of Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife – Conservation Species White- Food, water, and roosting Food, water, and roosting requirements provided. Habitat suitability does not breasted requirements not provided. significantly change. Use (alt. B) or non-use of herbicides (alt. C) would have little Nuthatch direct effects since the spraying would be on severed stumps or on low growing brush. Effects Determination: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Louisiana Slight increase in suitability. Temporary disturbance but harm not likely (including use of herbicides in alternative Waterthrush Habitat for food, water, and B). Negative changes in suitability acres attributed to mid-story/overstory removal and shelter provided. thinning. Effects Determination: May impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Coopers In all alternatives, food, water, and roosting requirements are provided. In alternative B and C, habitat suitability directly Hawk, Hispid and cumulatively benefits the hawk, mouse and weasel. Effects Determination: May impact individuals of the species, Pocket Mouse, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial. Long-tailed weasel Worm-eating In all alternatives food, water, and roosting requirements are provided and habitat suitability would not significantly warbler and change. Effects Determination: May impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward Southern red- federal listing or a loss of viability. backed salamander Plants - Conversation Species American Continued departure from the Chances are slim that pinesap is presents, population would not be substantially reduced pinesap desired conditions. The project may impact individuals of for American pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Broomrape Continued departure from the The project may impact individuals of for broomrape (Orobanche uniflora) but is

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 32

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) & Alternative C (Hand tools)

desired conditions. not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Management Indicator Species (MIS) RCW See discussion in Threatened Net increase in late successional stage habitat and enhancement of the preferred habitat and Endangered Category should help maintain or increase the potential population. Prairie Net loss of early successional Net decrease in mid successional stage habitat and net increase in late successional Warbler vegetation. Overall, stage habitat. Benefits are more than offset by release and shift in age class distribution. suitability would change Overall, changes are slightly detrimental. little. Bachman’s See sensitive species Sparrow Bobwhite The area would continue to be Early successional stage habitat created provides an abundance of seeds, fruits and other quail fair quail habitat. Habitat plant foods. Cover habitat would be provided. Control of woody vegetation opens travel suitability would be less than routes while still providing excellent cover. Treatment provides good cover habitat as action alternatives. the vegetation returns. Overall, results provide fair to good quail habitat. Acadian Habitat for food, water, and Harm is unlikely as activities occur outside of preferred habitat. flycatchers shelter provided. Louisiana See conservation species Waterthrush White-eyed Habitat conditions most Negative changes in suitability are attributed to the effects of mid-story/overstory vireo desirable. removal and thinning. Yellow-billed No change in habitat Activities would occur outside of preferred habitat. cuckoos suitability. Pirate Perch Effects from existing roads, Activities would not significantly affect pirate perch or black spotted topminnows. and past harvests, and private land Blackspotted use continue. Topminnows Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) Silk tree, Chinese In alternative A, species would continue to spread slowly. In alternative B, most actions would create widespread wisteria, disturbed habitat that species would likely invade. Herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling spread. In Japanese alternative C, effects would be similar to alternative B, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area honeysuckle, due to disturbances and the lack of herbicide for its control. Cinaberry, Vasey Grass King Ranch In alternative A, species would spread along roads throughout the project area. The effects for alternative B and C are the bluestem, same as described for silk tree. Johnson Grass Japanese In alternative A, species would continue to displace native vegetation in parts of the project area. The effects for lespedeza, alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. Chinese tallow, McCartney rose Japanese and In alternative A, species would continue its spread throughout the project area. This species has already displaced native Chinese privet vegetation in much of the project area. The effects for alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. and Japanese

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 33

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) & Alternative C (Hand tools) climbing fern Chamber In alternative A, species would continue to spread along roads and rights-of-way in the project area. The effects for bitter alternative B and C are the same as described above for silk tree. In alternative A, continued herbicide treatments (approved in other decisions) should eventually eradicate the known Kudzu infestation within the project area. The effects for alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. Scarlet In alternative A, this species would eventually be shaded out and would not threaten native vegetation. The effects for firethorn alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. In alternative A, the species would continue to spread slowly, especially along disturbed sites such as roadsides. It may Callery pear eventually spread into timber stands but spread would be slow. The effects for alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. Brazilian In alternative A, the species would probably continue to invade prescribed burned sites and other disturbed areas, and then vervain eventually die out. The effects for alternative B and C are the same as described for silk tree. Forest Structure and Forest Health

Forest Structure Vegetative structure and Treatment in the longleaf pine stands open the forest canopy allowing sunlight to reach composition would not be the forest floor which promotes natural regeneration and growth of desirable understory altered within the project species. Residual trees would realize an increase in radial and vertical growth. area. Species diversity within Controlling hardwoods and herbaceous weeds with fire, chemicals and handtools after the forest would decrease. planting would enhance survival and growth of germinated seedlings. Alternative B and Growth of trees would C restoration treatments would contribute an additional 5, 855 acres toward improving decrease and overall health of RCW habitat, forest health and vegetation diversity/composition, sustaining old forest the stands would diminish. structure over time, and moving forest structure toward the desired conditions. Insect Tree density would rise, and disease risk would be reduced. encouraging more individual tree mortality over time. In alternative B, follow-up treatments would include release of the longleaf seedlings Any increase in native plant from competition using similar herbicides and additional prescribed burning for control communities including of competition and brown spot fungus. In alternative C, there would be increased spread longleaf pine would have to of non-native invasive plant species. Without the use of chemicals, the site would have occur naturally or not at all. to be manually treated each year requiring additional personnel and time. The sites would have to be manually treated several times for several years. RCW habitat would not be improved over time. The desired stand composition would not occur, and at least 2,400 acres of dense mid- story vegetation be present and untreated. Indirectly, structural components of old growth would move farther away from desired conditions and the long term mortality would affect/remove old growth attributes. Forest Health Increased risks of insects and The current medium to high hazard rating would be reduced to a low rating for SPB diseases with old growth infestation. In the long term, as loblolly pine is converted back to the native longleaf stands at risk for insects and pine, resiliency to insect and disease and fire would increase. diseases outbreaks and isolated occurrences. Heritage No additional or adverse Potential effects addressed through site avoidance strategies and site protection

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 34

Resource Alternative A (No Action) Alternative B (Proposed Action) & Alternative C (Hand tools)

Resources effects. measures. Alternatives B and C comply with the programmatic agreement with LA SHPO. There would be no impact to heritage resources from the use of herbicides in alternative B. Herbicidal use is not applicable in alternative C.

Scenery Over time, scenic stability in In the vicinity of the Little Creek and Hickman Trails (high SIO), skid trails that are the high scenery integrity developed to remove timber products would be apparent in the short term (1-2 years) objective (SIO) category following use but be naturalized (including seeding) and return to native state in the long would decrease and move term (up to 10 years) to pre-project conditions. In the long term, scenic value is towards low. Acres in the low maintained or increased. SIO category would move towards very low.

Socio- There would be no direct or In alternatives B and C, the project is estimated to support approximately 13 direct jobs Economics indirect effects to jobs and and 11 indirect and induced jobs throughout the 10 years. Labor income is estimated to income at the Parish level. be approximately $739,000 direct and $455,000 indirect and induced. Cumulatively, Cumulatively, there would no there would be no measurable increase in direct and indirect jobs as the only other measurable indirect effect to project that would produce timber is less than 600 acres and is expected to be completed jobs. within a short timeframe (2014 to 2016). Transportation Roads would continue to Over 80 miles of road would remain open to motorized vehicles year-round. System degrade and more miles may Approximately 23 miles of road would be improved. The resultant open road system become inaccessible to ensures adequate motorized access to each compartment in the project area. Access to motorized vehicles indirectly all of the project area would continue to be available for non-motorized travel. There affecting (reducing) hunting would be short-term disturbance and temporary changes in settings while road access and to ability to improvements and maintenance is in progress. explore the project area. Recreation There would no direct effect RN and SPM settings would be affected in the short term by mechanical treatments. to recreation setting and range Skid trails that are developed to remove timber products would be apparent in the short of opportunities. Access to term (1-2 years) following use but be naturalized (including seeding) in the long term motorized trails and hunting (up to 10 years). In the long term (up to 10 years), there would be no net change in the (miles of road or motorized RN and SPM setting as a result of project. Short term displacement from closures as the trail) would remain project is implemented is expected. See transportation for motorized and non-motorized unchanged. Cumulatively, opportunities. there would be insufficient vegetation treatment (570 acres total) combined with prescribed fire to maintain recreation opportunities off the designated trails.

Climate Change As forest health decreases, Treatments would increase tree growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual vegetation would be more trees and increase resiliency to extreme weather and altered precipitation patterns. Some susceptible to extreme weather of the carbon within the estimated 45 mmt (forest-wide) of biomass removed by events and insect and disease mechanical thinning would be sequestered for a time in the form of building materials. outbreaks. Carbon stocks would unchanged or increase as tree density increases.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 35

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives. Only summaries are provided for each resource and all resource reports are incorporated by reference. Most specialist reports will be available for viewing on the project’s website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/kisatchie/landmanagement/projects. Those not on the website are available upon request. Cumulative Effects A summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable management actions, including natural disturbances are presented here. Specialists evaluated whether additional projects (not included in this list) are relative to their cumulative effects analysis.

Past Management

The acres in the whole project area was a part 85% of virgin timber that covered Louisiana in the late 1800s that was cutover in the early 1900s. As stated in the summary section, the Silhouette Project includes a seed orchard and former nursery that was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1934. Stuart Forest Nursery was initially established for the purpose of reforesting the cutover lands. Millions of seedlings, grown at the Stuart Nursery near Pollock on the Catahoula Ranger District, were planted across Central Louisiana including compartments within this project area. The CCC program, created during the 1930's, helped provide the labor force to replant the trees. (Kisatchie National Forest, n.d.)

The seedling nursery operated until 1964 when it evolved into a seed production and genetic research orchard, now known as the Stuart Genetic Resource Management Area (GRMA). The Stuart Seed Orchard currently is managed to produce longleaf, slash, shortleaf, and loblolly pine seed for the National Forest in Texas and Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana.

Recent Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Treatments

The recent vegetation decisions and treatments in the project area range from 2011 to 2016.

In 2011 a decision for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 71 project was signed authorizing a thinning on 60 acres. In 2011 a decision for the Stuart Seed Orchard Management Program project was Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 36

signed which authorized the thinning of approximately 231 acres within the orchard boundary. In 2012 the decision for the Catahoula Forest Health 2012 project was signed which authorized the first thinning in young loblolly pine plantations within compartments 70 (288 ac), 71 (239 ac), 72 (55 ac) & 73 (164 ac). In 2016 the decision for the Catahoula Forest Health 2015 project was signed which authorized the first thinning in young loblolly pine plantations within compartments 69 (145 ac), 70 (53 ac), 72 (55 ac), 73 (16 ac), 74 (105 ac) & 86 (73 ac). In 2016 a decision for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 70 was signed which authorized a thinning on 70 acres. In 2016 a decision for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 71 was signed which authorized a thinning on 70 acres. In 2016 a decision for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 74 was signed which authorized a thinning on 61 acres. In 2016 a decision for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 86 project was signed which authorized a thinning on 62 acres. The treatment was designed to improve red-cockaded woodpecker HMA habitat and restore longleaf pine. Approximately 2,076 acres in the project area is prescribed burned on a two to three year rotation.

Table 6 summarizes recent vegetation and prescribed fire treatments.

Foreseeable Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Use

Approximately 765 acres of vegetation treatment from the projects mentioned in the previous paragraph (preceded and/or followed by prescribed fire) is scheduled to be implemented between 2018-2022 (Table 9). About 2,076 acres of the project area is scheduled to be burned annually. The last prescribed fire in the project area was implemented in 2017. Effectiveness was mixed as some stands need vegetation treatment in order for fire “to carry”. The next prescribed fire (approximately 2,076 acres) is scheduled for 2018.

Prescribed burning has been used to move longleaf forests and other southern pines towards an open stand condition with productive herbaceous plant understories. Landscape burning is the method used where existing barriers, such as streams and roads, provide firebreaks to the fullest extent possible. Where no natural barriers exist, permanent firebreaks are typically constructed, generally along boundaries with private land. These permanent firelines are usually bladed (eight to10 feet wide) with a dozer, waterbarred, fertilized, and seeded with native or non-invading species during implementation as needed (USDA 2012).

Prescribed burning within the project areas has been conducted during the growing and dormant seasons. Growing season burns have reduced fuel loads, the hardwood understory of the stand, increased species diversity, promoted seedling establishment, and promoted the growth of various shade-intolerant herbaceous species. Growing season burns kill most hardwoods less than three inches in diameter at breast height (DBH). Larger, more mature hardwoods survive low intensity fires through pine/hardwood or hardwood stands. Frequent growing season burns also kill the roots of young hardwood species, thus eliminating sprouts (USDA Forest Service, RMRS-42, Vol. 2, 2000). Dormant season burns have reduced fuel loads and promoted the sprouting of young hardwood species for wildlife browse. Burning in hardwood stands has been used to increase species diversity within the understory and to reduce the density of hardwood saplings and shrub species (USDA 2012). Overall, recent vegetation treatments have affected less than eleven percent of the project area and prescribed fire has affected over 30 percent of the 8,704 acre project area.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 37

Table 6. Summary of Past Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Projects (2011 to 2016)

Project Name Year Treatment Type Acres/Miles (Implementation)

Red-cockaded 2013 Commercial Thin 60 acres Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 71 Stuart Seed Orchard 2013 Commercial Thin, Clear-cut 231 acres Management Program Catahoula Forest 2016 Commercial Thin 691 acres Health 2012 Catahoula Prescribed 2011-2016 Prescribed Fire 14,889 acres Burning Supplemental EA Private Land 2017 Clearcut 40 acres

Past Natural Disturbances – Fire, Wind and Insect and Disease As noted above, the longleaf vegetation type in the project area is adapted to the frequent, low intensity fire that occurred periodically prior to Euro-American settlement. There have been no measurable natural disturbances in the project area in the recent past.

Summary of Current and Ongoing Projects The ongoing and current projects category focuses on those projects that have the potential to affect the structure and composition of vegetation in RCW habitat and soil and water function. Specialists will evaluate whether additional projects (not included in this list) are relative to their cumulative effects analysis. This category includes vegetation and prescribed fire projects that still have acres remaining for implementation.

It is typical for vegetation and prescribed fire projects to be implemented over a course of 1 to 10 years, depending on size and complexity. Only those acres that remain to be implemented are reflected in this category. Projects that included periodic (maintenance) prescribed fires are included in this category. The assumption for other projects such as power line maintenance conducted by special use permit holders is that the vegetation within the entire right-of-way could be maintained annually. In summary, approximately 2,076 acres of prescribed fire are in the current and ongoing category within the project area (Table 7). Table 8 displays other projects and activities that are ongoing within the project area.

Table 7. Summary of Current and Ongoing Vegetation and Prescribed Fire Projects

Project Name Year Treatment Type Acres (Implementation)

Red-cockaded 2018 Commercial Thin 70 Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 70

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 38

Red-cockaded 2018 Commercial Thin 70 Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 71 Red-cockaded 2018 Commercial Thin 61 Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 74 Red-cockaded 2018 Commercial Thin 62 Woodpecker Recruitment Thinning Compartment 86 Catahoula Prescribed 2018 Broadcast burn 2,076 Burning Supplemental EA

Table 8. Current and Ongoing Other (Non Vegetation/Fire) Projects

Project Name Project Purpose Description Acres/Miles

RCW cavity insert Repair and HMA-wide Maintain existing maintenance maintenance of cavity function existing inserts Annual road Maintain Repair and 16 miles maintenance infrastructure maintenance of existing roads (grading, spot resurfacing)

Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Reasonably foreseeable projects for this analysis (Table 9) are defined as those Forest Service projects that have been listed in the Forest’s SOPA. The most recent SOPA was reviewed in April, 2013 (USDA 2013). Decisions are imminent or decisions have been made and implementation is about to begin; or the projects are poised for implementation by other (non-FS) parties. The reasonably foreseeable category mostly focuses on those projects that have the potential to affect vegetation (structure and composition in RCW habitat) and soil and water function. Specialists will also evaluate whether additional projects (not included in this list) will be included in their cumulative effects analysis.

Table 9. Reasonably Foreseeable Projects Within the Project Area

Project Name Year Acres Project (Implementation) Objective

Catahoula Forest Health 2019-2022 55 Reduce basal area 2012 (stand density) Catahoula Forest Health 2019-2022 447 Reduce basal area 2015 (stand density) Catahoula Prescribed 2019-2022 8,704 Fuel reduction Burning Supplemental EA

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 39

Other Required Disclosures • All affected tribes have been consulted per consultation requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• The Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will provide Section 106 clearance for the project. See the project record for documentation.

• The FWS, in accordance with the ESA, reviewed and concurred with the project’s Biological Evaluation (US FWS 2018) in March 2018. See the project record for documentation.

• In order to implement road improvements (including culvert replacements) a 404 permit may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for those actions that occur within perennial waters. Water quality certification from LDEQ may be necessary.

Soils and Watershed This analysis focuses on soil productivity, water quality, and quantity (including affects to streams, riparian areas, and wetlands). The following activities were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis as they would have no impact on soil and watershed resources: inserting artificial cavities/predator excluders, hand planting of longleaf pine stands, hand tool-only invasive plant species treatment, and property boundary maintenance.

Affected Environment Soil Productivity The properties, suitability, and management limitations of soil types in the project area were evaluated. A mosaic of eight soil series occurs in the project area, totaling 8,697 acres (Table 10). The project area is mostly upland flats consisting of Malbis soils totaling approximately 2,590 acres. Guyton soils are the only soils that are very poorly drained. These soils encompass 563 acres (6 percent). Sixty-two percent of the soils, approximately 5,438 acres, occur on slopes ranging from 1 – 5 percent.

Table 10. Soil Types and Characteristics within the Silhouette Project Area

Soil Properties

Percent Soil Series Texture Landform Drainage Acres Slope

Moist, moderately well Cadeville Fine Side slope drained, somewhat 5-12 205 (CE) poorly drained Cahaba (CB) Loamy Stream terrace Dry, well drained 1-5 5 Moist, moderately well Glenmora Silty Upland Flat drained, somewhat 1-5 847 (GN) poorly drained Moist, moderately well Gore (GR) Fine Ridge Top drained, somewhat 1-5 251 poorly drained Guyton (GY) Silty Stream terrace Wet, poorly drained 0-1 563

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 40

Moist, moderately well Malbis (MA) Loamy Upland Flat drained, somewhat 1-5 2,590 poorly drained Ruston (RU) Loamy Ridge Top Dry, well drained 1-5 1,745 Smithdale Loamy Side Slope Dry, Well drained 5-20 2,491 (SM)

Table 11 displays there are 205 acres (2 percent) of Cadeville soils that have a severe erosion potential. 5,750 acres (66 percent) of the soils have an erosion potential of slight. 4,461 acres (51 percent) of the soil have a rutting hazard of moderate. Cadeville, Cahaba, Glenmora, Gore, Guyton and Malbis soils have a compaction rating of severe, approximately 4,461 acres (51 percent).

Table 11. Soil Erosion, Rutting and Compaction Potential by Soil Type

Soil Suitability

Soil Erosion Rutting Compaction Preferred Soil Series Acres Symbol Hazard Hazard Hazard Species

Cadeville CE Severe Moderate Severe Shortleaf 205 Cahaba CB Slight Moderate Severe Pine/Oak 5 Glenmora GN Slight Moderate Severe Longleaf 847 Gore GR Moderate Moderate Severe Shortleaf 251 Bottomland Guyton GY Slight Moderate Severe 563 Hardwood Malbis MA Slight Moderate Severe Longleaf 2,590 Ruston RU Slight Slight Moderate Longleaf 1,745 Smithdale SM Moderate Slight Moderate Longleaf 2,491

Environmental Consequences Productivity, a site’s ability to grow vegetation over time, depends on physical, chemical, and biological qualities of the soil. Productive soils have loose and porous structure, ample reserves of organic matter and nutrients, and balanced populations of small organisms. Sensitivity to disturbance varies with soil fertility (USDA 1989b).

The protection of soil productivity can be accomplished through proper planning and implementation of resource protection measures. Retaining and redistributing logging slash across the stand is one of the most important tools used to protect soil productivity. Environmental consequences are based on the application of all resource protection measures listed in Appendix B.

Alternative A – No Action There would be no direct effects because there are no ground disturbing activities. Biological processes would continue to occur. Soil productivity would be affected naturally through leaching and weathering.

Without thinning, current conditions within the project area would persist. High tree densities could contribute to increased potential for insects, disease and hazardous fuels. Fire hazard increases progressively as litter accumulates, flammable understory shrubs increase in size, and needle drape develops (USDA 1989b). Wildfires with higher severity could have adverse effects -caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching. Soil heating can kill soil biota,

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 41

alter soil structure, consume organic matter, and remove site nutrients during the burn (USDA 1989b). If wildfires were to occur with a high severity soil productivity could be affected.

Soil productivity could continue to be affected by not closing the 5 miles of road. Continued usage of these roads could further increase compaction, rutting, rill, and sheet erosion. Soil productivity would continue to be affected.

Cumulative Effects Ongoing and foreseeable activities in alternative A include the continuation of prescribed burning on approximately 2,076 acres in the project area in 2 to 3 year increments and timber management on approximately 765 acres over 1 to 5 years.

Prescribed fire (underburns) has favorable (indirect) effects that are temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity. Adverse effects are caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrients leaching (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-80).

Soil heating has little effect on litter-duff biota and fully recover between burns. Loss of organic matter is about 5 percent. Nitrogen loss may be 100-150 lb./acre for dormant season burns and 400-450 lb./acre for growing season burns (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-81). Soil erosion is generally negligible. Nutrient leaching is not significant because nutrients are retained through uptake by unburned plants (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-81). See discussion under Alternative B and C for effects from timber management.

Due to the span of time that occurs between each treatment and the use of resource protection measures, the cumulative effects from these treatments on long term soil productivity would be negligible.

Alternatives B and C Timber management activities would occur on approximately 5,757 acres and may directly affect soil productivity through soil erosion, rutting, compaction, and nutrient leaching (indirect effect). These impacts would be temporary, lasting only until growth of existing vegetation and the establishment of new vegetation. Establishment of new vegetation and increased growth of existing vegetation would occur within 1 to 2 growing seasons after the timber harvest.

Soil Productivity

Soil Erosion and Rutting: There would be low potential for erosion and rutting as 66 percent of the soils in the project area have an erosion potential of slight and only 51 percent of the soils have a rutting hazard of moderate. Potential erosion decreases with greater ground cover provided by vegetation, litter, rock, and fine roots (USDA 1989b). The practice of spreading logging slash back over the site, particularly skid trails and other disturbed areas, would help prevent erosion from occurring on slopes and also lessen adverse impacts to soil productivity (USDA 1999b). All slash shall be limbed, lopped, and scattered as required by the timber sale contract (Provision CT 6.7). The effects of erosion and rutting to soil productivity would be negligible.

Soil Compaction: There would be potential for compaction as most of the soils have a compaction rating of moderate to severe. Compaction hazard depends on soil type, moisture, cover and the number of machine passes. Compaction hazard is less for methods that remove little slash, litter, and duff (USDA 1989b). Results from a recent study on soil productivity were reviewed. Improvements in soil properties suggest that the sites in the study are recovering well from the experimental compaction. Harvesting practices that leave coarse woody debris on site and allow herbaceous and woody plants to grow will generally increase this natural amelioration (Scott et al. 2004). Soil compaction (direct effect) would occur but studies suggest that these sites will recover well. Soil compaction would be minimized by allowing management activities to occur only during dry conditions and by adhering to BMP # 34, 35, and 36. With the application of design features and mitigation, the effects from compaction would be negligible.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 42

Nutrient Leaching: Indirectly, nutrient losses (leaching) from mechanical methods could occur. Results from a recent study indicated that removing tree tops reduced soil productivity (Scott et al. 2004). Nitrogen budgets show that timber harvest followed by piling produces neutral nitrogen budgets (USDA 1989b). These techniques are more invasive then the stem-only harvest and slash retention method that would be used for this project. Overall, nutrient leaching would be negligible.

It is not practical to measure all soil properties and processes; therefore, monitoring harvest techniques that are known to protect soil productivity are of utmost importance. BMP’s are being monitored for implementation and effectiveness (see BMP’s, Appendix E). Monitoring reports for timber management practices (similar to those proposed for the Silhouette project) on the Catahoula and Kisatchie District were reviewed. The monitoring reports indicate that BMPs are effectively being used. Based on review of the best available scientific information and Forest monitoring, the effects to long term (greater than 2 years post treatment) soil productivity would be negligible.

Herbicide Use

In alternative B, herbicides would be used for site preparation, release, and invasive species treatments. Although 695 acres for site preparation, release, and 8,704 acres for invasive species and other undesired vegetation treatments are proposed, a substantially smaller area would be affected, as selective treatment methods would be used. The herbicides (including aquatics) proposed to be used are Imazapyr, Glyphosate, Triclopyr, Fluidone, Endothall, Imazamox and 2,4- D. Herbicides may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (USDA 1989b). The risk assessments for proposed herbicides can be found in the project record and at: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/protecting-forest/integrated-pest-management/pesticide-management/pesticide-risk- assessments.shtml.

Depending on application rate and soil environment, herbicides can stimulate or inhibit soil organisms. Adverse effects are observed only at concentrations well above those found in forestry field studies. Use at typical rates required by mitigation measures does not reduce activity of soil biota. These herbicides are not general biocides (USDA 1989b). Herbicides do not disturb soil, so treated areas usually have intact litter and duff that maintain erosion at low levels. Selective treatments do not expose soil. Nitrogen losses are less than 10 lbs./acre due to suppression of vegetation uptake. Losses of other, less mobile nutrients are negligible. Nitrogen budgets over a timber rotation are positive and allow long-term nitrogen buildup (USDA 1989b).

The effects of herbicide use on soil productivity would be minimized with the use of lowest effective application rates, and direct application. With the application of design features and best management practices, the effects to soil productivity from herbicides would be negligible. In alternative C, herbicides would not be used. There would be a decrease of 8,704 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be no direct and indirect effects to soil productivity.

Site Preparation and Release

Site preparation and release would consist of using machinery, herbicides, and prescribed fire (slash burns). These treatment areas would occur on approximately 695 acres (each) which are being proposed.

See the effects of herbicide use on soils, discussed above. Prescribed fire has favorable (indirect) effects that are temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity. Adverse effects are caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrients leaching (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-80).

Light slash burns scorch the litter and duff on most of the area. Soil heating has little effect on soil biota, structure, or organic matter. Less than 150 lb./ac of nitrogen is released as gas from slash, litter, and duff. Effects on other soil nutrients are favorable (USDA Forest Service, 1989b p. IV-81). Light burns cause no erosion because they expose almost no soil (USDA Forest Service, 1989b p. IV-82). Losses of nitrogen may be 1 lb./ac for light burns and nitrogen

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 43

budgets are positive, allowing for long-term buildup. The risk to soil productivity is minimal on all soils (USDA Forest Service, 1989b p. IV-84).

Slash burns would be conducted during appropriate weather conditions to maintain a low fire severity. Slash burns would be conducted so they do not consume all litter and duff and alter structure and color of mineral soil on more than 20 percent of the area. Steps taken to limit soil heating include use of backing fires on steep slopes, scattering slash piles, and burning heavy fuel pockets separately. Effects from prescribed burning should be minimal with the incorporation of BMPs (see Appendix B). These management requirements are designed to minimized erosion and sedimentation resulting from prescribed burning. The effects from site preparation and release to soil productivity would be negligible.

Road Management Activities

Alternatives B and C would close 5 miles of roads with native surfacing. Louisiana’s semi-tropical climate and long growing season would allow for natural regeneration of herbaceous and woody plants to occur. This vegetation coupled with the accumulation of leave litter would naturally improve the current condition and soil productivity. Natural recovery of soils from compaction occurs primarily through the process of shrinking and swelling, freezing and thawing, and through biological disturbances such as root penetration and biopedoturbation (Scott et al. 2004). This would be a long-term process, taking anywhere from 5 to 10 years. Long term soil productivity should be improved on the closed roads.

Summary of Effects

Timber management would have negligible effects and could prevent adverse effects to soil productivity by decreasing the chances of having wildfires with higher severity. Herbicide use and site preparation would have minimal effects to soil productivity. Closing roads would benefit soil productivity in the long-term by converting these areas back to forested land.

Cumulative Effects The past actions that have resulted in the current condition were defined earlier in the EA. In alternative B and C there would be negligible to beneficial effects to soil productivity. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that could directly affect soil productivity include the continuation of prescribed burning on approximately 2,076 acres in the project area in 2 to 3 year increments. Due to the span of time that occurs between each prescribed burning entry (a 2 to 3 year rotation schedule) and the use of resource protection measures for both vegetation and fire treatments, the cumulative impact of vegetation treatments and prescribed fire on long term soil productivity would be negligible.

Water Quality and Quantity The project area lies within the Big Creek-Middle, Big Creek-Upper, Dyson Creek-Han Branch, Gray Creek-Jorden Branch, Flaggon Bayou-Upper Creek, and Sandy Creek 6th HUC subwatersheds. Clear Creek is the only named creek that occurs within the project area. There are 51.5 miles of ephemeral, 37.6 miles of intermittent, 4.9 miles of perennial streams, and one water body (4 acres) within the project area. Riparian areas are associated with a small number of streams and these areas are designated as Riparian Area Protection Zones (RAPZ). There are no large jurisdictional wetlands, although small wetlands may be located within RAPZ’s. No water body impairments are found within the subwatersheds (Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 2014). The existing land uses on Forest Service and private land in these subwatersheds includes pine, hardwood, bottomland forest, and paved, gravel and dirt roads. Quarries, agriculture, residential, commercial and industrial uses are located on private lands.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 44

Figure 12. Subwatersheds within Proposed Silhouette Treatment Areas

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 45

Environmental Consequences Environmental consequences are based on the application of all resource protection measures listed in Appendix B of the EA.

Effects on Water Quality and Quantity Forest management activities can alter water quantity and quality, the degree of which determines the effects on aquatic communities. Water quantity generally applies to the size and frequency of stormflows, while water quality generally refers to the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water. Even in undisturbed forests, floods occur and water is never pure. Concerns arise when channel stability, aquatic habitat, or water use is impaired (USDA 1989b).

The protection of water quality can be accomplished through proper planning and implementation of resource protection measures listed for soil and water in Appendix B of the EA. Streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZs) are one of the most important tools used as it serves as a buffer to protect streams and aquatic life from upland management activities. Past monitoring on the Forest indicates that the size of the SHPZs used would be more than adequate to filter sediment and prevent it from reaching the stream channel (USDA Forest Service, 1999b p. 4-15). SHPZs of at least 50 feet are established along all streams and management activities are limited within these areas (BMP # 4, 5).

Alternative A – No Action There would be no direct impacts to water quality because there are no ground disturbing activities. Biological processes would continue to occur. Water quality would be affected naturally through leaching and weathering.

Without thinning, current conditions within the project area would persist. High tree densities could contribute to increased potential for insects and disease and hazardous fuels. If wildfires were to occur with high severity water quality and quantity could be affected.

Water quality could be affected by not applying travel restrictions, improving degraded roads, and improving stream crossing. Roads are the most common source of Forest erosion and sedimentation (USDA 1999b). Continued usage of these roads could further increase compaction, rutting, rill, and sheet erosion, therefore, affecting water quality.

Alternative B and C Timber Management Activities

In both alternatives, timber management activities would occur on approximately 4,995 acres and could affect water quantity and quality. Mechanical methods may increase stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment loads. Some nutrients are lost from forest soils through a temporary increase of erosion, and the reduced rate of water uptake because of tree removal (USDA Forest Service,1999b, p 4-13). Stream concentrations of some nutrients may be increased (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-98). Many of the aquatic systems are nutrient poor, so small increases in nutrients could be beneficial.

Increased storm flow volumes and peaks in small watersheds (1 to 12 acres) can increase. Shearing retains soil infiltration capacity and cause small increases by reducing water use by vegetation. Typical increases in storm flow volumes and peaks are 40 percent and they last one year (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-98). Timber harvesting reduces evapotranspiration which makes more water available for subsurface flow. Subsurface flows can reach stream channels and increase low flow. This could benefit aquatic biota during the low flows of summer (USDA Forest Service, 1999b, p 4-14). Timber harvest has been shown to have little effect on total water yields or the peak flows from large, infrequent storms. Changes in stream flow and water quality from regeneration harvest are relatively short-term and minor and quickly move back toward pre-harvest conditions due to reforestation and other vegetation growth (USDA Forest Service, 1999b, p 4-14). Effects to water quantity would be minimal and short term.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 46

Mechanical methods can increase sediment loads from both surface and channel erosion in small (1 to 12 acre) watersheds (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-98). Channel sediment tends to increase in proportion to peak flow, with first-year increases of about 40 percent for shearing (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-99). Establishment of new vegetation and increased growth of existing vegetation would occur. The most disturbed areas would be rehabbed by seeding and fertilizing. The effects to water quality and quantity would be negligible.

Herbicide Use

In alternative B, herbicides would be used for site preparation, release, and invasive species treatments. Although 695 acres for site preparation and release and 8,704 acres for invasive species treatments are proposed, a substantially smaller area would be affected, as selective treatment methods would be used. The herbicides proposed to be used are Imazapyr, Glyphosate, Endotholl, Fluridone, Triclopyr, and Imazamox.

In general, herbicides may affect stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment yields (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-93). However, selective application does not increase stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment yields because soil is not disturbed and plant water use is little affected (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-93).

Herbicides applied to the land may unintentionally enter surface or ground water. Herbicide formulation can directly affect solubility. In general, herbicides with high water solubility have the greatest potential to move by storm runoff into streams and lakes or by deep leaching into an aquifer. Imazapyr is very soluble while glyphosate and triclopyr are fairly soluble (USDA Forest Service, 1989b ,p. C-4, 5). Imazapyr is practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms and it is degraded by micro-organisms, photo decomposes, and does not bioaccumulate (USDA Forest Service, 1989a, p. C-15). Glyphosate is low in toxicity to aquatic organisms and it is degraded by microbial breakdown in the soil (USDA Forest Service, 1989a, p. C-13). Triclopyr is low in toxicity to fish and is metabolized by bacteria and photodegrades rapidly (USDA Forest Service. 1989a, p. C-16, 15). None of these herbicides are prone to volatilization losses (USDA Forest Service, 1989a, p. C-4, 5).

The majority of herbicide use in intensive forestry would involve low-toxicity chemicals applied infrequently (USDA Forest Service, 1989a, p. C-19). Current herbicide application technology exists to minimize herbicide residue movement into sensitive surface waters. Short duration residue concentrations might occur during stormflow but on-site degradation processes and in-stream dilution and degradation result in quick dissipation of herbicide residues. Short term water quality effects would be minimal, and long term water quality would not adversely affected. At current registered herbicide application rates, some short duration, low level pulses of herbicide residues could enter unconfined surface aquifers, however mitigation would be applied (see below). Detectable residues would not persist for a long time and would not be likely to exceed water quality standards. Contamination of regional ground water aquifers is not likely with even intensive operational use of silvicultural herbicides (USDA Forest Service, 1989a, p. C-20).

The effects of herbicide use on water quality would be minimized with the use of streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZ), lowest effective application rates, and direct application. In alternative B, the effects of herbicide use to water quality would be minimal. There would be no effect to water quality from herbicidal use in alternative C.

Site Preparation and Release

In alternatives B and C, site preparations and release consist of using hand tools and prescribed fire (slash burns). The slash burns would occur on a small scale (100 acres).

In general, slash burns may produce minor increases in concentrations of some nitrogen compounds and cations (USDA 1989b, p. IV-99). Moderate slash burns that retain ground cover should produce small increases in stormflows and channel sediment and negligible increases in surface runoff and erosion (USDA 1989a, p. B-15). Moderate slash burns cause minor erosion, because they expose soil on less than 20 percent of the area and recovery usually takes 1 year (USDA Forest Service, 1989b, p. IV-82).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 47

In this project, the prescribed (slash) burns would be conducted during appropriate weather conditions to maintain a low or moderate fire severity. Slash burns would be conducted so they do not consume all litter and duff on more than 20 percent of the area. Steps taken to limit surface runoff and erosion include the use of backing fires on steep slopes, scattering slash piles, and burning heavy fuel pockets separately. Effects from prescribed burning should be minimal with the incorporation of best management practices for soil and water (Appendix B). These management requirements would minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from prescribed burning. Overall, the effects from site preparation and release to water quality and quantity would be negligible. The impacts associated with herbicidal use in alternative B are described in the herbicide use section.

Road Management Activities

There are approximately 70 miles of roads in the project area. Alternatives B and C would improve 51.4 miles of open roads including culvert replacements and road resurfacing. These improvements would channel water run-off from rain events and stabilize the affected road beds (Robertson, unpublished report, 2014).

An additional 1.2 miles of road would change from closed to open for highway legal vehicle use only. Road maintenance could have short term effects associated with initial soil disturbance. The erosion and sedimentation from roads would be mitigated but not totally eliminated. Water-barring, seeding, and fertilization of reconstructed roads would help reduce erosion and sedimentation. Short term effects would occur until soil stabilizes and vegetation is established (2 months to 1 year for vegetation establishment, depending on the amount of moisture and sunlight).

The direct effects from culvert installation would be attributed to the disturbance of stream banks and substrate. Short term effects would coincide with the duration of culvert replacement which would be approximately half a day per culvert (N. Strahan, personal communication). There would be beneficial long term effects as stream function would be improved with the decrease of stream sedimentation. Stream impairment would be unlikely because of the short term duration of the projects. Overall water quality would be improved.

Five miles of roads are proposed to be closed to motorized use. The nine miles of road proposed for closure are in poor condition and are causing resource damage. All-terrain vehicles (ATV) are using these roads to access unauthorized (user created) trails, some of which are associated with stream crossings. The amount of user created trails is unknown. Closing and or limiting access to roads would reduce resource damage and decrease soil disturbance and erosion.

Cumulative Effects A sedimentation model, Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Use (USDA 1999a), was used to determine cumulative affects to water quality. Sediment is the best measure to determine the effect of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands. Sediment increases adversely affect fish productivity and diversity. The sedimentation model uses predicted sediment yield as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water quality (USDA 1999a, p.3).

Sediment loading is calculated for both private and National Forest lands. Current baseline is derived from past activities that predict the average annual sediment delivered as a result of the historical management within the watershed. Undisturbed pre-European baseline is the predicted annual sediment yield that occurred pre-European. Committed activities on Forest Service are those projects, such as prescribed fire and timber management, which would continue to be implemented. Predicted activities are those activities that are predicted to occur on private lands.

Percent increase above current baseline and undisturbed pre-European baseline were calculated. Significance is suggested when the effects are compared to a threshold. The results from cumulative effects were compared, as a percentage, to an established threshold of 1,650 percent over pre-European levels.

The model allows for the comparison of total overall sediment yield due to all activities that would occur in the watershed by alternatives. It is assumed that current conditions are similar to those that were used in the development of

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 48

the baselines and thresholds. Estimates are inflated because it assumes worst case scenarios and that all treatments would occur in the same year.

Predicted sale date is 2019. In addition to past land use, activities that have or would occur are predicted for the years 2019 - 2022.

Table 12, Table 13, and

Table 15 display the acres/miles of past, present, and expected activities in the Big Creek –Middle (8,914 acres), Big Creek - Upper (6,503 acres), Dyson Creek – Han (7,860 acres), Flaggon Bayou - Upper (7,555 acres), Gray Creek - Jorden (6,184 acres) Sandy Creek (3,985 acres) subwatersheds that were used in the model by alternative.

Table 12, Table 14, and Table 16 display the percent increase in sediment yield above current and undisturbed baselines for the same subwatersheds.

Big Creek - Middle Subwatershed

Table 12 displays the acres of past, present, and expected activities in the Big Creek - Middle Subwatershed (8,914 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this subwatershed. Table 13 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and undisturbed baseline.

Table 12. Proposed, Committed and Predicted future Activities within Big Creek – Middle Subwatershed

Activity Alternative A Alternative Alternative Committed Predicated B C Activities on Activities Forest on Private Service

Thinning (ac) 0 586 586 521 0 Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0 0 Mid-story work (ac) 0 586 586 0 0 Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 0 586 0 Pre-haul 0 8.5 8.5 0 0 maintenance (mi=ac) Total Acres 0 1,172 1,172 1,107 0 Total Miles 0 8.5 8.5 0 0

Table 13. Big Creek – Middle subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield

Estimated Percent Increase above Increase above Percentage above/ Increase in Sediment Baseline Undisturbed Baseline below Threshold Yield (tons/acre) (Pre-European) Limit of 1,650 (Pre- (Current) European) 0 3,754 +2,104 Alternative A 5.8 3,981 +2,331 Alternative B , C 10.9 4,176 +2,526

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 49

In this watershed, the threshold is exceeded before any work would take place (alternative A). Agriculture and residential areas contribute the most sediment and are located downstream of the activities being proposed. Alternatives B and C would result in a 1.9 percent increase (8.3 tons/yr.) of total sediment yield above the no action alternative. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3 to 5 years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small increase in sediment yield from alternatives B & C would not be enough to effect water quality. The cumulative effects from Alternatives B & C would be negligible due to the small increase in sediment yield and the time frame in which it would occur.

Big Creek - Upper Subwatershed

Table 14 displays the acres/miles of past, present, and expected activities in the Big Creek - Upper (6,503 acres). No vegetation or road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this subwatershed.

Table 15 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and undisturbed baseline.

Table 14. Proposed, Committed and Predicted Future Activities within Big Creek - Upper Subwatershed

Activity Alternative A Alternative Alternative Committed Predicated B C Activities on Activities Forest on Private Service

Thinning (ac) 0 1,235 1,235 198 0 Regeneration (ac) 0 79 79 0 0 Mid-story work 0 1,313 1,313 0 0 (ac) Prescribe burn (ac) 0 0 0 1,313 0 Pre-haul maintenance 0 8.5 8.5 0 0 (miles) Total Acres 0 2,627 2,627 1,511 0 Total Miles 0 8.5 8.5 0 0

Table 15. Big Creek - Upper Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield

Estimated Percent Increase above Increase above Percentage above/ Increase in Baseline Undisturbed Baseline below Threshold Sediment Yield (Current) (Pre-European) Limit of 1,650 (Pre- (tons/acre) European)

0 2,761 +1,111

Alternative A 7 2,964 +1,314 Alternative B and C 15.6 3,208 +1,558 In this subwatershed, the threshold is exceeded before any work would take place (alternative A). The biggest contributors to the estimated sediment yield are from quarries, agriculture, residential (town of Dry Prong) and commercial activities in the watershed. Alternatives B and C would result in a 2.4 percent increase (18.5 tons/year) of total sediment yield above the no action alternative. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 50

likely to occur between 3 to 5 years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this watershed, the small increase in sediment yield from alternatives B and C should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality. The cumulative effects from alternatives B and C would be negligible. Table 16 displays acres and miles of treatments used to evaluate sediment in the Dyson Creek – Han Branch subwatershed.

Dyson Creek – Han Branch Subwatershed

Table 16. Proposed, Committed and Predicted Future Activities within Dyson Creek – Han Branch Activity Alternative Alternative Alternative Committed Predicated A B C Activities on Activities Forest Service on Private Thinning 0 3,656 3,656 537 0 (ac) Regeneration 0 385 385 0 0 (ac) Mid-story 4,041 4,041 0 0 work (ac) Prescribe 0 0 0 4,041 0 burn (ac) Pre-haul maintenance 0 8.5 8.5 0 0 (miles) Total Acres 0 8,061 8,061 4,578 0 Total Miles 0 8.5 8.5 0 0

Table 17. Dyson Creek – Han Branch Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield

Increase above Increase above Percentage above/ Baseline Undisturbed Baseline below Threshold (Pre-European) Limit of 1,650 (Pre- (Current) European)

Current Condition 0 726 -924 Alternative A 62.3 1,242 -408 Alternative B and C 125.2 1,761 +111

The threshold isn’t exceeded in this subwatershed before any work would take place (alternative A) (Table 17). The biggest contributors to the estimated sediment yield are from quarries in the watershed. These quarries make up 88 percent of all sediment yields and are located down stream of proposed activities. Alternatives B and C would result in a 2.9 percent increase (72 tons/year) of total sediment yield above the no action alternative A. This increase is estimated to occur in the same year; it is more likely to occur between 3 to 5 years. There are no known stream impairments in this watershed. Although the threshold is exceeded for this subwatershed, the small increase in sediment yield from alternatives B and C should not be sufficient enough to effect water quality. The cumulative effect from alternative B and C would be negligible.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 51

Air This analysis incorporates by reference the district-wide prescribed fire supplemental analysis and decision completed in 2017 (USDA, Catahoula Ranger District Prescribed Burning Program Supplemental Environmental Assessment, 2017). The state of Louisiana is currently designated as attainment and is a Class II area. Areas with a Class II designation have air quality that either meets or is better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA. NAAQS are defined in the Clean Air Act as amounts of pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result (RMRS-GTR-42, Vol. 5).

Air quality with in the project area (and district) is categorized as being generally good in the winter and spring, as rapidly changing weather patterns tend to keep the atmosphere well mixed. Periods of occasional stagnation during summer and fall may cause natural and man-made pollutants to build up (VM-FEIS, Volume I, III-15).

Review of the most recent (2012) forest plan monitoring and evaluation report (USDA 2014) indicates all areas of the Forest are in attainment of the NAAQS, including those for ozone. Field reviews of prescribed burning activities were conducted on the Catahoula and Winn Ranger Districts in 2012 and 2013. Forest plan standards and guidelines were implemented and smoke management was rated as “full compliance” for all burns reviewed. Ultimately, the Forest follows the Louisiana Voluntary Smoke Management (LVSM) guidelines and coordinates with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).

Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences for alternatives B and C assume the application of all design features and mitigation from the 2017 district-wide prescribed fire analysis and decision (USDA 2017) and soil and water mitigation that has been designed specifically for this project (see Appendix B of the EA). Key activity timing assumptions include:

Site preparation-related burning would occur approximately 1 year following mechanical treatment

Site preparation-related actions are likely to be finalized within 5 years

Prescribed burning for site preparation is typically conducted in a one-day time period

Follow-up prescribed burning for brown spot is typically incorporated into the compartment-wide prescribed burn that is conducted on a 2 to 5 year interval.

Alternative A – No Action There would be no direct effects to air quality in the no action alternative. Indirectly and cumulatively, as fuel loadings increase the amount of smoke that is produced from the routine application of fire may be higher than if the stands had been mechanically treated. This adverse impact would be mitigated through the development of a burn plan which includes a range of techniques to use to reduce smoke emissions. Ultimately, State voluntary smoke techniques would be followed.

Alternative B and C Approximately 695 acres of site preparation-related prescribed fire would occur in alternatives B and C. The 695 acres are located throughout 7 compartments (C-69, C-70, C-71, C-72, C-74, C-86 and C-87) and encompass a total of 25 stands. The prescribed burns associated with site preparation could be conducted in either the growing or dormant season. There would be direct, adverse impacts to air quality (release of particulates from smoke) that are of short duration, lasting approximately 1 day or so as the acres to be treated with fire are minimal (695 acres). However, having any smoke present for a short duration may affect local sensitive areas such as hospitals, roads (of all

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 52

jurisdictions) and residences that are in the general vicinity of the project area. Effects include decreased visibility on roads, discomfort for local residents and forest visitors, and the nuisance of the smell of smoke in and around residences (VM-FEIS, Vol. I, pages IV-108 through IV-110). These effects are expected to be minimal with implementation of the design features and mitigation described in Appendix B of the EA. This is consistent with the district-wide EA on prescribed burning which used the forest plan FEIS analysis for air quality and concluded “air quality and emissions inventories indicate that prescribed burning is not a major contributor to particulate matter in the atmosphere. Prescribed burning is an infrequent particulate matter contributor” (USFS 1999, page 24).

Cumulatively, it is possible that in the short term, the site preparation burns in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 86 & 87 would overlap in time and space with the compartment-wide burns that occur in 2 to 5 year intervals. Since the burns are designed to be compartment-wide, the cumulative effect to air quality would not include an increase in acres burned. The cumulative impact to air quality is the same as described for direct and indirect effects. Ultimately, State voluntary smoke techniques would be followed. There would be no long term adverse effects to air quality.

Vegetation Comprehensive tree data has been collected on a subset of the stands within the project area over the last 6 years. Specific tree data collected includes species, class, diameter, height, age. Other data sometimes collected depending on design included surface fuels and understory plant species.

All of the stand data was then compiled into a database and the majority were modeled in the forest vegetation simulator (FVS) tree growth model and updated to the year 2018. This process allowed us to characterize the current stand conditions and determine the need for change and appropriate treatments based on the project purpose and need. See the specialist report for additional information on methodology, data sets and FVS modeling.

Vegetation Cover Types Within the project area are approximately 8,704 acres of pine stands ranging from approximately 0 to 120 years old, interspersed with hardwood and mixed pine/hardwood swamps and stream buffers.

Cover Type Compartment Acres

69 70 71 72 73 74 86 87

Non-Vegetated Barren 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 288 Non-Forest Communities Grassland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 288 Forest Communities Longleaf 224 143 394 81 0 298 856 178 Shortleaf 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 Slash 0 0 25 310 0 196 129 108 Loblolly 627 822 688 242 102 692 267 410 Riparian 318 262 174 213 73 317 104 368 Table 18 displays the acres of vegetation by forest community type. Based on previous and current habitat surveys, it has been determined that western upland longleaf forest (longleaf), mixed hardwood–loblolly pine forest (shortleaf, Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 53

slash, loblolly), shortleaf pine–oak hickory forest (shortleaf), small stream riparian forest, hillside bog, baygall, and roadside habitats exist within the project area.

Acres of longleaf pine within project area compartments range from 2 acres to 303 acres. In the late 1800s and early 1900s the longleaf pine forests were greatly reduced through harvesting. During reforestation in the 1920s through 1940s, little consideration was given to native species restoration. The main objectives at that time were reforestation of the land and establishment of a fast-growing (loblolly and slash) pine forest cover type to prevent erosion and protect soil and water resources. During this time, fires were suppressed. With the suppression of fires, other pine species, hardwoods, and shrubs have invaded the understory and mid-story, thereby reducing the species diversity historically found within longleaf pine forests. Where longleaf pine forests remain, the fire regime has been altered and there is a need to have fire in this forest community every 1 to 5 years (Varner III et al. 2005).

Less than 50 acres in the project area is shortleaf pine/oak-hickory. This species once supported a less frequent fire regime and created the historically open-canopied forests. Over time, fire suppression has allowed the canopy to become more closed. The hardwoods generally found in the canopy are absent and the proportion of shortleaf pines has been reduced. In order to re-establish these historical stands, the guidance of the forest plan directs managing for a fire frequency of 5 to 10 years. (KNF RLRMP CH. 2 p. 13)

Within the mixed hardwood/loblolly pine forest, the hardwood component has been reduced, but not removed, through past timber harvesting. This has allowed approximately 2,647 acres of loblolly pine to dominate the overstory.

Cover Type Compartment Acres

69 70 71 72 73 74 86 87

Stand Structure

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 54

Currently diameter base heights for trees in the project area range from 2 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) to 24 inch dbh and trees per acre range from as low as 31 to 803. The highest trees per acre are in the 16 to 18 inch size class. What the stand exam data indicates is that while trees per acre are not excessive, the basal area is, with BA averaging about 91 when the desired condition for basal area in RCW habitat is between 40 BA and 50 BA. Figure 15 displays the current structure of the average stand in the project area. The figure displays that trees are deficit in the smallest size classes.

Figure 13. Project Area Stand Structure (2017)

FVS was also used simulate a timber harvest performed in 2019 using the current stand data that was collected. The prescription was set up to reduce the basal area to 60 sq. ft./acre favoring longleaf and shortleaf pine. The residual basal area resulted in 90 BA because of favoring longleaf and shortleaf pine and retaining various hardwood species throughout the stands. Figure 14 displays the trees per acre of the residual species after harvest. A variety of hardwood species will be retained in stands that aren’t suitable for timber harvesting throughout the project area. This includes, but aren’t limited to, streamside protection zones (SHPZ), riparian areas and bottomland flats.

Trees/Acre 30

0 Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 55 Shortleaf Pine Longleaf Pine Loblolly Pine Sweetgum Southern Red

Oak

Figure 14: Average trees per acres by species post harvest (2019)

Alternatives A - Forest Structure In alternative A, there would be no direct effect to forest structure. Indirectly, the structural components of the stands would continue to move farther away from forest plan desired conditions and the projected long term mortality would affect structure over time. Stands within the project area would not be maintained with 50 to 90 BA. Instead, tree density would rise, encouraging more individual tree mortality over time. The no action alternative would also put stands at risk for insects and diseases outbreaks and isolated occurrences. The desired stand composition of having almost pure longleaf pine would not occur, and instead of having few mid-story trees and shrubs intermixed with longleaf, at least 8,704 acres of dense mid-story vegetation would continue to be present and untreated.

Alternatives B and C - Forest Structure Site specific fuel reduction, by machinery, herbicides and/or hand tools, is proposed within 8,704 acres of undesirable herbaceous brush, non-native invasive plants and hardwood mid-story/lateral fuels. Thinning can increase vines and shrubs, which further shade out the herbaceous layer (Harrington and Edwards 1999). Thus, without controlling hardwoods and other woody vegetation, thinning can ultimately result in a less productive and less diverse understory (Blair and Feduccia 1977, Hunter 1990). A hardwood mid-story can add vertical stratification and benefit some midstory-associated birds (Dickson 1982, Melchiors 1991, Turner et al. 2002). However, a hardwood midstory is generally undesirable for most wildlife, including deer, small mammals, and other birds (Dickson 1982, Lohr et al. 2002, Melchiors 1991, Wilson and Watts 1999) (Final Technical Report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 2005). Hardwood encroachment is a major cause of the species’ decline and endangerment status (USDI 2003). Foraging and nesting habitat would be improved and lateral fuels that cause crown fires during prescribed burns and wildfires would be reduced.

A free thinning throughout diameter classes ranging from 5 to 24 inches would occur on approximately 3,942 acres of longleaf, slash and loblolly pine stands and the adjoining streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZ). The purpose of this treatment is to maintain or restore the native communities. The stands exceed the desired forest plan stocking density for sub management area 5CL (SMA 5CL) which emphasizes RCW habitat which requires a low basal area (BA) per acre of mature longleaf pine with little to no hardwood mid-story (USDA 1999). Managing these acres for RCW habitat at a minimum of 40 BA and achieving uneven-aged management would be compliant with the Kisatchie NF Forest Plan with the proposed non-significant forest plan amendment.

To project the post-treatment condition, stands in this FVS simulation were thinned throughout all diameter classes with natural regeneration computed. The stands were grown out till year 2024. Figure 15 shows the desired uneven-aged stand structure with a more even range of trees across diameter classes. Trees per acre are only high in 6 inch dbh size class. In this class, there are approximately 15 trees per acre. It also indicates that there should be a fair amount of natural regeneration within these stands as a result of the free thinning that was performed in year 2019. Figure 15: Alternative B and C Uneven-aged Stand Structure (2024) displays the desired future condition for pine stands managed with uneven-aged management.

Uneven-aged Stand Structure

15.1

8.2 Trees/Acre 6.2 5.3 Environmental Assessment for Silhouette4.4 Ecosystem Management4.4 4.1 Project, Kisatchie NF 56 1 1.5 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Figure 15: Alternative B andDiameter C Uneven at Breast-aged Height Stand Structure (2024)

Figure 16. Desired Future Condition for Pine Stands with Uneven-aged Management

Thinning treatment in the longleaf pine stands would open the forest canopy, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor which promotes natural regeneration and growth of desirable understory species. Thinning would also increase biodiversity. Biodiversity has several definitions, the simplest being a variety of life. Many definitions further specify that the definition includes all types of organisms as well as genotypes and even ecological processes and their inter- relationships (Hunter 1990, Oliver 1992, Reid and Miller1989). An important way to increase within-stand structural diversity is to maintain a lower overstory density. A more open canopy allows a diverse understory to develop, which provides forage and habitat for wildlife. Even plantations established with intensive site preparation are often very diverse in the early years as long as the canopy is open, but as the canopy closes this diversity rapidly decreases (Baker and Hunter 2002). Once the canopy closes, the stand moves into the stem exclusion stage that shades out the understory vegetation and subsequently lacks wildlife (Oliver and Larson 1990). Minimizing this stage can allow a stand to support more biodiversity over a given rotation. Maintaining an open canopy with a productive understory also makes plantations more similar to the diverse, natural pine communities that existed historically in this region (Bragg 2002, Noss 1988, Van Lear et al. 2004) (Final Technical Report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 2005). Residual trees would realize an increase in radial and vertical growth. Removing less- desirable tree species from mixed stands while thinning would prepare these stands for future restoration cuts by removing a potential seed source for less-desirable species. Within the SHPZ, the pine would be thinned to promote the growth and regeneration of desirable hardwood tree species.

In alternatives B and C, clear-cuts with reserves would occur on approximately 689 acres. Site preparation, longleaf pine seedling planting and release would occur on approximately 695 acres. Artificial regeneration is the only option for successful restoration of longleaf pine, and all longleaf reserve trees must be retained within the Catahoula HMA until the population goals for the RCW are met (USDA 1999, chapter 2, pp. 71-72).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 57

Figure 17: Pretreatment (left side photo) and Post Treatment (right side photo) Using Mechanical Site Preparatio n

There are many essentially pure stands of pines of species other than longleaf on former longleaf sites. Some of these are the result of earlier removal of longleaf and re-colonization by loblolly, shortleaf, or, occasionally, slash pine. Many more are the result of deliberate replacement of longleaf by planting either loblolly or slash pine. These sites must be reforested to longleaf by planting as there is no available seed source. The typical technique is to clear-cut the existing stand and, after site preparation, replant with longleaf seedlings. If the burning regime has been effective, the site preparation can be minimal, consisting of reducing or removing the woody debris to allow the planters access to the site. Spot herbicide treatments might be desirable to control persistent woody clumps, but broadcast chemicals should not be necessary. Optimal growth of the seedlings will require control of the herbaceous vegetation with chemicals, but care should be taken to protect desirable native understory species (The Longleaf Alliance 1995). Site preparation (Figure 17) would accelerate succession by decreasing competition as longleaf does not compete well with other vegetation. Adequate site preparation and follow-up treatments would be critical to successful regeneration of the longleaf pine.

In alternative B, eradication of undesirable woody species would be initiated with mechanical chopping, chemical/hand tool application site-preparation methods which reduce woody debris to slash, where it can be safely burned to release nutrients and prepare the site for hand planting. Previous experience on other similar longleaf restoration projects (on former loblolly pine sites) has shown that use of mechanical site preparation along with prescribed burning is one of the most effective site preparation methods. The intensity and methods of site preparation for controlling vegetation at the beginning of the rotation should also be considered when managing pine plantations for increased biodiversity. More intensive site preparation favors grass and forbs, while less intensive site preparation favors vines and woody vegetation (Johnson 1975, Locascio et al. 1990). More intensive site preparation also reduces the availability of fruit for wildlife (Hunter 1990, Stransky and Roese 1984). In terms of site preparation methods, Locascio et al. (1991) observed that mechanical site preparation (shear, chop, disk, etc.) did not seem to diminish understory plant diversity. Mechanical methods may provide for greater understory diversity and food production compared to herbicides (Fredericksen et al. 1991, Keyser et al. 2003). Burning may also be a desirable option for stimulating stored seeds (Hunter 1990) (Final Technical Report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 2005).

Mechanical and chemical/hand tool site preparation methods are especially effective when followed by prescribed fire. Hardwood competition would be eliminated and reduced debris would improve access for tree planting. Controlling hardwoods and herbaceous weeds with fire, chemicals and handtools after planting would enhance survival and growth of germinated seedlings. By reducing competing plants, more water and sunlight would be available to seedlings, which is particularly important on sandy sites where water percolates rapidly through the soil profile.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 58

Planting success would be expected to exceed 90 percent due to the use of the containerized seedling method. Stands which are planted would be expected to grow more trees in larger sizes in a shorter time than with other methods (USDI FWS 2003). The left side of Figure 17 displays the current condition and right side displays post mechanical site preparation.

In alternative B, follow-up treatments would include release of the longleaf seedlings from competition using similar herbicides and additional prescribed burning for control of competition and brown spot fungus.

No soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the drip line of non-target vegetation such as den trees, hardwood inclusions and adjacent stands within or next to the treated area. Side pruning is allowed, but movement of herbicide to the root systems of non-target plants must be avoided. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can see and avoid them. No herbicide is aerially applied within 300 feet or ground-applied within 60 feet of any threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive plant. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them (Forest Service, 1999).

In alternative C, site preparation and release would not include the use of herbicides. Without the use of chemicals, the sites would have to be manually treated each year requiring additional personnel and time. The sites would have to be manually treated several times for several years. In alternative C, the treatment of brown spot fungus may not be as effective as alternative B. Undesirable vegetation within 8,704 acres would continue to persist even with mechanical treatments. The noxious weeds within Stuart Lake would go untreated and have potential to overtake it.

None of the proposed actions involving boundary delineation, bird nesting structure installation, road administration, helipad development, soil erosion control, recreation enhancements or landline maintenance should have short term or long term impacts on forest structure.

Forest Health Insect and Disease (Southern Pine Beetle (SPB)) Loblolly pine stands classified with high hazard ratings for SPB infestation are those with a site index greater than or equal to 70 and with a total pine basal area (BA) greater than 90 ft2/ac (stand condition greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to 12) (Harris et al. 2002).

Approximately 364 acres of loblolly pine pole timber are densely stocked with an average BA of 112 ft2/ac and approximately 3,942 acres of immature loblolly & longleaf stands with and average BA of 104 ft2/ac. Because stand densities are greater than the optimum desired condition, pines are stressed and radial growth is impeded. This result in pine stands becoming more susceptible to southern pine beetle infestation (SPB FEIS 1987). The desired condition is to reduce the BA to 60-70 ft2/ac to increase growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual trees. Susceptibility to bark beetle infestations would be reduced by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and improving stand health and growth by reducing competition.

Diseases and Effects of Project Actions on Hosts (Meeker, 2018)

The most common diseases on pines in the project area: Needle cast (note: longleaf pines are resistant) Fusiform rust (note: longleaf pines are less susceptible than slash and loblolly, shortleaf are resistant) Pitch canker (note: longleaf pines are susceptible) Annosum root rot (note: longleaf pines are less susceptible than slash and loblolly) Red heart disease: problematic on older, over-mature pines including longleaf Brown spot needle blight: grass stage longleaf pines are susceptible (but will be managed by controlled burning) Note: containerized longleaf seedlings are likely to be more vigorous and grow faster than bare-root seedlings and will grow out of the vulnerable stage more quickly than bare-root seedlings Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 59

Thinning and clear cutting will reduce disease pressure due to the following:

Lowers pathogen level in stand (by removing suppressed trees or otherwise unthrifty individual trees) Reduces moisture level in stand by o Reducing shaded area o Reducing total surface area and thus total surface moisture required for pathogen infection and survival o Improving air circulation Decreases pathogen movement via root grafting Decreases red heart disease susceptibility by removing over-mature trees Improves physiology of trees (through less competition for resources) and therefore defense system

Insects and Effects of Project Actions on Hosts (Meeker, 2018)

Common insect pests of pines in the Project area:

Southern Pine Beetle (Note: loblolly and shortleaf are most susceptible; longleaf pine is resistant to SPB except in outbreaks of extreme severity) Ips Engraver Beetles, Black Turpentine Beetle, and Southern Pine Sawyer (Note: all southern pines in the Project Area susceptible but pests are considered secondary and thus trees stressed for other reasons are colonized Nantucket Pine Tip Moth (Note: longleaf resistant; other southern pines in seedling/sapling stage most at risk but mortality rare) Reproduction weevils (Note: Could be problematic if any seedlings are planted)

The southern pine beetle is a primary pest; populations can rapidly increase and affect large areas of otherwise healthy pines. The thinning and regeneration cuts proposed will reduce the hazard posed by SPB due to the following:

Longleaf pine is resistant to SPB; greater longleaf acreage favors smaller local SPB populations and decreases potential mortality except in severe regional outbreaks Loblolly and shortleaf pine most susceptible hosts; thinning improves host vigor and improves air circulation and solar radiation within stand, thus decreasing pheromone persistence within infestation and disrupting SPB communication system (see the pub Meeker sent-Nowak et al., 2015-for supporting evidence indicating thinning is best SPB prevention tool available) Nantucket pine tip moth is not expected to be problematic as its preferred hosts (loblolly, shortleaf) will not be planted; longleaf is less preferred and somewhat resistant Reproduction weevils are problematic when stands are harvested and replanted too soon o stands cut in fall or winter should not be replanted for at least one year; weevils are attracted to and quickly colonize fresh logging slash and if site is replanted that same winter, emerging weevil generations will attack seedlings

Because SPB has wreaked havoc in loblolly stands (primarily) on National Forests of Mississippi in recent years, the following figures could be used if you deem it helpful and/or necessary. These figures are based on stand-level data from the FS FACTS database. Throughout these figures, it is assumed loblolly pine and shortleaf pine are the most susceptible pines to SPB. If you position the mouse over a portion of the graph, it will tell you the exact value. Kisatchie figures are presented first, followed by Mississippi NFs for context. (Meeker, 2018)

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 60

Generally the vast majority of the SPB spots on NF in MS occurred in loblolly plantations/stands; of those, more occurred in stands less than 45 yrs. old (due to the fact that most of the stands dominated by loblolly of this age were unthinned). Figure 19 and 20 do not distinguish between thinned and unthinned, but do indicate that the Catahoula RD has slightly over 26,000 ac (Fig. 19), or 21% of the total district acreage (Fig. 18) of high hazard loblolly (defined as

Percent of District Acres that are Loblolly ≤ 45 yrs. old 30

0 Calcasieu RD Caney RD Catahoula RD Kisatchie RD Winn RD less than 45 yr. old) and 37,000 ac (Fig. 19), or approx. 30% (not shown), of moderately high hazard loblolly (>45 yrs. old). (Meeker, 2018)

Figure 19 Kisatchie National Forest: Loblolly Acres 120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 Calcasieu RD Caney RD Catahoula RD Kisatchie RD Winn RD

Loblolly ≤45 yrs. old Loblolly >45 yrs. old

Figure 18 Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 61

Figure 21 and 20 present hazard acres (stands with other pine types) in addition to “pure” loblolly stands. The “other high hazard forest type” in these figures refers to all other forest types which include shortleaf and/or loblolly (the two pines most preferred by SPB); “other moderate” includes forest types which have slash and longleaf (less preferred by SPB), and other non-pine dominant species within the stands; and “Low-no hazard types” are those stands with no pine species present. (Meeker, 2018)

Figure 21

KNF: SPB Hazard by Acres and Forest Type 200000

150000

100000

50000

0 Calcasieu RD Caney RD Catahoula RD Kisatchie RD Winn RD

Loblolly <45 yrs. old Loblolly > 45 yrs. old Other High Hazard Forest Types Moderate Hazard Forest Types Low -No hazard Forest Types Figure 20

KNF: % of District Acres by Hazard Type 100

0 Calcasieu RD Caney RD Catahoula RD Kisatchie RD Winn RD

Loblolly ≤45 yrs. old Loblolly >45 yrs. old Other High Hazard Forest Type Moderate Hazard Forest Type Low-No Hazard Forest Type

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 62

NFs in Mississippi: Loblolly Acres 140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 Bienville RD Chickasawhay De Soto Homochitto Holly Springs Tombigbee

Loblolly ≤45 yrs. old Loblolly Stands>45 yrs. old

Figure 22

Figure 23 displays the Catahoula Ranger District SPB hazard map. The figure indicates the project area has a 21 to higher than 30 percent projected risk of pine basal area loss from SPB and the overall project area has SPB hazard ratings from medium to high.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 63

Figure 23: Southern Pine Beetle hazard ratings on the Catahoula Ranger District

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 64

Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences reflect the application of best management practices, design features and mitigation (Appendix B) that are required to be in compliance with the forest plan, and reduce and/or minimize impacts to resources.

Alternative A - Forest Structure and Forest Health Under the no action alternative, vegetative structure and composition would not be altered within the project area. Stands would continue to mature at the current rate. Closure of forest canopies could shade out the herbaceous species on the forest floor, thereby decreasing species diversity within the forest. The overstocked pine stands would remain susceptible to disease and insect outbreaks. Growth of the trees would decrease and the overall health of the stands would diminish. Conversion to the desired condition (increase native plant communities including longleaf pine) would have to occur naturally or not at all. Over time forest health conditions and RCW habitat would not improve.

Table 19 and Figure 25 compares the current condition for trees per acre, basal area and mortality in the short term (2017, 2019) to the long term (2024). The average basal area and mortality is projected to increase in the long term (2024) with no treatments occurring other than prescribed burning. In alternative A, movement towards the desired future condition described in the KNF Forest Plan would not be met and forest health conditions and RCW habitat would not be improved over time.

Table 19. Silhouette Alternative an Existing and Projected Trees per Acre, Basal Area and Tree Mortality

Year Trees Per Acre Basal Area (Average) Projected Mortality (Average) (Trees Per Acre)

2017 76 117 0 2019 76 119 0.3 2024 75 126 0.7

No Action Alt.

140 120 100 80 60 40 20

MORTALITY MORTALITY MORTALITY

BASAL AREA BASAL AREA BASAL AREA BASAL

TREES/ACRE TREES/ACRE TREES/ACRE 2017 2019 2024

Figure 25. Silhouette Alternative A, Existing and Projected Trees Per Acre, Basal Area and Tree Mortality

At least 364 acres of stands proposed for first thinning currently have a high-risk rating for southern pine beetle (SPB) infestation, the project area has a 21 to higher than 30 percent projected risk of pine basal area loss from SPB, and the Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 65

overall project area has SPB hazard ratings from medium to high. Under the no action alternative, this rating would not change, and the stands would remain highly susceptible to SPB. Growth of the trees would decrease and the overall health of the stands would diminish. Conversion to the desired condition would have to occur naturally or not at all. Over time forest health conditions and RCW habitat would not improve.

Alternative B and C - Forest Structure and Forest Health In alternative B and C, thinning 3,942 acres to a BA ranging between 60 and 70 square feet per acre would reduce the susceptibility to bark beetle infestations by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and improving stand health and growth by reducing competition. The current medium to high hazard rating would be reduced to a low rating for SPB infestation. This would result because the first thinning treatment would reduce the stand density by about one- half, and selection would be based on spacing rather than tree quality (because tree dominance has usually not been expressed within the stand at this age). Species associated with the desired forest type would be favored during thinning, preparing these stands for native community restoration at a later time (not foreseeable at this time).

In the long term, as loblolly pine is converted back to the native longleaf pine, resiliency to insect and disease and fire would increase. Longleaf pine has long been thought to be very resistant to many insects and diseases often problematic on other southern pine species (E. L. Barnard and ²A.E. Mayfield III 2009). Longleaf pine has a high resistance to fire and fusiform rust.

Cumulative Effects Table 7, Table 8 and Table 9 list approximate acres of the various vegetation management and fuels treatments that are ongoing or are foreseeable within the project area. The effects of the thinning with restoration emphasis longleaf restoration as well as the prescribed burning are similar to what has been described with the proposed treatments for this EA.

Alternative B and C restoration treatments would contribute an additional 8,704 acres toward improving RCW habitat, forest health and vegetation diversity/composition, sustaining old forest structure over time, and moving forest structure toward the desired conditions.

Prescribed Burn History Within the past ten years, the project area has been burned by prescribed fire; however, woody understory brush persists and other silvicultural practices are needed along with prescribed burning to control the fuel loading (Table 20).

Table 20. Project Area Prescribed Burn History (2007-2017)

Prescribed Fire Year and Acres Treated

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Compartment

69 400 468 992 70 931 955 71 1,147 1,147 72 614 1,462 487 377 358 73 173 74 781 782 782 752 843

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 66

86 934 1,111 1,175 159 1,378 1,517 87 120 154 668 1,153 174 76

Forest Structure - Old Growth The forest plan describes desired future conditions (DFCs) of designated old growth patches (KNF Revised LRMP, Appendix E). DFCs are expressed as a description of composition, structure and disturbance regime. The forest plan identified certain acres within the project area as emphasis areas for old growth. These emphasis areas are spatially available in GIS and on the forest plan “Management Area and Special Allocations Map for Modified Alternative D”.

Existing old growth is defined as stands or patches that meet the criteria for old growth found in the R-8 Old Growth Guidance (USDA 1997). Future old growth is defined as stands or patches allocated to old growth that do not meet one or more of the criteria from the R-8 Old Growth Guidance but is expected to develop into old growth through management.

The Silhouette project area is comprised of two landscape community types: upland long-leaf pine and riparian forest. A review of stand data (to evaluate old growth attributes) indicates there are approximately 1,039 acres of longleaf pine- dominated patches, 1,039 acres are attributed to the upland longleaf, woodland and savanna community, 371 acres are attributed to loblolly pine, 73 acres are attributed to bottomland hardwood, 235 acres are attributed to hardwood/pine, and acres are attributed to the coastal plain upland mesic hardwood community.

Alternatives A In alternative A, there would be no direct effect to old growth. Indirectly, the structural components of old growth would continue to move farther away from forest plan desired conditions and the projected long term mortality would affect/remove old growth attributes. Upland stands would not be maintained with 50 to 90 BA. Instead, tree density would rise, encouraging more individual tree mortality over time. The no action alternative would also put old growth stands at risk for insects and diseases outbreaks and isolated occurrences. The desired stand composition of having almost pure longleaf pine would not occur, and instead of having few mid-story trees and shrubs intermixed with longleaf, at least 8,704 acres of dense mid-story vegetation would continue to be present and untreated. Old growth attributes in riparian patches which include a closed, dominant overstory with high (100 to 150) basal areas would remain unchanged and continue to develop as a result of natural processes and disturbances.

Alternatives B and C In the project area, 1,890 acres are likely to meet old growth condition over time (based on age and basal area) and 1,890 have the best potential for moving toward old growth conditions. Though old growth allocations are based on current conditions within the project area when compared against forest plan management direction; there are longleaf plantations in the project area that can be managed for potential old growth over time. No treatments are planned in those acres attributed to the coastal plain upland mesic hardwood and bottomland hardwood communities. This analysis assumes that all acres attributed to this community type would move towards old growth condition. In alternative B and C, Table 21 summarizes the proposed old growth acres by community type. Table 22 displays the stands that would be added to the inventory and managed as old growth and Table 23 summarizes the stands that would be removed from the Forest’s old growth emphasis acres with rationale.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 67

Table 21. Alternative B and C Proposed Old Growth by Community Type

Forest Plan Forest Stand Proposed Proposed Total Project Proposed Old Plan Inventory Changes Changes Acres Growth by Proposed Existing to Forest to Forest Managed Community Acres* Condition Emphasis Emphasis Towards Old type* Acres** O/G O/G Acres Growth Acres (Subtract) Conditions*** (Add)

Compartment 69 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 93 93 0 93 Compartment 70 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 59 59 0 59 Compartment 71 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 363 363 0 363 Compartment 72 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 81 81 0 81 Compartment 73 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 31 31 0 31 Compartment 74 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 0 58 58 0 58 Compartment 86 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 1,435 1,424 0 286 1,149 Compartment 87 - Longleaf pine-dominated old growth patches Total Acres 56 56 0 0 56

Table 22. Stands Added To Old Growth Management

Compartment Stand Reason

69 14 Longleaf pine stand 69 26 Longleaf pine stand 69 28 Longleaf pine stand 69 32 Longleaf pine stand 69 33 Longleaf pine stand 70 1 Longleaf pine stand 70 38 Longleaf pine stand 70 40 Longleaf pine stand 71 9 Longleaf pine stand 71 12 Longleaf pine stand 71 17 Longleaf pine stand 71 19 Longleaf pine stand

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 68

Compartment Stand Reason

71 22 Longleaf pine stand 71 26 Longleaf pine stand 72 4 Longleaf pine stand 72 10 Longleaf pine stand 72 24 Longleaf pine stand 73 11 Longleaf pine stand 73 12 Longleaf pine stand 74 3 Longleaf pine stand 74 19 Longleaf pine stand 74 23 Longleaf pine stand

Table 23. Stands Removed From Old Growth Management

Compartment Stand Reason

86 3 Loblolly pine stand 86 4 Slash pine stand 86 6 Loblolly pine stand 86 9 Loblolly pine stand 86 10 Slash pine stand 86 13 Loblolly pine stand 86 16 Stuart Lake recreation area

Vegetation Cumulative Effects There would be no measurable indirect or cumulative impacts from the no action alternative to vegetation structure or forest health.

Alternative B and C road improvements would occur and 5 miles of road would be removed from motorized vehicle use by the public. However, the actual road prisms would remain. Without the continued motorized use, vegetation would become re-established on those roads that are native surface. There would be little to no change on those roads that are aggregate. The road that is currently closed and would be managed as open is 1.2 miles in length and exists on the ground. The impact to vegetation (vegetation removal) has already occurred. Overall, there would be no measurable direct, indirect or cumulative change to vegetation (forest structure), forest health (insect and disease) or moving towards desired conditions for native plant communities.

In alternatives B and C would allow landline maintenance which is done by painting landline symbols on trees or post along the Forest Service and private property boundaries. There wouldn’t be any direct, indirect and cumulative effects with this action because there would be no tree removal.

None of the proposed actions involving boundary delineation, bird nesting structure installation, road administration, helipad development, soil erosion control or recreation enhancements should have short term or long term impacts on forest health. Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 69

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife This section includes key effects and conclusions for terrestrial, aquatic, and plant threatened, endangered, and proposed species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Forest Service Southern Region Sensitive Species, forest management indicator species, and migratory birds. The wildlife report (Smith, 2018) is incorporated by reference.

See the project record for detailed information on methodology, analysis assumptions, best available science and data, habitats, populations, and effects that are not repeated in this section.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Conservation Fauna Species (PETSC) and Forest Service Sensitive Species

A checklist for all the endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive animal species known to occur on the Forest can be found in the biological evaluation (project record). The endangered and threatened species list is from the USFWS and dated February 2015 and with updates from 2018. The sensitive species list is from the U.S. Forest Service Southern Region dated January 2001. Table 24 displays the PETCS species of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature, and KNF records. The species are addressed in detail. The terrestrial and aquatic PETCS considered but removed from detailed study is located in table 2 of the PETSC Biological Evaluation (project record).

Table 24. PETC Addressed in Detail

Designation Species Habitat Catahoula RD Occurrence

Endangered Red-cockaded mature southern pine 74 active clusters Woodpecker (Picoides forests borealis)

Threatened Louisiana pine snake dry, sandy pinewoods Historical record (Pituophis from 1955 from melanoleucus ruthveni) one location (on district). Experimental reintroduction

Threatened Northern long-eared bat interior mixed forest. Scattered across (Myotis septentrionalis) entire district.

Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is the only known endangered species within the project area. There are seven active (72-1, 72-2, 74-1, 86-1, 86-2, 86-4 and 87-1) and twenty inactive/recruitment stands within the project area. Some of the habitat within the project area is in relatively good condition and has been burned frequently. There are also many acres that need extensive management to become suitable and reach the desired future condition. The recruitment Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 70

and inactive stands are needed to meet the population goal based on the suitable habitat in these compartments and provide continuous habitat for corridors linking to the neighboring clusters.

The RCW is native to the open, fire maintained, pine forests of the southeastern U.S. This species requires large old pines for nesting and roosting habitats. Large old pines are required as cavity trees because the cavities are excavated completely within inactive heartwood. Old trees are also preferred since there is a higher incidence of heartwood decay, making excavation easier. Cavity trees must be in open stands (low basal area) with little or no hardwood mid-story and few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment is a well-known cause of cluster abandonment. RCW require abundant suitable foraging.

Currently, RCW foraging habitat is measured in suitable acres. Foraging requirements are to provide each group of woodpeckers 120 acres of good quality habitat. Good quality foraging habitat includes some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse or no hardwood mid-story and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover. Good quality habitat must also have these characteristics:

There are 18 or more stems/ac of pines that are > 60 years in age and > 14 inches dbh. Minimum basal are for these pines is 20 sq. feet/acre. Basal are of pine 10-14 inches dbh is between 0 and 40 square feet/acre. Basal area of pines <10 inches dbh is below 10 square feet/acre and below 20 stems/ac Basal area of all pines 1- inches dbh is at least 40 square feet/acre. Groundcovers of native bunchgrass and or other native fire tolerant, fire dependent herbs total 40 percent or more of ground and mid-story plants and are dense enough to carry growing season fire at least once every 5 years. No hardwood mid-story exists, or if a hardwood mid-story is present it is sparse and less than 7 feet in height. Canopy hardwoods are absent or less than 10 percent of the number of canopy trees in longleaf forest and less than 30 percent of the number of canopy trees in loblolly and shortleaf forests. All of this habitat is within ½ mile of the center of the cluster, and preferably, 50 percent or more is within ¼ of the cluster center. Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 feet of non-foraging areas. (USDI 2003)

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Without implementation of the proposed actions, areas in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 will not meet the quality conditions necessary to increase the RCW population. Indirect effects include a low RCW population growth potential because of surrounding habitat conditions, even though clusters may stay active. When stands are open and park like the birds are more likely to find recruitment stands and disperse. Reproductive success and fitness is increased for RCW groups if they have substantial amounts of foraging areas that are burned regularly and have little or no hardwood midstory. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2000) Foraging acreage would be met for the clusters, however foraging would not be of the highest quality which requires open stands and herbaceous groundcover. High quality foraging would be possible with thinner stands and frequent burning. Direct effects would be minimal since no actions would be undertaken thru this plan.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 71

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects could eventually cause cluster sites to become inactive as midstory levels increase and force the birds from their cavities or they die without sufficient recruitment. Lack of management could make the entire area unsuitable over time if corrective actions are not taken thru a separate plan.

Alternatives B and C Direct effects would be limited to damage or destruction of a cavity tree or bird during logging or prescribed burning. Protective measures and restrictions for logging (timber contract clauses; KT-CT2.3, CT6.222 and CT6.24) and prescribed burning (Forest Plan guideline FW-766) are in place to minimize impacts. The most commonly used 2400.6T Timber Sale Contract has all of the clauses and provisions that may be applied to each individual timber sale.

All active, inactive and recruitment clusters have the required 120 acres of suitable foraging with all the proposed actions. (Table 3, Fig. 2 & 3.) The proposed thinning will move all the stands closer to the description of “good quality foraging” as described above. Active RCW cluster site 87-1 requires use of stands within the orchard to meet the foraging requirements. All recruitment clusters within the project area will benefit tremendously from more open stands. Foraging and overall RCW habitat will be improved by opening the stands and inviting movement and dispersal.

All recruitment clusters within the project area would benefit from more open stands. Foraging and overall RCW habitat would be improved by opening the stands and inviting bird movement and dispersal. The 690 acres of restoration cuts should not impact fragmentation since they are located away from active clusters, the existing longleaf and shortleaf will be retained and placement has been strategic to minimize impacts. The clearcuts and restoration of 25 areas (690 ac) will be beneficial in the long term. The short term impacts to foraging and cluster expansion will be minimal because of the unit placement. (Fig 4 & 5).

Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in alternative B would be to targeted species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non-mobile in soils (also see soils and watershed report). The use of herbicide would have no impacts on RCW in either alternative B or C.

In alternatives B and C, long term benefits of quality foraging may result in greater reproduction. Open stands would also provide for more possibilities of dispersal and expansion into recruitment sites. A larger / growing population would be self-contained and not require intense management. The clear-cuts and restoration of 25 areas (690 acres) would be beneficial in the long term. Restoration cuts would assure that the habitat of the future would be longleaf pine, and that the habitat would be in varying age classes. It is responsible forestry and habitat management to assure trees of varied ages exist across the landscape, especially if restoration of longleaf pine can be the way you achieve this goal. Clearly stated in the RCW recovery plan is that the key to “species recovery is only possible through habitat restoration” and also that “restoration of habitat may itself jeopardize RCW if approached without suitable caution”. The short term impacts to foraging and cluster expansion would be minimal because of the unit placement.

Determination of Effect: The proposed actions as currently planned are in accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Alternative B or C would benefit the RCW and its habitat and are not likely to adversely affect the RCW.

Cumulative Effects Past and ongoing projects such as vegetation and fire have improved approximately 18,000 acres of nesting and foraging habitat installed approximately 25 artificial cavities within the project area. Foreseeable projects include approximately 500 acres of thinning that would occur in the project area. When combined with this project’s vegetation treatments, approximately 26,700 acres of RCW habitat would move towards desired conditions. Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 72

The Louisiana pine snake is known to exist on the forest in an experimental captive released population. Other records for the Catahoula RD are historical (1955) and no current records of naturally occurring pine snakes exist. Habitat suitable for pine snakes follows the same description as ideal habitat for RCW. An open low basal area overstory which allows herbaceous ground cover to flourish and sandy soils are key elements in their required habitat. The presence of pocket gophers (Geomys breviceps) also is an indicator of suitable pine snake habitat. No specific survey was done for the LPS for this project, however suitable habitat does exist and gopher mounds are abundant in parts of the project area. Snake trapping was conducted 15 years ago in suitable habitat within compartments 85 and 86. No LPS were captured during the 6 year trapping period.

Approximately 57,394 acres are designated as the habitat management unit (HMU) for the pine snake on the Catahoula district in the Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The HMU was selected based on significant amount of preferable soils and limited landscape fragmentation. The Catahoula HMU is in the center of the district and does include the project area. A low basal area pine stand allows sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor and support the herbaceous groundcover. Frequent fire keeps the woody competition under control and the grasses will flourish and dominate the understory.

Alternative A – (No action) The greatest threat to the LPS is lack of management. Without implementation of the proposed actions the project area will have inhibited herbaceous growth and the indirect and cumulative effects would be the eventual elimination of suitable habitat. Direct effects would of course be avoided by not harming unknown populations/individuals from management actions (chopping, blading firelines, harvesting, road reconstruction etc.)

Alternatives B - C –Thinning and burning would greatly benefit the habitat for the LPS. The potential effects of the restoration cuts would be relational to the amount of area impacted. Direct effects on the unknown population could be greater with the restoration cuts because of the chopping and concentrated management activities. However, indirect and cumulative effects may be more beneficial in producing more suitable habitat over time. Keeping the canopy open and burned will therefore assure herbaceous groundcover and suitable LPS habitat. Indirect and cumulative effects would be increased acreage of suitable habitat and maintenance of existing suitable habitat into the long term. Direct effects on unknown populations could be negative, with impacts from heavy equipment during logging and road work. However, pine snakes live primarily underground with limited (seasonal and daytime) above ground movement, so unlikely to impact even if present. The magnitude of the logging activities will alert snakes and generally allow them to seek underground shelter. Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in this project would be to targeted species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non-mobile in soils.

Cumulative Effects

Past and ongoing projects such as vegetation and fire have improved approximately 18,000 acres of habitat within the project area. Foreseeable projects include approximately 500 acres of thinning that would occur in the project area. When combined with this project’s vegetation treatments, approximately 26,700 acres of habitat would move towards desired conditions.

None of the proposed actions involving boundary delineation, road administration, helipad development, soil erosion control or recreation enhancements should have short term or long term impacts.

Northern Long Eared Bat (NLEB) The northern long eared bat is generally associated with old-growth forests composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact interior forest habitat, with low edge-to-interior ratios. Relevant late-successional forest features include a high percentage of old trees, uneven forest structure (resulting in multilayered vertical structure), single and multiple tree-fall gaps, standing snags, and woody debris. These late successional forest characteristics may be favored for

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 73

several reasons, including the large number of partially dead or decaying trees that the species uses for breeding, summer day roosting, and foraging. (USFWS 2011)

Cumulative Effects Past and ongoing projects such as vegetation and fire have improved approximately 18,000 acres of habitat within the project area. Foreseeable projects include approximately 500 acres of thinning that would occur in the project area. When combined with this project’s vegetation treatments, approximately 26,700 acres habitat would move towards desired conditions.

Although no specific survey was done for the NLEB in the project area, some limited survey efforts have been performed in and around the project area with no presence of NLEBs in the proposed project area. The proposed project area is within the NLEB range and the white-nose syndrome zone, there are no known hibernacula or maternity roosts within the project area. Although the Catahoula District has a known maternity roost tree, the known maternity roost tree location is approximately 12 miles from the northern edge of the project area. Therefore, in accordance with the final 4 (d) rule and the 2016 BO, incidental take of NLEB from this proposed action is NOT prohibited.

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. displays sensitive species considered in detail. Louisiana slimy salamander habitat is restricted to the many riparian areas that run through the project area. Surveys were not done to determine the presence of these species. Riparian habitats are sufficiently protected to assure habitat for this species. Bachman’s sparrow are known to occur on the district. Suitable habitat exists within the project area, and follows the same description as the RCW and pine snake habitat.

Tabl e 25: Occurrence Evaluation Sens Group Scientific Name Common Name Status Code itive Spec Amphibian Plethodon kisatchie Louisiana slimy salamander Sensitive 6 ies Addr Aimophila esse Bird aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sensitive 5 d in Detai l

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Occurrence evaluation codes:

1= Project located out of known species range.

2= Lack of suitable habitat for species in project area.

3= Habitat present, species was searched for during field survey, but none found.

4= Species occurs in project area, but outside of activity area.

5= Field survey located species in activity area.

6= Species not seen during field survey, but possibly occurs in activity area based on habitat observed or field survey not conducted when species is recognizable.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 74

Bachman’s sparrow The Bachman’s sparrow occurs in habitat similar to the RCW and the Louisiana pine snake. Herbaceous ground cover, open pine canopy and scattered shrubs are components of suitable habitat. No specific survey was done for the Bachman’s sparrow for this project, however suitable habitat exists. Direct impacts to individuals would be limited to the nesting season since during other times of the year they would be mobile and able to escape activities.

Alternative A – No Action Without implementation of management actions there would be no increase in areas of suitable habitat and the existing areas could diminish over time and become unsuitable. Without implementation of the proposed actions the area would have inhibited herbaceous growth and the indirect and cumulative effects would be the eventual elimination of suitable habitat. Direct effects would of course be avoided by not harming nesting individuals from management actions (chopping, and harvesting).

Alternatives B and C Thinning, restoration cutting and burning would greatly benefit the habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow. Keeping the canopy open and burned would therefore assure herbaceous groundcover and suitable Bachman’s sparrow habitat. Indirect and cumulative effects would be increased habitat and maintenance of what already exists into the long term. Direct effects would be limited to any logging and burning done during the nesting season and in nesting habitat. Direct effects on the Bachman’s sparrow could be greater with the restoration cuts because of the chopping, concentrated management activities and the greater likelihood of impacting a nest site. However, greater indirect and cumulative effects may be beneficial in producing more suitable habitat over time. Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in this project would be to targeted species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non- mobile in soils. Alternatives C effects would be the same as Alternative B since the use of herbicide would have no impacts on the Bachman’s sparrow.

Louisiana Slimy Salamander The Louisiana slimy salamander inhabits moist woodland habitats, but are especially common in shaded hardwood forests where they occur beneath logs or under leaf litter. These species are occasionally found in pine woods in the vicinity of hardwood bottomlands, gum swamps or cypress ponds. Even when found in pine woods, these salamanders appear to have an affinity for hardwood logs and stumps over pine.

Alternative A – No Action The greatest threat to the Louisiana slimy salamander would be intensive management within streamside zones or bottomland areas. There would be no direct, indirect and cumulative effects without implementation of any proposed actions.

Alternatives B and C Limited thinning and burning would take place within the streamside zones and therefore limited direct effects would be expected. Landscape burning allows the burns to go down and stop at the hardwood drains. Reducing the need for firelines in the wet hardwood transition areas to the place where the line ties into the creek decreases the chance of direct effects substantially. Indirect and cumulative effects would be minimal since the wet areas preferred by this species would not be suitable for management actions and therefore the habitat would remain intact. Burning may consume logs and debris used by the salamander for protection. Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in this project would be to targeted plant species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non-

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 75

mobile in soils therefore no direct effects would be expected. In alternative C all effects would be the same as alternative B since the use of herbicide would have no impacts on slimy salamander.

The forest plan allows for group or single-tree selection regeneration techniques designed only to improve fisheries and wildlife habitat, the plant community structure or composition, or other amenity value. It does not allow timber harvest treatments, unless they 1) remove less than 4.5 CCF per acre, 2) occur only when soils are dry, and 3) are intended to improve wildlife habitat, maintain or restore specific vegetation communities, or improve old growth structure. (KNF) (GUIDELINE FW - 512)

Conservation Species Habitat for six of the eleven conservation fauna species listed for Louisiana occurs near or within some part of the project area.

Table 26 displays those species of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature and KNF records.

Table 26: Conservation Species That Occur Near Or Within The Project Area

Species Habitat Catahoula RD Occurrence Whi te White-breasted Nuthatch Mature hardwood trees, with stubs, knotholes. Common Resident bre Sitta carolinensis aste Coopers Hawk Forests of a wide variety and often mixed with fields Rare Visitor d Accipter cooperii or other openings. nut hatc Worm-eating warbler Bottomland hardwoods with a rich understory of Unknown/Rare h Helimitheros vermivorous broadleaf evergreens. This speci Louisiana waterthrush Deciduous and mixed woods near flowing streams, Unknown/Rare es favors rocky streams. Seiurus motacilla inha Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Limestone caves and forested areas. Year round resident bits Corynorhinus rafinesquii most ly Big brown bat Varied, cities to wilderness. Year round resident hard Eptesicus fuscus woo d Long-tailed weasel Known from most habitat types within the South. Unknown/Common and Mustela frenata botto mland habitats. The riparian areas and streamside zones throughout the project area are suitable.

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 76

Alternatives B and C Most of the preferred habitat (hardwood riparian areas) of the nuthatch would not be impacted by the thinning or clearcut operations. The use (alternative B) or non-use of herbicides (alternative C) would have little direct effects on the nuthatch since the spraying would be on severed stumps or on low growing brush. The removal of the exotic invasive species would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat. By reducing native plants’ competition, they would be able to thrive with more of the tree trunks and native vegetation becoming exposed for foraging substrate. Project road maintenance, culvert replacement and road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Habitat suitability under these alternatives directly and cumulatively would not significantly change for the nuthatch.

Coopers Hawk This species inhabits mostly mixed forest and field habitats. The current conditions in the project area offer suitable habitat for this species.

Alternatives B and C The proposed treatments would increase the diversity of habitats in the project area. The use (alternative B) or non-use of herbicides (alternative C), cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the Coopers hawk since the spraying would be on severed stumps and low growing brush. The hawks should avoid areas being cut due to noise and disturbance. The removal of the exotic invasive species, thinning and clear-cuts would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat for the species and have positive indirect effects. Project road maintenance, culvert replacement, road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Habitat suitability under the alternatives would directly and cumulatively benefit the hawk.

Worm-eating warbler This species inhabits mostly hardwood and bottomland habitats. The riparian areas and streamside zones throughout the project area are suitable.

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the over story from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternatives B and C Most of the preferred habitat (hardwood riparian areas) of the warbler would not be impacted by the thinning or clearcut operations. The use or non-use of herbicides and the cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the warbler since the spraying would be on severed stumps or on low growing brush. The removal of the exotic invasive species would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat. By reducing native plants’ competition, they would be able thrive with more of the tree trunks and native vegetation becoming exposed for foraging substrate. Project road maintenance, culvert replacement, road closures and openings would be done on

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 77

existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Habitat suitability under this alternative cumulatively would not significantly change for the warbler.

Louisiana waterthrush This species inhabits mostly riparian and bottomland habitats. The riparian areas and streamside zones throughout the project area are suitable.

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the over story from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternative B and C Most of the preferred habitat (hardwood riparian areas) of the waterthrush would not be impacted by the thinning or clear-cut operations. The use or non-use of herbicides and the cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the warbler since the spraying would be on severed stumps or on low growing brush. The removal of the exotic invasive species would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat. By reducing native plants’ competition, they would be able thrive with more of the tree trunks and native vegetation becoming exposed for foraging substrate. Project road maintenance, culvert replacement, road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Habitat suitability under this alternative cumulatively would not significantly change for the waterthrush.

Rafinesque big eared bat This species inhabits several forested habitat types. The riparian areas and uplands throughout the project area are suitable.

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the over story from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternatives B and C Most of the preferred roosting habitat (large hollow trees) within riparian areas would not be adversely impacted by the thinning or clear-cut operations. The use or non-use of herbicides, cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the bat since the spraying would be on severed stumps and low growing brush. When foliar treatment is used, it would be conducted outside of the riparian areas. The removal of the exotic invasive species would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat for the species and have positive indirect effects. Project road maintenance, road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Culvert replacement should be coordinated with an effort to minimize impacts to bats. Habitat suitability under this alternative cumulatively would not significantly change for the bat.

Big brown bat This species inhabits several forested habitat types. The riparian areas and uplands throughout the project area are suitable.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 78

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the over story from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternatives B and C Most of the preferred roosting habitat (large hollow trees) across the landscape would not be adversely impacted by the thinning or clear-cut operations. Hollow trees are generally retained during thinning operations especially within riparian areas. Regeneration cuts are important foraging habitat. The use or non-use of herbicides, cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the bat since the spraying would be on severed stumps and low growing brush. When foliar treatment is used, it would be conducted outside of the riparian areas. The removal of the exotic invasive species would be beneficial to the overall quality of the habitat for the species and have positive indirect effects. Project road maintenance, road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. Culvert replacement should be coordinated with an effort to minimize impacts to bats. Habitat suitability under this alternative cumulatively would not significantly change for the bat.

Long-tailed weasel This species inhabits mostly mixed forest, field and riparian habitats. The current conditions in the project area offer suitable habitat for this species.

Alternative A – No Action As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the over story from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternatives B and C The proposed treatments would increase the diversity of habitats in the project area. Diverse habitats will provide greater prey base. Riparian areas would not be adversely impacted by the thinning or clear-cut operations. The use or non-use of herbicides and the cutting of trees and mid-story vegetation would have little direct effects on the weasel since the spraying would be on severed stumps or on low growing brush and the weasels should avoid areas being cut due to noise and disturbance. By reducing native plants’ competition, native vegetation and habitat would become more readily available for the species having positive indirect effects. Project road maintenance, culvert replacement, road closures and openings would be done on existing associated sites and would not affect this species. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative cumulatively would benefit the weasel.

Determination of Effect and Rationale Conclusions are based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review of relevant scientific information (including databases, literature reviews and site visits), a consideration of responsible opposing views, and the acknowledgment of incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk:

White breasted nuthatch, worm-eating warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, Rafinesque’s big eared bat and big brown bat: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 79

Coopers hawk and long-tailed weasel: The proposed actions may impact individuals of the species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. Some impacts are beneficial.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) The Forest Service has collected population data specifically for MIS for the KNF (MIS Report) as part of the Forest Plan and FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1999a, 1999b, Wagner et al. 2001). To estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, the Forest Plan identified certain vertebrate species present in the area as MIS. Primary landscape types and MIS species for this project are shown in Table 27.

Table 27. Project Area Suitability for MIS Species and Associated Landscapes

MIS Species Indicator of: Project Area Suitability

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Longleaf Pine Landscape Suitable Red-headed Longleaf Pine Landscape Suitable Woodpecker Prairie Warbler Longleaf Pine Landscape Suitable Bachman’s Sparrow Longleaf Pine Landscape Suitable Bobwhite Quail Longleaf Pine Landscape Suitable Acadian Flycatcher Small Stream Riparian Landscape Suitable Louisiana Waterthrush Small Stream Riparian Landscape Suitable White-eyed Vireo Small Stream Riparian Landscape Suitable Yellow-billed Cuckoo Small Stream Riparian Landscape Suitable

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker See Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Proposed Species (TESC) discussion.

Read Headed Woodpecker

Alternative A – No Action The existing vegetation would continue to grow. Woody species would shade out grasses and forbs. The area could become a thicket. As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest could predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. The alternative does provide nesting and foraging requirements, however the open woods appearance, associated with thinning, would not be achieved. There would be a slight decrease in overall suitability.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that red-headed woodpeckers would be harmed during the cutting of trees and mechanical mid story activities, or other proposed actions. However, cavity trees may be destroyed. If logging activities occur during the nesting season, eggs and/or young may be destroyed. In alternative B, chemical application is not likely to harm red- headed woodpeckers since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds. Workers in the area may disturb red-headed woodpeckers in the project area for all proposed activities and they would probably leave the area. These activities would be short term in nature and the red-headed woodpeckers would probably return later. Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 80

Regeneration and thinning activities would open up the understory and mid-story areas to sunlight encouraging the production of seeds, fruits and other plant foods on the ground and the production of insects associated with this herbaceous vegetation. There would be a loss of potential hard and soft mast production with mid-story control and thinning. Other treatments would have no indirect effects on red-headed woodpeckers.

There would be a net increase in late successional stage habitat. These changes along with the proposed management activities result in better habitat for red-headed woodpeckers. It is consistent with standards and guides set up to reach a desired future condition as spelled out in the forest plan. The overall long-term impacts to this species should be beneficial under alternative B and C. Although there is a slight risk that this species may be harmed during tree removal activities, the enhancement of the preferred habitat should help maintain or increase the potential population of this species.

Prairie Warbler This species prefers thickets in early successional stages as well as saplings and shrub edges in older successional stage pine habitat. Much of the project area contains suitable habitat for this species.

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative the existing vegetation would continue to grow. Woody species would shade out grasses and forbs. The area would become more of a thicket. As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Although pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire, there would be a net loss of early successional vegetation. Overall suitability would change little. Habitat conditions under this alternative are more desirable than alternatives B and C.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that prairie warblers would be harmed during the cutting of trees and mechanical mid story activities, or other proposed actions. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging or management activities occur during the nesting season. Chemical application is not likely to harm prairie warblers since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds. Workers in the project area may disturb prairie warblers for all proposed activities and they would probably flee and return later.

The hardwood mid-story control and thinning activities would open up the understory and mid-story areas to sunlight encouraging the production of seeds, fruits and other plant foods on the ground and the production of insects associated with this herbaceous vegetation.

Alternative B and C provides for a net decrease in mid successional stage habitat. There is a net increase in early successional stage habitat. Benefits gained through mid-story/overstory removal, thinning and restoration cuts are more than offset by the release and shift in age class distribution. The overall changes are beneficial to prairie warblers. It is consistent with standards and guides set up to reach a future desired condition as spelled out in the forest plan.

Bachman’s Sparrow See sensitive species section.

Bobwhite Quail Since bobwhite quail are considered indicators of general longleaf pine forest landscapes, habitat in LTA 1 is generally considered suitable-optimal. Fair habitat occurs within the project area for quail. It provides water, food and cover. Conditions in certain areas provide an abundance of grasses and forbs. In addition insects feeding on grasses and forbs, such as grasshoppers, provide an important source of protein for quail, especially for chicks. It also provides excellent cover and nesting sites. Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 81

Alternative A – No Action The existing vegetation would continue to grow. Woody species would shade out grasses and forbs. The area would become a thicket, with few open travel ways. Seeds and insects would be increasingly difficult for quail to get to. This alternative would provide excellent cover.

As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Under the no treatment alternative, the area would continue to be fair quail habitat. Habitat suitability would be less as compared to alternative B and C.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that quail would be harmed during the cutting of trees and mechanical mid story activities, and other proposed actions. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging or management activities occur during the nesting season. Chemical application is not likely to harm quail since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds. Workers in the project area may disturb quail for all proposed activities and they would probably flee and return later.

The regeneration and thinning activities would open up the understory and mid-story areas to sunlight encouraging the production of seeds, fruits and other plant foods on the ground, the production of insects associated with this herbaceous vegetation and would allow open travel routes for quail. There would be a loss of potential hard and soft mast production with mid-story control and thinning. The early successional stage habitat created by the restoration harvest would provide an abundance of seeds, fruits and other plant foods. Cover habitat would also be provided. Control of woody vegetation would allow open travel routes while still providing excellent cover. This treatment would also provide good cover habitat as the vegetation returns.

It is consistent with standards and guides set up to reach a future desired condition as spelled out in the forest plan. The overall results from this alternative should provide fair to good quail habitat. Alternative B and C would result in better habitat than alternative A.

Acadian Flycatcher This species occurs mainly in deciduous forests with a moderate understory near small streams. Habitat for this species occurs within the project area.

Alternative A – No Action The no action alternative would promote the stability of this type of habitat and not change the streamside zone habitat. As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that Acadian flycatchers would be harmed by any of the proposed activities since most of the activities would occur outside of the preferred habitat of this species. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging or management activities occur during the nesting season. In alternative B, chemical application is not likely to harm the flycatchers since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds. Workers in the project area may disturb the birds during all proposed activities and they would probably flee and return later.

Louisiana Waterthrush See conservation species section.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 82

White eyed Vireo The white-eyed vireo occurs primarily in dense thickets, especially where moist, commonly in streamside shrubbery, swamp borders and openings, willow thickets and damp tangles. They forage almost exclusively between 3 and 15 feet of the ground while nests are placed in shrubs, vine tangles or small trees, generally 3 to 6 feet above the ground and often well hidden in a thicket. Habitat for this species is common in the project area in the form of streamside zone and overstocked stands with dense mid story thickets.

Alternative A – No Action The existing vegetation would continue to grow. Woody species would shade out grasses and forbs. The open areas could become a thicket and the areas that are currently dense would stay that way. The absence of vegetative manipulation is beneficial to this species and its habitat.

As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. Habitat conditions under this alternative are most desirable compared to the other alternatives.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that the vireos would be harmed during the cutting of trees and mechanical mid story activities, or the other proposed actions. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging or management activities occur during the nesting season. In alternative B, chemical application is not likely to harm vireos since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds. Workers in the project area may disturb vireos during all proposed activities and they would probably flee and return later.

Negative changes in suitability are attributed to the effects of mid-story/overstory removal, and thinning. Most of the proposed activities would occur in habitat outside of streamside zones. However, overstocked stands and dense mid story in the uplands would be managed and reduced.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo They prefer moist deciduous forest, bottomland woods, woodland thickets, and hardwood forest with tangles in the canopy. They generally avoid coniferous woods. Little habitat is available in the project area and most of the proposed actions are in upland pine habitat.

Alternative A – No Action There would be no change in habitat suitability with alternative A. As these stands develop through time, a mature upland hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. The alternative does provide food, water and shelter. Habitat conditions under this alternative are more desirable than the other alternatives.

Alternatives B and C It is unlikely that yellow-billed cuckoos would be harmed during any of the proposed activities since the activities would occur outside of the preferred habitat of this species. It is unlikely that cuckoos would be harmed during the cutting of trees and mechanical mid story activities, or any of the proposed actions. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging or management activities occur during the nesting season. In alternative B, chemical application is not likely to harm the cuckoo since the toxicity levels are so very low that it is considered practically non-toxic to birds.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 83

Workers in the project area may disturb the birds by all proposed activities and they would probably flee and return later.

Aquatic MIS Effects Pirate Perch and Blackspotted Topminnow Pirate Perch and Blackspotted Topminnows are considered forest wide indicators of slow-flowing streams with silt/clay bottoms. Small slow-flowing streams do exist in the project area.

Alternative A – No Action Indirect effects can be explained through the effects of the proposed treatments on sediment production, water yield and water quality. There would be no potential for any indirect effect upon the water resource as a result of this alternative. Sediment production from existing roads, past harvests and private land use will continue to occur. This alternative would have no increases in soil erosion. Natural soil erosion would continue from rainfall runoff and general forest use of roads and trails. There would be no changes in sediment or water yield as a result of this alternative.

Alternatives B and C Indirect effects can be explained through the effects of the proposed treatments on sediment production, water yield and water quality. Sediment production from existing roads, past harvests, and private land use will continue to occur. Other projects underway within the associated watersheds have been analyzed and the determination has been made that these projects will not affect pirate perch or blackspotted topminnows. The effects of this alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts on pirate perch or blackspotted topminnows.

The Forest annually monitors and evaluates programs and projects to determine whether they comply with management direction in the forest plan. Forest management activities do not seem to be negatively impacting aquatic systems. None of the aquatic MIS show an appreciable decline in relative abundance; and all show the presence of juveniles. All proposed activities associated with this project comply with the forest plan and would have similar effects.

Forest Game Species

Game species evaluated include eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, Northern bobwhite quail, Eastern fox squirrel and gray squirrel. Table 28 displays the species, the habitat indicator and condition of habitat.

Table 28. Forest Service Sensitive Species Evaluated in Detail

Game Species Indicator Habitat Condition

Eastern Wild Turkey Forest Wide Diversity Good White tail deer Forest Wide Diversity Good Northern Bobwhite Quail Longleaf Pine-Landscape wide Fair Eastern fox squirrel Cavities and Mast in Upland Fair Hardwoods Gray squirrel Cavities and Mast in Fair Bottomland Hardwoods

Habitats for game species include early, mid and late successional stages. Current conditions provide grasses and forbs for food. In addition, insects feeding on grasses and forbs, such as grasshoppers, provide an important source of protein for turkey and quail, especially for poults and chicks. Some of the area provides excellent cover and nesting sites for Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 84

turkey and quail, which are ground nesting birds. Hard mast production occurs in scattered locations throughout the project area and is preferred habitat for fox squirrel. Very little of the project area is bottomland hardwood, which is the preferred habitat for the gray squirrel.

All game species hunting seasons are the same as privately owned or state lands, except gun hunting for white-tailed deer and turkey hunting. There are approximately 39 hunting days for white-tailed deer per year, and 23 days for turkey hunting. Hunters have adequate access to the area and road opening and closing dates have been adjusted for allowing hunting access. The proposed changes to the boundaries of the existing “No Public Access” restriction would be modified on approximately 381 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative sites. Also, the boundary of the existing “No Hunting” restriction would be modified on approximately 758 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative sites.

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action Environmental changes would be limited to biological processes. Alternative A would favor species requiring mature stand conditions for food and cover. It would not provide for management of early successional species. There would be no direct effects on any game species since the results of any non-action would take more time to show impacts.

The gray squirrel and eastern fox squirrel would benefit from potential increases from hard mast production, but other species dependent on early successional habitat could be adversely affected by the lower potential for soft mast and forage production with canopy closure. The vertical diversity of hardwood stands would decrease with overstory canopy closure.

Without intermediate stand treatments, such as thinning, the available understory forage for deer would decline with the closure of the overstory. Fire-dependent species such as the bobwhite quail would decline as their habitat becomes unsuitable. Feeding and nesting areas for turkey and rabbits would decrease as woody vegetation encroaches (FEIS VM Vol. IV-121, p. 122).

Wildfire events would create new snags for dependent species but would burn dry snags currently in use due to increased fuel loads. Wildlife habitat could be destroyed by wildfire as fuels build up to hazardous conditions. As the forest ages, the late-successional species such as fox squirrel and gray squirrel would benefit from the mature and over- mature stands.

As stands develop through time, a mature hardwood forest would predominate in this area. Pockets of early successional stage habitat would be present due to natural mortality in the overstory from lightning, wind and ice storms, insect and disease outbreaks or wildfire. This alternative provides food, water and shelter requirements and therefore the indirect and cumulative effects are minimal. The effects of this alternative would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts on fisheries habitat.

Alternatives B and C Specific research on the effects of mechanical treatments on many species is scarce. Fortunately, since data regarding the effects of treatments on vegetation structure and species composition are available, conclusions regarding effects on wildlife can be made.

Timber harvest and mechanical mid-story removal could cause some temporary disturbances and direct effects and mortality of wildlife; especially if conducted during the nesting and fawning season. It would have a negligible effect on populations and have a positive effect on restoring the native habitats and therefore a beneficial indirect effect on game species. Vegetation treatments never involve all the landscape in a project area. Mosaic habitats are left to provide shelter for game species and new fresh browse results from vegetation treatments across the project area.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 85

Road maintenance and the use of roads may cause temporary disturbance to the species that occupy that particular area. The closure of some roads would lessen disturbance in those areas.

Herbicides, as prescribed in alternative B, have positive indirect effect on wildlife by altering vegetation species composition and structure. Reducing the exotic and invasive vegetation would allow more sunlight to get to the forest floor and produce more natural vegetation. The native grasses and forbs are more suitable for managing all wildlife species.

Glyphosate and triclopyr herbicides are proposed considerations in Alternative B, to be used as needed for site prep or release. Glyphosate is slightly toxic to birds and is generally recognized to be of low toxicity in the environment. They are relatively nontoxic to insects. Triclopyr is moderately toxic to mammals and bees and slightly toxic to birds. It does not bio-accumulate and is readily excreted. Triclopyr and glyphosate are moderately persistent (FEIS VM Vol. I, p.IV- 93 to 95). They are minimally soluble and extremely adsorptive. The overall direct effect of these herbicides to wildlife is low to moderate. When applied at the rates and by methods specified on the label, neither of these herbicides is expected to present a significant risk to humans, wildlife, or aquatic systems (FEIS VM Vol. 2, p. 6-8, 6-15, 8-8). With human activity causing animals to leave the area during treatment, the potential for exposure is lessened.

Since triclopyr is practically nontoxic to fish, effects to fish are unlikely. Herbicide risk to fish is negligible because triclopyr and glyphosate have low mobility in soil and herbicide-free buffer areas are maintained around surface water.

Release by selective methods such as spot-around or foliar spray makes it possible to leave individual stems or clumps of potential mast producing or other desirable hardwoods. Retaining small, scattered patches of brush helps maintain bird density and abundance.

Specific to this project, based on the available toxicity data and on the proposed application rates, the risk to wildlife from the use of glyphosate and triclopyr is low because this herbicide shows no tendency to bioaccumulation, long-term persistence in food chains and subsequent toxic effects are not considered a problem. These herbicides degrade relatively rapidly and vegetation release by herbicide is generally a one-time occurrence. Chronic effects are highly improbable since it is unlikely that terrestrial animals would be exposed more than once in a lifetime.

When different vegetation management practices are applied in a forest, a variety of vegetation types and structure results. Over time, a mosaic of trees is spread across the forest landscape and habitat is provided for many different species of animals. This effect increases over-all or "among-stand" wildlife diversity even though "within-stand" diversity for a particular site may decrease.

Local populations of small mammals, small birds, terrestrial amphibians and reptiles may be adversely affected if large areas are treated; however the reproductive capacity of these species is generally high enough to replace the few lost individuals within the next breeding cycle. Populations of larger mammals and birds are not likely to be affected at all.

The management actions proposed would not change the existing fish habitat or fish populations. Streamside zones (buffers) and erosion control measures on roads and skid trails would minimize stream silting. Streamside zones would also provide shade that is necessary for maintaining water temperatures required by aquatic organisms (FEIS VM Volume I, IV-74 IV-75). Streamside zones, which contain hardwood species used by wildlife in these compartments, would be protected from harvesting and site preparation in order to provide key area corridors for wildlife.

Plants This section includes key effects and conclusions for threatened, endangered, and proposed plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, Forest Service Southern Region sensitive species, and Forest conservation and management indicator species. The botany report (Moore, 2018) is incorporated by reference. See the

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 86

botany report (project record) for detailed information on methodology, analysis assumptions, best available science and data, habitats, populations, and effects that are not repeated in this section.

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Plants No TE (federally listed Threatened or Endangered) plants are known to occur on the Forest. However, it is possible that one federally threatened plant, earth fruit (Geocarpon minimum), could occur on the Forest. Earth fruit has a very narrow habitat specificity. Across its range it is found in saline prairies and sandstone glades (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 2000; Keith and Singhurst 2004; LNHP)

Suitable habitat for earth fruit is present in glades and barrens found on the Kisatchie Ranger District, as well as in a saline prairie on the Winn Ranger District.

Earth fruit was not found during past field surveys or during field surveys for the proposed project. Furthermore, suitable habitat for this plant was not found within the project area and has not been found on the Catahoula RD. Therefore, earth fruit was eliminated from further analysis

Forest Service Sensitive and Forest Plan Conservation Species There are 83 Sensitive and Conservation plant species on the Kisatchie National Forest (See Table 3 of botany report). 80 of these species were excluded from further analysis. An important consideration for determining which plant species to consider further is their habitat requirements. For example, plants without the proper habitat in the project area do not need to be considered further. Plants that are outside the known range of a particular species do not need to be considered further.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Twenty-four Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (RFSS) plants are listed as occurring, or likely to occur, on the Forest. All 24 RFSS plants were considered in the initial evaluation of this project. RFSS plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. RFSS plants that were eliminated from further discussion, and their reason for elimination, are shown in table 2 of the botany report.

Affected Environment The Silhouette project area is notable for its disturbed habitat. In the late 1800's virgin forests covered 85 percent of Louisiana. Much of the land was in pure stands of yellow pine which was harvested in the short span of roughly 25 years. This cut-out-and-get-out practice left Louisiana a blackened-stump landscape, just as the Great Depression gripped the nation and affected the people of Louisiana. The Silhouette Project contains a seed orchard and former nursery that was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1934. The Orchard and its water reservoir, which is now Stuart Lake, was named in honor of Robert Y. Stuart who was Chief of the Forest Service (1928-1933). Stuart Forest Nursery was initially established for the purpose of reforestation. It operated as a seedling nursery until 1964 when it evolved into a seed production and genetic research orchard, now known as the Stuart Genetic Resource Management Area (GRMA). With this change, the area of the Stuart Nursery expanded to include stands of genetically superior trees of the four pine species the nursery had been producing (i.e., Longleaf, Loblolly, Shortleaf, and Slash). The objective in 1964 was to produce genetically superior seeds for shipment to other nurseries, (Gutzman, 2010). Currently, the Stuart (GRMA) Orchard supplies pine seed to support reforestation efforts for the Kisatchie National Forest and The National Forests in Texas.

The dominant natural community in the project area is Upland Longleaf Pine Forest. Other natural communities found during past field surveys and in surveys for this project are Mixed Hardwood— Loblolly Pine Forest, Baygall and Bayhead Swamps, and Shortleaf-Pine—Oak-Hickory Forest. Small Stream Riparian Forest surrounds most of the

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 87

stream corridors. There a small site with Bottomland Hardwood Forest in Compartment 104. Numerous loblolly and longleaf pine plantations are also present.

NNIP Infestations are common throughout most of the project area, especially near the old camp structures, but vary in frequency and percent cover between species.

Environmental Consequences For RFSS plants with direct and indirect effects, the indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are:

A qualitative evaluation of whether populations are maintained or increased per FSM 2670.5 A qualitative evaluation of whether potential habitat is maintained or enhanced An evaluation of whether impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats are effectively minimized An evaluation on habitat and species resiliency to natural disturbances including fire and climate change.

This analysis is based on the following assumptions:

Carolina crownbeard

Alternative A – No Action This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard).

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) requires that a "No Action" alternative be analyzed. This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are compared. Under the No Action alternative current management activities would continue. Management actions proposed in the proposed alternative would not occur and the purpose and need would not be met. Any movement towards desired conditions within the project area would have to occur in other planned projects.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plants. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced and stands would remain overstocked. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Carolina crownbeard. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Stressors include increased shading, deep litter horizons, low soil moisture, and low nutrient availability, which contribute to a decline in species richness within the plant community. These factors would affect all understory species including SC plants. There would continue to be a reduction or loss of understory vegetation and therefore, a loss of understory services as outlined in the Timber and Wildlife specialists’ reports.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 88

In the no action alternative, there would be no road reconstruction or decommissioning so there would be no direct or indirect risks such as deaths of individual plants and no risk of introduction of NNIP from management activities associated with road activities.

With no action, there would be no restoration of stand structure and function in the treatment areas, resulting in continued departure from the desired conditions for all resources in this project area, including SC plants.

Cumulative Effects The boundary of this analysis is the project area. The time limit is from the year 2005 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented occurrence of Carolina crownbeard on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Past management actions within the project area have defined the existing conditions and set the stage for the current departure from reference condition and need for change. Conditions in many eastern United States forests, including the longleaf pine forests in central Louisiana, have changed from an ecosystem regulated by frequent, low intensity ground fire to a system with fire exclusion. These changes have resulted in decreased herbaceous vegetation and an increase in the shrub and mid-story layer frequented by species such as yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).

If the “no action” alternative is selected, a trend toward a more closed-canopy forest dominated by loblolly pine would continue. The effects of the no action would also result in a reduction in opportunities for cooperation with external partners for such items as survey and monitoring.

Alternatives B and C The analysis of all action alternatives are combined in this discussion. The effects of management actions on these species are expected to be similar for all alternatives. Localized treatments may vary between alternatives.

Cumulative Effects The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2003, when Carolina crownbeard was first found on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Carolina crownbeard and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

The drought in 2010 and 2011 probably affected populations of Carolina crownbeard, but no quantitative information was taken regarding this event. Increased shade resulting from a lack of logging probably had a more negative effect on this species.

Activities such as vehicle travel on established roads and road maintenance occur in some areas near the populations but do not directly affect plants.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in the habitat of Carolina crownbeard. Activities include hiking, horseback riding and dispersed camping.

The Travel Management Rule has been implemented forest-wide. The cumulative effects to this and other species is the reduction in the numbers of motorized routes and the elimination of cross-country travel. Negative effects from motorized such as crushing of plants, damage to potential habitat such damage to soils, fragmentation of habitat and introduction of NNIP into the habitats and/or populations would be reduced. These reductions would be from the elimination of most cross-country travel and through the reduction of road density. These actions, combined with such actions as road closures in this project would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic to SC habitat.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 89

Several utility corridors are present in the potential habitat (no plants have been identified along corridor) of Carolina crownbeard. Construction, expansion and maintenance of these corridors might result in loss of individuals along the corridor routes. The presence of these corridors also provides dispersal vectors for NNIP along the utility corridor and into adjacent forested areas.

Determination The Silhouette project may impact individuals of Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Conservation Plants Conservation plants are identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1999). Generally speaking, the RFSS list includes species rare throughout their range, while conservation species occur more commonly outside Louisiana but are rare within the State. In a few cases, these conservation species occur at only one or a few sites in Louisiana or on the Forest. Species are listed and delisted as additional information becomes available, so periodic revisions to the list are necessary. An individual species’ status, distribution, and subsequent designation is based upon occurrence records, information and knowledge of the Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the state Natural Heritage Program, and The Nature Conservancy.

Not all of the conservation species have suitable habitat within the project area, or they may be found in habitats that may be present, but are prohibited from disturbance under the Forest Plan. With regard to the latter, it is important to note that the Forest Plan prohibits most activities that would disturb the land within 50 feet of a stream (this zone is known as a streamside habitat protection zone or SHPZ), including timber production, regeneration by clearcutting, seed-tree, or shelterwood, salvage of single or double trees, mechanical site preparation, log decks or landings, and extraction of common variety minerals - Forest Wide standards FW-510 and FW-511 on page 2-43 of the Forest Plan.

Forest Service direction relevant to this project includes the 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Kisatchie National Forest, the Environmental Impact Statement for the 1999 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, and Forest Service Manual (FSM) section 2670.32. The Forest Plan also has guidelines regarding such habitats as bogs, bayhead swamps, calcareous prairies, calcareous streamside forest, glades, and barrens in Forest Wide (FW) standards and guidelines FW-677 through FW-700 on pages 2-57 through 2-60.

The Kisatchie National Forest (National Forest) lists 83 Conservation plants as occurring, or likely to occur, on the forest Table 2 of botany report. All 83 Conservation plants were considered in the initial evaluation of this project.

Conservation plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. Conservation plants that were eliminated from further discussion, and their reason for elimination, are shown in Table 3 of botany report. Two Conservation plants were retained for further discussion. These plants are Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma Grasspink) and Panicum strigosum var. leucoblepharis (roughhair Panic Grass).

Conservation plants with direct and indirect effects The indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are:

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 90

The mitigation measures and design features identified in this document will be incorporated into project design and implementation All treatments will occur as analyzed in the various specialists’ reports Fire effects to individual species vary depending on several factors including life cycle, time of burning and several biotic and abiotic factors (Pike, 2010). As a result, the responses of the plant species discussed in this report may vary in any given area or time. The effect of fire on these species can be mitigated through the burning prescription.

Oklahoma grass-pink

Existing condition Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) is a newly described species (Goldman 1995). It was collected at the Stuart Forest Nursery, Catahoula Ranger District, in 1935 by A.D. McKellar, and subsequently identified at that time as Calopogon pulchellus, only to be later vetted multiple times as C. tuberosus until publication of Goldman (1995). This population was re-discovered by Shannan Sharp in 2010, and it occurs within the boundaries of the Silhouette project area. McKellar described the area of collection as fine sandy loam in a pine grassland.

Calopogon oklahomensis is an herb with pink flowers in a raceme (Liggio and Liggio 1999). The stems, which originate from a forked corm, can be up to 14” tall. Oklahoma grass-pink blooms in March and April and is found in bogs. Outside of Louisiana, Oklahoma grass pink has been found in Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin (USDA NRCS 2010). Within Louisiana, Oklahoma grass pink has been found in Beauregard, Calcasieu, Grant, Jefferson Davis, and Winn Parishes (USDA NRCS 2010).

In eastern Texas and western Louisiana, herbarium label data suggest that C. oklahomensis blooms from March to early May, whereas C. tuberosus blooms from May to June (Goldman 1995).

Alternative A No Action This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis).

Under the No Action alternative current management activities would continue. Management actions proposed in the proposed alternative would not occur and the purpose and need would not be met. Any movement towards desired conditions within the project area would have to occur in other planned projects.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plant. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced, stands would remain overstocked, and its preferred habitat – bogs and open seeps – would continue their loss due to woody encroachment. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Oklahoma grass-pink. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 91

including SC plants. There would continue to be a reduction or loss of understory vegetation and therefore, a loss of understory services as outlined in the Timber and Wildlife specialists’ reports.

Cumulative Effects The boundary of this analysis is the project area. The time limit is from the year 2005 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented re-occurrence of Oklahoma grass-pink on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Direct and Indirect Effects If Alternative B is implemented, Oklahoma grass-pink could be affected. There could be adverse direct effects. Thinning activities and herbicide use for site prep and invasive plant treatment could damage or destroy plants, if present.

If Alternative C is implemented, Oklahoma grass-pink might be affected. Effects would be very similar to those of Alternative B, the proposed action alternative. There would be fewer direct and indirect effects with the elimination of herbicide use for noxious weed control, site prep and release.

Cumulative Effects The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2010, when Oklahoma grass-pink was rediscovered on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Oklahoma grass-pink and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

The drought in 2010 and 2011 probably affected populations of Oklahoma grass-pink, but no quantitative information was taken regarding this event. Increased competition from woody brush and bahia grass encroachment probably had a more negative effect on this species.

Activities such as mowing occur in the area where Oklahoma grass-pink was rediscovered, but this action probably helps Oklahoma grass-pink by reducing competition from woody species. Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 92

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions Several utility corridors are present in the project area, although no plants have yet been found along these rights-of- way. Construction, expansion and maintenance of these corridors might result in loss of individuals along the corridor routes. The presence of these corridors also provides dispersal vectors for NNIP along the utility corridor and into adjacent forested areas.

Determination It is my determination that the Silhouette project may impact individuals of Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma grass- pink) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Roughhair panic grass

Existing condition Roughhair panic grass (Dichanthelium strigosum ssp. leucoblepharis) is a perennial grass that grows in low, moist, sandy pinelands and bogs (Freckmann and LeLong). The species (but not necessarily the variety) has been found in Sabine, St. Helena, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa and Vernon parishes (Allen, Newman and Winters, 2004). In addition, there is one report from the 1950s of the species being found on the Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu RD. Its range extends from North Carolina along the coastal plain to Florida and westward to eastern Texas and into Mexico.

There is a documented occurrence for Roughhair panic grass in or near the Silhouette project area. O.G. Langdon collected a voucher on May 5th, 1948 on the “Kisatchie NF, Catahoula district, Stag Rd., with open longleaf pine, bluestems, other panicums and cutover muhly”

Alternative A No Action This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Roughhair panic grass. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) requires that a "No Action" alternative be analyzed. This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are compared.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plant. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced, stands would remain overstocked, and its preferred habitat – bogs and open seeps – would continue their loss due to woody encroachment. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Roughhair panic grass. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 93

If Alternative C is implemented, Roughhair panic grass might be affected. Effects would be very similar to those of Alternative B, the proposed action alternative. There would be fewer direct and indirect effects with the elimination of herbicide use for noxious weed control, site prep and release.

Cumulative Effects The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2010, when Roughhair panic grass was discovered on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Oklahoma grass-pink and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

The drought in 2010 and 2011 probably affected populations of Roughhair panic grass, but no quantitative information was taken regarding this event. Increased competition from woody brush and bahia grass encroachment probably had a more negative effect on this species.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 94

routes. The presence of these corridors also provides dispersal vectors for NNIP along the utility corridor and into adjacent forested areas.

Determination It is my determination that the Silhouette project may impact individuals of Roughhair panic grass (Dichanthelium strigosum ssp. leucoblepharis) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Non-Native Invasive Plants (NNIP) This analysis is based on the following assumptions.

• The mitigation measures and design features will be incorporated into project design and implementation • All treatments will occur as analyzed in the various specialists’ reports • The mitigations and Best Management Practices addressed in this document are included in analysis and project implementation. (See Appendix B for these features)

NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest are managed using the best available science. There are 11 NNIP found in the Silhouette project area (Table 29). Within the context of the analysis, prevention means minimizing introduction of a weed species into the project area and is usually combined with eradication to allow for elimination of spot populations as they arise. Eradication means attempting to totally eliminate a species from the forests. Control means preventing seed production throughout a target patch and reducing the area covered by a species, whereas contain means to prevent the species from expanding beyond the perimeter of existing patches.

Table 29. NNIP Found in the Silhouette Project Area Common name Scientific name Habitat

1 Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides aquatic

2 Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense shrub

3 Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera tree

4 Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis vine

5 Golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea bamboo

6 Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum vine

7 Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica vine

8 Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense grass

9 sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata forb

10 silktree Albizia julibrissin tree

11 Tungoil tree Paspalum urvillei grass

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 95

Effects Common to All Species Alternative A - No Action The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) requires that a "No Action" alternative be analyzed. This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are compared.

Direct and Indirect Effects There would be no direct effects to NNIP from management actions associated with the Silhouette project because none would occur. Mitigation measures, treatments and surveys that may have been part of the Silhouette project for NNIP would not occur. As a result, weed Infestations that might have been detected and treated would go unnoticed and continue to expand unless detected by other surveys or independent observations.

Treatments that would have been part of the mitigating actions of Silhouette management would not be done. As a result, weed Infestations within the treatment units of Silhouette would not be done unless the locations are included in another project area or are treated by a cooperating agency. For example, treatments along highways or roadways by various agencies would continue in coordination other agencies but would not expand outside of highway right of ways. The continued treatment of NNIP in recently analyzed or future projects not included in the Silhouette analysis where weed treatments are included as part of the project would continue as would surveys for other projects that are not part of the Initiative. It is not anticipated that these areas would cover as much area as that being analyzed under Silhouette.

Cumulative Effects The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the project area for the Silhouette project. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2003. Past management activities and disturbances have contributed to the establishment and distribution of NNIP in the project area. Past activities such as military use, grazing, vegetation treatments, recreation uses, infrastructure development and maintenance, road maintenance and travel along roadways (including paved roads and highways) affected the abundance and distribution of NNIP. However, without Information on known distribution of NNIP species, the past effects of management actions are unclear

Sources of introduction for NNIP are often unknown or difficult to verify. Prior to 2003, occurrences and distribution of NNIP on the forests were largely unknown. Beginning in 2003, the Kisatchie National Forest began surveying and documenting NNIP occurrences on the Forest. These actions were largely due to an increasing awareness of NNIP and their potential effects on native ecosystems. Location data were submitted to the Natural Resource Information System/Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (NRIS/TESP) database, which is the Forest Service database of record for non-native invasive species and rare plants. These surveys helped document the occurrences and areal extent of NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest

Since 2003, most decision documents have included the control of NNIP. These decisions were beneficial management actions that supported management control objectives for NNIP on the forest, and are past cumulative actions for controlling NNIP on the National Forests. The Kisatchie National Forest has treated certain Infestations with herbicides. Additionally, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and various public utilities have used herbicide to treat NNIP and woody brush along roadways and rights-of-way under their jurisdiction. Collectively, these treatments have reduced Infestations in some areas and reduced the risk of noxious weeds spreading into new areas. Department of Defense lands adjacent to the Kisatchie National Forest (Fort Polk, Peason Ridge, and Camp Beauregard) have probably treated NNIP, but the areas and acreages treated are unknown.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 96

resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. These changes have resulted in plant communities more prone to loss from NNIP. Historically, native plant communities in longleaf pine have been resilient to fire, but this resilience is threatened by invasion of NNIP. Once these non-native species are established, they can change community composition and ecosystem processes including the fire/fuel cycle (Collins, 2004).

The cumulative effects of no action include the continuation of departure from the historic fire cycles and intervals. The results would be continuation of departure in some areas and the risks of wildfires would continue to increase. These risks and departures would continue to be addressed on individual project basis within the project area.

Disturbance is a major factor in noxious weed invasions. Climate change is expected to be a source of widespread disturbances. Higher temperatures would occur and precipitation cycles would be modified from current patterns over large areas. The warmer climate conditions may affect ecosystems by altering biotic and abiotic factors and increase the extent and severity of disturbances for some species (Bradley et al. 2010; Hellmann et al. 2008; Middleton 2006).

Alternatives B and C Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects of management activities include ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to increase the acreage and/or density of the existing Infestations within the project area. Disturbance is a natural process in our landscape but it can contribute to the spread of NNIP by creating potential sites for invasion. Disturbance may contribute to the spread of weeds by eliminating competition from existing vegetation, creating bare ground that can be more easily invaded by NNIP, and exposing the NNIP seedbank to favorable growing conditions.

The level of disturbance is important. Severe disturbance removes competitive vegetation, alters nutrient composition, and creates bare soil. This makes potential sites for the invasion or spread of NNIP. Examples of management activities that would create localized severe disturbance include burned areas from slash piles, creation of log decks, bare soil created through road reconstruction, road decommissioning, temporary road construction and use by machinery during mechanical thinning. Other management activities associated with the project would be sources of disturbance but the level of disturbance would not be as severe. Examples include hand thinning.

Tree removal indirectly affects NNIP by reducing tree canopy and stand density. Treatments that reduce the tree canopy and lower the stand density would affect all understory plants, including NNIP, by allowing more sunlight, increasing available nutrients and temporarily decreasing interspecies competition as well as intraspecies competition. The increased availability of resources and decrease in competition can also provide favorable conditions for NNIP and could increase the size and density of existing populations, especially in areas where weed Infestations already exist. These effects are reduced to a non-significant level by incorporating the mitigations, best management practices and NNIP treatments for the project.

Direct and indirect effects of temporary road construction, road reconstruction and maintenance or road decommissioning include disturbance and increased risks of dispersal of existing weed species and populations and introduction of new species. These can be mitigated by following the mitigation measures and design features above. Roads that would be decommissioned as part of the Silhouette project would be complementary to the goals of Travel Management objectives for the forests.

Reducing the road mileage in the treatment areas, through decommissioning, would help reduce the risk of present and future dispersal of NNIP along roadways (Rooney, 2005). This reduction in risk would move toward the desired condition of managing and treating NNIP since the density of NNIP tends to be greater along roadways as opposed to interior areas where disturbances tend to be less (Fowler et al., 2008 and Birdsall et al. 2012).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 97

Cumulative effects

Past actions The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the Silhouette project area boundary. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2000. Prior to 20004, occurrences and distribution of NNIP on the forests were largely unknown. Beginning in 2000, the Kisatchie National Forest began surveying and documenting NNIP occurrences on the Forest. These actions were largely due to an increasing awareness of NNIP and their potential effects on native ecosystems. Location data were submitted to the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) threatened, endangered and sensitive plants (NRIS/TESP) database, which is the Forest Service database of record for non-native invasive species and rare plants. These surveys helped document the occurrences and areal extent of NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Since 2000, NNIP surveys were conducted on forest projects that would have management actions associated with soil disturbance. Despite these efforts, there is no evidence the magnitude or distribution of invasive weed species is decreasing on the Kisatchie National Forest or surrounding lands. Rather, it is likely that weed populations are being maintained at approximately the same levels or increasing as a result of establishment of new populations from unmanaged uses on private, state, county, municipal and federal lands.

Ongoing and foreseeable actions Implementation continues on numerous projects that have been analyzed in the past. These projects will continue to provide sources of effects similar to the direct and indirect effects described above including mitigations for NNIP control. NNIP surveys and control measures will continue in other jurisdictions within or adjacent to the project boundary including survey and control along Parish and state highways, and utility rights-of-way.

Collectively, these actions are expected to reduce the densities and areas of infestations on a local basis but are not anticipated to substantially reduce the distribution and acreage of NNIP on an area-wide basis. These actions will reduce the risk of expansion of NNIP from established Infestations to other areas.

Actions on private lands within or adjacent to the project area are expected to continue, including uses that contribute to introduction and dispersal of NNIP, introductions of NNIP through planting and NNIP control on private parcels. None of these actions is under Forest Service control but affect the abundance and distribution of NNIP within the project boundary.

The foreseeable actions include ongoing projects discussed in the cumulative effects document, management actions implemented as part of this project and the ongoing weed control programs on the forest. Collectively, these actions have the potential to control and/or eradicate many Infestations on the forest and prevent the introduction of new species

The botany analysis concludes for all NNIP species, alternative A would result in continued spread. With herbicidal treatment, alternative B should halt spread. Without herbicidal treatment, alternative C is likely to result in continued spread. Table 30 is a summary of the likely impacts to NNIP by the proposed Silhouette project.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 98

Table 30. Alternative Effects on NNIP

Common Alternative A Alternatives B Alternative C Name herbicide treatments 1 Silk Tree continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 2 King Ranch Bluestem continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 3 Japanese Lespedeza continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 4 Japanese privet continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 5 Chinese privet continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 6 Japanese Honeysuckle continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 7 Japanese climbing fern continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 8 Chinaberry continued spread continued spread should halt spread

herbicide treatments 9 Vasey grass continued spread continued spread should halt spread

herbicide treatments 10 Chamber bitter continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 11 Kudzu continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 12 Scarlet firethorn continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 13 Callery pear continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 14 McCartney rose continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 15 Johnsongrass continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 16 Chinese tallow continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 17 Brazilian vervain continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 18 Chinese wisteria continued spread continued spread should halt spread

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 99

Cumulative Effects – All alternatives The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the project area. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2004. Past management activities and disturbances, especially the formation of Silhouette in the 1940s, have contributed to the establishment and distribution of NNIP in the project area. Past activities such as military use (including landscaping with certain species that are still present in the project area), grazing, vegetation treatments, recreation uses, infrastructure development and maintenance, road maintenance and travel along roadways (including paved roads and highways) affected the abundance and distribution of NNIP. However, without Information on known distribution of NNIP species, the past effects of management actions are unclear.

Sources of introduction for NNIP are often unknown or difficult to verify. Prior to 2003, occurrences and distribution of NNIP on the forests were largely unknown. Beginning in 2003, the Forest began surveying and documenting NNIP occurrences (on the Forest). These actions were largely due to an increasing awareness of NNIP and their potential effects on native ecosystems. Location data were submitted to the Natural Resource Information System/threatened, endangered, and sensitive plants (NRIS/TESP) database, which is the Forest Service database of record for non-native invasive species and rare plants. These surveys helped document the occurrences and areal extent of NNIP on the Forest.

The Forest has treated certain infestations with herbicides. Additionally, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and various public utilities have used herbicide to treat NNIP and woody brush along roadways and rights-of-way under their jurisdiction. Collectively, these treatments have reduced infestations in some areas and reduced the risk of noxious weeds spreading into new areas.

Past management actions within the project area have defined the existing conditions and set the stage for the current departure from reference condition and need for change. Past activities in the project area, principally military use, have resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. These changes have resulted in plant communities more prone to loss from NNIP. Historically, native plant communities in longleaf pine have been resilient to fire, but this resilience is threatened by invasion of NNIP. Once these non-native species are established, they can change community composition and ecosystem processes including the fire/fuel cycle (Collins et al. 2004).

Ongoing and foreseeable actions The cumulative effects of no action (alternative A) include the continuation of departure from the historic fire cycles and intervals. The results would be continuation of departure in some areas and the risks of wildfires would continue to increase. These risks and departures would continue to be addressed on individual project basis within the project area.

Implementation continues on numerous projects that have been analyzed in the past (see the cumulative effects discussion at the beginning of chapter 3). Cumulatively, these projects would continue to provide sources of effects similar to the direct and indirect effects described above (for alternatives B and C) including mitigations for NNIP control.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 100

Reasonably foreseeable actions (see cumulative effects discussion at the beginning of chapter 3) include a variety of projects including fuels reduction and forest health projects with effects similar to those discussed for this project (alternatives B and C).

Noxious or invasive survey and control would continue in other jurisdictions within or adjacent to the project boundary including survey and control along Parish and state highways, and utility rights-of-way. Collectively (cumulatively), these actions are expected to reduce the densities and areas of infestations on a local basis but are not anticipated to substantially reduce the distribution and acreage of NNIP on an area-wide basis. These actions would reduce the risk of expansion of NNIP from established infestations to other areas.

Actions on private lands within or adjacent areas are expected to continue, including uses that contribute to introduction and dispersal of NNIP, introductions of non-native plants through planting and NNIP control on private parcels. None of these actions is under Forest Service control but affect the abundance and distribution of NNIP within the project boundary.

The foreseeable actions include ongoing projects discussed in the cumulative effects management actions implemented as part of this project and the ongoing weed control programs on the forest. Collectively (cumulatively), these actions (alternatives B and C) have the potential to control and/or eradicate many infestations on the Forest and prevent the introduction of new species.

Heritage Resources Introduction Protected heritage resources within the project area include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. Historic properties (heritage resources unevaluated, included in, or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are managed according federal, preservation statutes and their implementing regulations, and stipulations included in the programmatic agreement (KNF PA) among the Forest, the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (LA SHPO), the Advisory Council of Historic Places (ACHP), the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma regarding the process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Cultural resource survey and inventory of the project area consisted of previous and recent investigations from 1983 to 2017 conducted in consultation with the LA SHPO and appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).

Affected Environment A total 30 heritage resources are located within the proposed project area of potential effect. Of this total, 21 heritage resources have been determined to be not eligible for the NRHP, eight are unevaluated, and one is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP. The 8 unevaluated sites and 1 eligible site will be protected from ground disturbing activities pursuant to mitigation measures within the KNF PA.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 101

Environmental Consequences Alternative A – No Action There would be no heritage resources affected with implementation of the No Action alternative. Present conditions would persist with no substantial impacts to heritage resources anticipated. Alternatives B and C Mechanical timber treatments, road construction, and other ground-disturbing activities associated with alternative B and C have the potential to affect heritage resources. Impacts can include compaction, rutting, erosion, dislocation or breakage of artifacts and features and destruction of sites and site stratigraphy. Mitigation for alternatives B and C include placing a 25-meter buffer around protected archaeological sites to minimize direct and indirect effects. Protection measures include archaeological monitoring during mechanical activities to ensure avoidance and protection. In the event that additional or previously unknown archaeological resources are discovered at any time during project implementation, the activity will cease immediately and the Forest Archaeologist will be notified. The activity in that location shall be suspended until an evaluation of the resource has been made by a qualified Archaeologist, in consultation with the LA SHPO, the appropriate THPOs, and the ACHP (36 CFR 800.13).

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A – No Action Under the no action alternative, the proposed forest health project does not occur, and there would be no additional effects as a result of this project. Any cumulative effects to heritage resources that could occur would not be considered to be adverse.

Alternatives B and C Alternative B and C have the potential to increase the amount of ground-disturbing activities, including mechanical timber treatments, road construction, skidding and other ground-disturbing activities. When considered together with the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, these activities have the potential to affect heritage resources. However, all undertakings that have the potential to affect heritage resources will go through the Section 106 review process in consultation with the LA SHPO and appropriate THPOs. Additionally, all heritage resources that are unevaluated, listed on the NRHP, or eligible for the NRHP will be avoided or the adverse effects will be mitigated through measures stipulated in the KNF PA. To have a cumulative effect, sufficient information would have to be lost over time and over the forest, such that understanding of prehistoric and historic settlement activities would be lost. The identification and avoidance of eligible and potentially eligible heritage resources from the current proposed action would prevent any adverse cumulative effect caused by a substantial loss of information.

Recreation There is one developed recreation complex on the Catahoula Ranger District called Stuart Lake Recreation Area. The facility offers activities such as swimming, fishing, picnicking, hiking, and other amenities. This facility is located in the project area. There are also ~ 25 miles of existing trails throughout the District. They include the Glenn Emery Trail (2 miles), the Livingston-

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 102

Hickman Loop (13.0 miles), the Livingston-Little Creek Loop (23.0 miles), and Stuart Lake Nature Trail (.5 miles). Of these trails only the Glenn Emery is within the project area.

The open Forest policy of the Kisatchie National Forest allows non-motorized recreational uses such as hunting, horseback riding, fishing, bird watching, hiking, and mountain biking. Hunting opportunities generally range from fair to good for most game species. There are also hunting opportunities for small game species. Picnicking, hiking, swimming, fishing and camping historically has been the highest recreational use within the project area.

The Recreational Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications for this area is Roaded Natural Modified (Management Area 5), which allows for (1) evidence of past human activities, (2) natural setting that has had modifications, which range from being easily noticed to strongly dominate to observers within the area, (3) roads and trails present with motorized use, (4) structures generally scattered but small clusters evident to travel route observers, and (5) opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation. (Forest Service, 1999)

Range of Opportunities The Silhouette project area receives a variety of year-round use of picnicking, hiking, fishing, camping and wildlife viewing.

One designated trail occurs within the project area, the Glenn Emery Trail which is approximately 2 miles.

Nature watchers and hikers, including groups and clubs, tend to disperse their activities within the project area. (Steward, 2018)

Deer hunting is a popular use in the project area from October 1 to January 30. Currently, hunters utilize the 51 miles of existing roads to access hunting units. In addition to the miles of open, designated road about 5 miles of closed road is available for non-motorized access into hunting units.

Visitation estimates are only available at the Forest level. A survey conducted in 2010 indicates the customer base for the Kisatchie is mostly local; about three-fourths of visits come from people living within 50 miles of the forest. Hunting (34%), motorized trail activity (13%), and fishing (7%) are the most frequently selected primary activities. Together, these three account for over half of all visits. About 47 percent of the visits include wildlife viewing as one of the activities (NVUM 2010). The survey results, which found hunting and motorized trail use are the highest uses on the Forest, are consistent with the recreational use patterns observed within the project area (Stewart 2018, personal communication).

Special Designations There are no special designations within the project area such as designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, research natural areas or national recreation areas. There are no nationally designated trails within the project area. There are no designated wild and scenic rivers (WSR) with in the project area. The only federally designated WSR on the Forest is the Saline Bayou National Scenic River (MA 10 on the KNF). One Louisiana Natural and Scenic River, Dyson Creek, is north of the Silhouette project area (http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/louisiana-natural-and-scenic-rivers-descriptions-and-map).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 103

Environmental Consequences The cumulative effects boundary for recreation is the project area with the inclusion of 19 miles of roads managed by other jurisdictions including Grant Parish and Louisiana Department of Transportation (LA DOT) (Table 31) as those roads provide the access to the Forest Service system.

Table 31. Silhouette Project Area Transportation System (TAP, 2018)

Jurisdiction/Primary Maintainer Maintenance Level Miles

USFS/USFS 1 11 USFS/USFS 2 25 USFS/Parish 2 0.081 USFS/USFS 3 6 USFS/Parish 3 2 USFS/USFS 4 3.5 USFS/USFS 5 5 Parish 5 9 LaDOT 4 8 Total 69.58

Alternative A – No Action In the no action alternative, there would no direct effect to recreation setting and range of opportunities. However, as roads continue to degrade, more miles may become inaccessible to motorized vehicles indirectly affecting (reducing) hunting access and the ability to explore the project area. This is supported by the 2010 NVUM survey. The survey indicates at least 32 percent of forest visitors were “driving for pleasure” and at least 30 percent of forest visitors (in 2010) were dissatisfied with road conditions in dispersed recreation settings (NVUM 2010). Currently, dense vegetation conditions limit non-motorized travel off roads. As vegetation density increases this opportunity is likely to decrease.

In no action, about 2,076 acres of prescribed fire would continue to be applied, about 765 acres of vegetation treatments would occur from approximately 2019 to 2022, about 16 miles of annual maintenance would occur on roads. There are no foreseeable projects proposed by any Agency (FS, Parish or LA DOT) that would measurably upgrade road conditions to improve or retain access within the project area. There would be no Stuart Lake enhancements aesthetically. The current condition of the recreation area would remain the same or continue to decline.

Alternatives B and C RN settings would be affected in the short term by mechanical treatments. Skid trails that are developed to remove timber products would be apparent in the short term (1-2 years) following use but be naturalized (including seeding) in the long term (up to 10 years). This assumption is based on previous experience with similar projects in similar terrain across the district including the Middle Dry Prong EA (USDA, 2011).

Slash could be present in the project area for several years post-treatment. Once slash is removed with prescribed fire, settings would recover quickly (within 1 year) and be natural in appearance and undisturbed (Steward, 2018). With mitigation, slash would not be accumulated within 100 feet of the Glenn Emery Trail. In the long term (up to 10 years), there would be no net change in

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 104

the RN setting as a result of project. Over 54 miles of road would remain open to motorized vehicles year-round.

In alternative B, vegetation and road activities are likely to require temporary closures that may last several weeks or months each year for several years (up to 10 years or duration of the project). Access to recreation opportunities would be affected. Some recreationists (it is not possible to predict percentage of total users) would be displaced by closures and would have to seek out alternative areas. Forest users are accustomed to an area being closed for prescribed fire activities. Project treatment closures would be similar to those already employed. Therefore, displacement from project activities is likely to be tolerable to visitors. However, design criteria are in place to inform the public of upcoming closures.

Approximately 16 miles of road would be improved. During the duration of the project (up to 10 years) road maintenance would continue to occur and spot surfacing would improve ease of travel. There would be short-term disturbance and temporary changes in settings while road improvements and maintenance is in progress. Upgrading road condition may increase recreational use throughout the project area since the 2010 NVUM survey indicates local residents are the predominant users of the Forest and at least 32 percent of the visitors surveyed in 2010 indicated they were “driving for pleasure”.

Approximately 5 miles of road would be closed to motorized use. The closures would result in individuals not having motorized access to their favorite road. In some cases, forest users may have to park and walk into a hunting unit. However, the resultant open road system ensures adequate motorized access to each compartment in the project area. In addition, access to all of the project area would continue to be available for non-motorized travel.

Approximately 2.6 miles on FS roads 146-A & CO87 will remain open for public walking access “Foot Travel Only” within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard (See Figure 28 in Appendix A).

In both the short (1 to 5 years post treatment) and long term (5 to 10 years), vegetation would resemble park-like conditions with groups of trees and increased openings with grasses and forbs. The open condition would maintain or increase opportunities for hiking (all non-motorized uses) who prefer off-road and off-trail travel.

The existing condition has been influenced by past management actions as displayed in Chapter 3 of the EA. There are very few ongoing or reasonably foreseeable projects that would measurably affect recreation setting and opportunities. Approximately 765 acres of mechanical treatment (pervious NEPA decision) will occur from 2018 to 2019. At least 2,076 acres of prescribed fire (previous NEPA decision) will routinely be applied to each compartment in intervals ranging from 3 to 5 years. Cumulatively, the 765 acres of mechanical treatment, when considered with this project’s treatment acres, would collectively arrange vegetation in open and park-like arrangements. With the addition of fire, the grassy understory and openness would be maintained. Recreation settings and opportunities would be maintained.

Also in alternative B, the use of aquatic herbicides is proposed to control invasive plant species within Stuart Lake. Herbicide application would be performed outside of peak recreation seasons as to minimize associated risk. The proposed herbicides to be used are Floridone, Glyphosate, Endothall, Imazapry, imazamox, and 2-4 D.

Fluidone

Under normal conditions of use, there is no basis for asserting that toxic effects are plausible in humans, terrestrial animals, or aquatic animals. (0521002a_Fluridone, p. xi)

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 105

Glyphosate

The mammalian toxicity of glyphosate is low, and very few specific hazards can be identified. There is no indication that technical grade glyphosate causes birth defects. (Glyphosate_SERA_ TR-052-22-03b, p.xviii).

For members of the general public, the only non-accidental exposure scenario of concern is for acute exposure involving the consumption of contaminated vegetation shortly after glyphosate is applied. (Glyphosate_SERA_ TR-052-22-03b, p.xx)

The toxicity of the original Roundup and similar formulations containing polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) surfactants is far greater than the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate, Rodeo, or other formulations that do not contain surfactants. (Glyphosate_SERA_TR-052-22-03b, p.xxi)

Endothall

Risks to aquatic organisms are highly dependent of the formulation of endothall used. Effective applications of Hydrothol formulations could adversely affect sensitive species of aquatic animals as well as aquatic plants. Effective applications of Aquathol formulations will adversely affect aquatic macrophytes, while adverse toxic effects in other groups of organisms are less likely. For both types of formulations, partial or shore-line treatments could be less hazardous to aquatic species than treatments of the entire water body might be. For the general public, the only exposure scenarios of concern involve the consumption of contaminated water. The ecological risk assessment for endothall suggests that adverse effects in terrestrial organisms are not likely to occur, except in the case of a severe spill, in which case canids are the most likely groups of terrestrial organisms to be adversely affected. (052-16-04a_Endothall p. xi)

Imazapyr

While adverse effects on plants may be anticipated, there is no basis for asserting that applications of imazapyr will pose any substantial risk to humans or other species of animals. The U.S. EPA/OPP classifies imazapyr as practically non-toxic to mammals, birds, honeybees, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. The major uncertainties regarding potential toxic effects in animals are associated with the lack of toxicity data on reptiles and amphibians. (Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a p. xii)

Imazamox

While adverse effects on plants may be anticipated, there is no basis for asserting that applications of imazamox will pose any substantial risk to humans or other species of animals. (052-24-02a_Imazamox, p. xi)

2,4-D

Unless steps are taken to mitigate risks, workers involved in the application of 2,4-D and members of the general public who consume vegetation contaminated with 2,4-D could be exposed to 2,4-D levels greater than those which are generally regarded as acceptable. In some cases, the exceedances are substantial. Similarly, adverse effects in the normal use of 2,4-D salts or esters could occur in groups of non-target organisms including terrestrial and aquatic plants, mammals, and possibly birds. Adverse effects on aquatic animals are not likely with formulations of 2,4-D salts except for accidental and extreme exposures at the upper ranges of application rates. The ester formulations of 2,4-D are much more toxic to aquatic animals and adverse effects are plausible in sensitive species and sometimes in relatively tolerant species. The results of this risk assessment suggest that consideration should be given to alternate herbicides and that the use

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 106

of 2,4-D should be limited to situations where other herbicides are ineffective or to situations in which the risks posed by 2,4-D can be mitigated. (093006_24d, p.xiv)

Replacing the lake valve, rehabilitating the dam and deepening the shoreline are proposed actions that would enhance fish habitat, promote lake health and provide quality recreational fishing opportunities at Stuart Lake. The district Other Resource Assistant (ORA), forest Fisheries Biologist and Forest Engineer would coordinate during the implementation of this particular actions to the dam. Short term affects (duration of work) to water quality would occur during construction. Erosion control methods will be implemented.

Adding rock to the day-use area and campground sites would be coordinated with district ORA and district engineer. This would have short-term effect on visitors of the Stuart Lake Reaction area. The cumulative effect would be beneficial to the site over time.

Alternative B also include enhancing the parking area would include replacing parking lot structures, pavement repairs and necessary pavement paint. Glenn Emery Trail around the Stuart Lake Recreation Area would be enhanced by replacing interpretive nature signs.

Alternative C is the same as alternative B with the exception that alternative wouldn’t have the use of herbicides.

Transportation The desired condition is to provide adequate access to the project and decrease or remove the public health and safety risks related to the transportation system. Long-term soil productivity would be maintained by maintaining or improving soil condition and function. Soil loss would be below tolerance and no visible signs of excessive erosion would be present. Watershed function would be maintained or improved.

Affected Environment The Forest Service catalogs its roads in the official inventory, I-Web, by Maintenance Levels defined as follows:

Maintenance Level 5 – Single or Double Lane Paved Roads w/ high degree of user comfort

Maintenance Level 4 – Moderate User Comfort; primarily double lane aggregate roads with ditches

Maintenance Level 3 – Lowest level maintained to accommodate passenger car traffic

Maintenance Level 2 – Maintained primarily only to accommodate use by high clearance vehicles

Maintenance Level 1 – Closed to all traffic for periods greater than one year

A transportation analysis process (TAP) was conducted for the Catahoula Ranger District in February of 2014 (USDA 2014). A subset of road and infrastructure data was used to inform the Silhouette Environmental Analysis transportation needs within the Compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86, and 87 (Wells, 2018).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 107

Risks and Benefits were analyzed for each road segment in the project area (TAP 2014). Among the Risks considered were the following: Sedimentation risk, invasive non-native plant risk, habitat fragmentation risk, road navigation risk, flood risk and bridge safety risk. Benefits considered were those that provided access to the following: Private property and Special Uses; Fire suppression and fuels management; developed recreation sites; dispersed recreation; management for forest products; improvement of habitat for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened Species and other wildlife (Wells, 2018).

Risk Results: According to the TAP, the existing road system contributed to low risk for sedimentation, habitat fragmentation, and flooding and bridge safety. However, the existing road system contributed to medium risk for invasive non-native plant species and road navigation (Wells, 2018).

Benefit Results: According to the TAP, the existing road system contributed to low benefit for providing access to private property and developed recreation sites. However, the existing road system contributed to high benefit for providing access to special uses and private property, fire suppression efforts, fuels management, dispersed recreation, forest product management and habitat improvement (Wells, 2018).

There are approximately 70 miles of road in the Silhouette project area (TAP 2017). Of these 70 miles, 54 miles are open to motorized vehicles; 5 miles are seasonally closed, and 11 miles are permanently closed. (Catahoula MVUM 2017). Fifty-one miles are maintained by USFS; 8 miles are maintained by the State, Louisiana Department of Transportation (LaDOT); 11 miles are maintained by Grant Parish. Table 31 displays road maintenance levels by jurisdiction and miles in the Silhouette project area (Wells, 2018).

Environmental Consequences The issues addressed in the transportation analysis in Appendix H include: (1) access to project activities, (2) public health and safety. Completely rehabilitating the roads to their original condition is not economically feasible at this time. The desired condition is to is to protect long- term soil productivity by maintaining or improving soil condition and function (towards satisfactory).

Alternative A – No Action There would be no direct effects to the transportation system and the miles of open and closed roads in the project area would remain unchanged. Indirectly, at least 1.2 miles of MVUM seasonally designated roads will remain closed. Fifty-four miles of MVUM open road would remain open to the public and continue to contribute to public safety risks.

Alternatives B and C Road access to treatment areas will improvement on approximately 51.4 miles of Forest Service roads through maintenance and/or road reconstruction. 38 miles will remain open after the project. Approximately 1.2 miles that is currently designated as seasonally open and will be changed to permanently open. An additional 5 miles would be closed to motorized vehicles to improve soil condition and reduce public health and safety risks (See Figure 29 in Appendix A). Soil loss would be below tolerance and no visible signs of excessive erosion would be present. Watershed function would be maintained or improved and move towards functioning properly. Public health and safety risks related to using roads would be decreased or removed. There is a need to eliminate or successfully mitigate resource damage and health & safety risks related to roads.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 108

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary is the 8,704 acre project area. The timeframe of the cumulative effects analysis for past projects is approximately 10 years. Ongoing and current projects were identified by the interdisciplinary team. Reasonably foreseeable projects were derived by reviewing the most recent (October 2017 to December 2017) Kisatchie NF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) (Wells, 2018).

The Forest Service annually administers a contract to maintain 16 miles of Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5 in the Silhouette project area. Maintenance on approximately 5.73 miles of roads has occurred within compartments 70 and 71 during timber harvesting activities from September 2013 to March 2017. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable road-related projects in the project area. Although prescribed fire is an ongoing activity, road maintenance or reconstruction is not associated (Wells, 2018).

In Alternative A, there are no foreseeable transportation projects that would cumulatively change the current situation regarding public health and safety. The Forest Service would continue to maintain 16 miles of Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5 in the Silhouette project area. Likewise the already closed 16 miles of road would remain closed (Wells, 2018).

In Alternatives B and C, an additional 5 miles of road are proposed to close for resource protection and public health and safety. Approximately 1.2 miles of road are proposed to be permanently opened to provide adequate access to Forest Service land. Combined with current motor vehicle use (Catahoula MVUM 2017), this proposal would result in a total of 18.6 miles of roads closed in the project area either year-round or seasonally to mitigate resource impacts and reduce the risk to public health and safety (Wells, 2018).

Scenery Currently the scenery resources of the Kisatchie NF are managed through application of the scenery management system (SMS). The SMS was uses scenic integrity objective (SIOs) classifications that range from very high to very low to describe scenic attributes and concern levels (degree of public importance). Over 415,000 acres of the Forest is categorized in the low SIO category.

SMS uses the concept of “seen areas” to categorize viewing distances. For the Forest, the foreground is considered to be approximately 3/8 mile. Middle-ground ranges from approximately 3/8 mile to anything greater than 4 miles. The Forest does not have a background classification due to having a relatively high road density (USDA 1999).

Affected Environment Using geospatial information, SIOs within the project area were categorized by compartment and acreage (Table 32). There are 551 acres (less than 7% of the project area) in the high SIO category. The high SIO allows for human alteration and management activity that is not visually evident (Forest Service, 1999). Historically, much of the landscape would have had sparse mid- story and understory vegetation maintained by prescribed fire. This would have allowed viewing depths up to ¼ mile (USDA 1999). This is not the case today. The foreground visible from road FS 113 is restricted to a few feet due to dominant vegetation understory and mid-story – no midground view is possible (Figure 24).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 109

Figure 24. Typical Foreground Off Designated Roads And Trails

The remainder of the project area is categorized as moderate (42 acres) and low (8,110 acres) and it is expected that human alterations and management activities dominate the original scenic attributes of the natural or natural appearing landscape character being viewed.

Table 32. High SIO Classification by Compartment and Acres

Compartment SIO Acres Comments Classification

69 High 25 In an isolated area without roads or trails 71 High 52 0.29 miles along FS 113 86 High 38 Adjacent to private land without roads or trails 87 High 436 along roads within or near the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard

Environmental Consequences The environmental consequences for alternatives B and C assume the application of all design features and mitigation displayed in Appendix B. The cumulative effects boundary for scenery is the 8,704-acre project area.

Alternative A – No Action The 2010 NVUM survey found that at least 27 percent of all forest visitors came to view features and 47 percent came to the forest to view wildlife. The ability to see trees of age class as well as wildlife would continue to decline. Views into the project area from roads Glenn Emery Trail would be further reduced due to the overstocked condition of the stand continued decline in biodiversity (Final Technical Report to the National Commission on for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) 2005) as displayed in Figure 24 of the EA. Roads in poor condition would not be closed, would continue to be visible, and would continue to

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 110

degrade (see

Figure 29, Table 2 and Table 3 in the EA). Cumulatively, the foreseeable mechanical, ongoing prescribed fire acres, and routine trail and road maintenance actions are minimal and would not be sufficient (or effective enough) to maintain scenic stability or improve scenic values.

This alternative would not meet the project desired conditions or forest plan direction. It would not move the treatment area toward scenic stability. Over time, scenic stability in the high SIO category would decrease and move towards low. Acres in the low SIO category would move

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 111

towards very low. No action would result in continuation of current risks to scenic attributes and it is reasonable to assume that these risks would increase each year and could be exacerbated by the weather extremes expected with climate change. The alternative would not meet long term scenic integrity objectives since these are dependent upon improving the condition of scenic attributes so that they are more resilient to ecological stressors.

Alternatives B and C Skid trails that are developed to remove timber products would be apparent in the short term (1-2 years) following use but be naturalized (including seeding) and return to native state in the long term (up to 10 years) to pre-project conditions. Vegetation treatments and resultant slash would temporarily reduce the scenic value in both high and low SIO categories as disturbance would be evident up to 1-2 years (see Figure 25). McCool et al. found the public will accept (and prefers) thinned over unthinned stands if the residual material is removed to improve visual quality (McCool et al. 1986).

Figure 26 displays the longer term post-treatment condition (approximately 3 to 5 years from initial treatment) where clear-cutting, site preparation and the planting of longleaf pine occurred.

Figure 25: Immediate Post Treatment (mechanical site prep) conidition

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 112

Figure 26: Site Condition Up To 5 years After Clear-cut

Mitigation would reduce scenery impacts by feathering remaining stands and reducing stump heights to naturalize treated stands as much as possible. Without continued motorized use, at least 5 miles of road would immediately begin to revegetate naturally, decreasing the visibility of the road prism.

The forest plan states that the effects of vegetation management on scenery are present but the effects would be short term because of rapid vegetation growth on the landscape. In the long term (10 years and greater) the project is expected to increase diversity in terms of age and size classes and promote native communities, including longleaf pine (see Figure 8). Vegetation treatments (which decrease stand density and mid-story) would increase the scenic foreground along recreation trails and open roads. Scenic value in both low and high categories would be maintained and increase. This is supported by Deng et al. (2012) who evaluated the effects of thinning on the scenic value of forests. The study found that landscape value decreased as tree density and canopy density increased. Scenic value improved as tree size (dbh) and species diversity increased.

Acres of high SIO classification would be maintained. Acres in the low classification category would improve in scenic value. (Steward, 2018). For these reasons, alternative B and C is consistent with forest plan.

Cumulatively, the foreseeable mechanically treated acres, the ongoing prescribed fire acres, and routine trail and road maintenance actions, when combined with this project, would be effective in maintaining scenic stability and improving scenic values. This finding is based on the results of the vegetation analysis which states prescribed fire would be most effective in maintaining a reduced mid-story, increased understory and move towards native community desired conditions when utilized with mechanical treatment.

Socio-Economics This analysis describes the current conditions and trends related to the social and economic environment of the planning area, including: population and demographic changes, potential environmental justice populations, and employment and income conditions. Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 with 2014 data (Jaworski 2014). The social environment for the project area was derived from Forest and Census data. The potential for direct and indirect jobs is the indicator used to address environmental effects to economics. See the recreation section and report which displays social impacts.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 113

Affected Environment The Kisatchie contributes a relatively small- percentage to the total timber supply produced in the market area. In 1982, a low harvest year, timber from the Forest accounted for 3.0 percent of the market area’s total timber production. In 1986, when total timber harvest from the Forest was at an all-time high (230,771 MBF), this represented a 6.76 percent of the total market area production (USDA 1999).

Although the Forest’s timber contribution is low compared to other sources, the Forest directly affects, and is predominantly influenced by, citizens of 7 north and central Louisiana parishes containing national forest land — Claiborne, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, Vernon, Webster, and Winn. These parishes have been used as the Forest’s area of economic influence. The Forest occupies 23.6 percent of Grant Parish, more than any of the others. The larger national forest hosts are Natchitoches Parish at 21.5 percent, Winn Parish at 18.5 percent, and Rapides Parish at 16.9 percent. Lying between the Caney and Winn Districts, 4 more parishes are also part of the functional rural economy in which the Forest operates: Bienville, Jackson, Lincoln, and Red River. These parishes collectively form a contiguous area in north central Louisiana reflecting a rural economy generally thought of as being heavily dependent on natural resources (USDA 2006).

Throughout central Louisiana, there are approximately 30 conventional logging contractors and approximately one cut to length (CTL) contractor. CTL operations are more commonly associated with first thinnings, and may not be economically feasible in large diameter operations (Page, 2018).

Population and Demographics From 2015 to 2016, the State experienced about 0.9 percent growth. Population estimates for those parishes of influence to the project are displayed in Table 33. With the exception of Natchitoches, population has decreased in all other parishes. Census projections estimate net declines in population in all parishes but Grant by 2030. Demographic profiles for the parishes within the project area can be found in the project record.

Table 33. Population Attributes within Planning Area

Parish 2015 2016 Percent Projected Population 2030 Population Population Change No. Net Change (Increase/Decrease)

Claiborne 16,251 16,132 -0.7 13,350 Decrease Grant 22,346 22,365 0.1 24,110 Increase Natchitoches 39,137 39,162 0.1 34,170 Decrease Rapides 132,316 132,424 0.1 127,990 Decrease Vernon 50,706 50,569 -0.3 48,580 Decrease Webster 40,075 39,710 -0.9 37,190 Decrease Winn 14,527 14,376 -1.0 11,400 Decrease Data: http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Demographics_and_Geography/ParishEstimates.php, http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Population_Projections/

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 114

Alternative A – No Action In alternative A, there would be no direct or indirect effects to jobs and income at the Parish level. Cumulatively, there would no measurable indirect effect to jobs. The only project that is scheduled to be implemented is less than 800 acres (2018 - 2022).

Alternatives B and C In alternatives B and C, assuming annual harvest 3,387.725 CCF of each softwood sawtimber and softwood pulp (67,754.5/2 products = 33,877.25; 33,877.25/10 years = 3,387.725) the project is estimated to support approximately 13 direct jobs and 11 indirect and induced jobs throughout the 10 years. Labor income is estimated to be approximately $739,000 direct and $455,000 indirect and induced. These jobs would be supported in the 10-parish region that forms that Forest’s area of economic influence: Allen, Bienville, Caldwell, Claiborne, Grant, Natchitoches, Rapides, Vernon, Webster, and Winn (Jaworski 2014). Cumulatively, there would be no measurable increase in direct and indirect jobs as the only other project that would produce timber is less than 800 acres and is expected to be completed within a short timeframe (2018 - 2022).

Environmental Justice In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898. This order directs Federal agencies to focus attention on the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities. The purpose of EO 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low- income populations.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy environment. The CEQ has interpreted health effects with a broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities, or Indian Tribes …when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010 & 2016) data reported in Table 34, study area counties differ in their racial and ethnic composition. The majority of the populations in both Parishes self-identify as being white (63.3% Rapides and 81.4 % Grant). The populations (by race) percent for the Rapides Parish mirrors the percentages found at the State level. The percent indicate Rapides Parishes and the State are more diverse as a result of Black or African American residents when compared to the United States but less diverse in all other non-white categories with the exception of American Indian and Alaska Native. In 2013 D. Jaworski, a social scientist stated, “A finding of low racial/ethnic diversity does not eliminate the need to consider potential disproportionate impacts of Forest Service management actions. A county may have a low overall concentration of minority residents, but still have areas with a high concentration of minority residents who could be adversely affected by management actions”.

Approximately 19.0 percent of residents in Grant Parish live in poverty (Bureau, U. S. Census, 2016). Based on the minority status and poverty data both Parishes are at risk for environmental justice issues. However, based on Tribal consultation and public scoping results, no issues were raised. A review of public comments indicates the public who live in the general vicinity of the project are supportive of the project due to the focus on restoring habitat and having timber outputs.

Table 34. Race and Ethnicity in the Silhouette Project Area

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 115

*Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates S1701,

Grant Parish Louisiana United States Race Population Population Population No/% No./%* No./%

White 18,415/82.3 2,836,192/62.5 223,523,265/97.1 Black or African American 3,207/14.3 1,452,96/32 38,929,319/12.6 American Indian and Alaska 277/1.2 30,579/0.7 2,932,248/0.9 Native Asian 54/0.2 70,132/1.5 14,674,252/4.8 Native Hawaiian and Other 0/0 1,963/0 540,013/0.2 Pacific Islander Some Other Race 332/1.4 85,725/1.9 19,107,368/6.2 Two or More Races 615/2.7 72,883/1.6 9,009,073/2.9 Hispanic or Latino (of any 1,334/5.9 192,560/4.2 50,477,594/16.3 Race) Grant Parish, Louisiana, United States

Environmental Consequences The Parishes that surround the Silhouette project area have minority populations that have not expressed concern with the project. Alternative A would do the least to restore wildlife habitat and provide timber outputs – two values identified (by the public) as being important. Alternative A would not reduce employment and income relative to current conditions, therefore, no environmental justice issues related to disproportionate adverse economic effects would occur.

Alternatives B and C would directly improve wildlife habitat and provide timber outputs. Both alternatives are in direct alignment with comments received from the public. Neither alternative would reduce employment and income relative to current conditions. No environmental justice issues related to disproportionate adverse economic effects would occur. Overall, the project would not result in low income and minority populations being disproportionately affected.

Climate Change Introduction In 2010, the USDA Forest Service developed a strategic roadmap to address climate and climate variability because climate change places ecosystems at risk. Most of the urgent forest and grassland management challenges of the past 20 years, such as wildfires, changing water regimes, and expanding forest insect infestations, have been driven, in part, by a changing climate. Future impacts are projected to be even more severe (USDA 2010). The roadmap includes recommends the following management actions to mitigate the effects of climate change and promote healthy, resilient forest and grassland ecosystems, including:

o Treat overgrown forests to make them less vulnerable to wildfire, pathogens, and insect attack.

o Control insects, pathogens, and invasive species that threaten the health and resilience of ecosystems.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 116

Current Conditions and Trends Southern National Forests Climate Influences The Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Center states, “The impacts of climate variability, climate change, and severe weather can make forests more vulnerable to other stresses including wildfire, invasive plants, diseases, and insect pests” (USDA 2013). These interacting threats to forest health can reduce biodiversity (the variety of species) and forest productivity, often resulting in costly environmental, economic, and social consequences”:

The Forest has a history of managing for improved Forest resiliency and returning fire, a natural disturbance process, to the landscape. Where longleaf pine forests remain, the fire regime has been altered. It is estimated that the frequency of fires in these forests was approximately once every 1 - 5 years (Page, 2018). In an effort to restore fire as a natural disturbance process, over 100,000 acres of vegetation treatments have been conducted since 2004 to improve forest health (reduce excessive stand densities, decrease Southern pine beetle risk) and promote the native long leaf pine community, a species resilient to fire and insect and disease (Cote-Bell personal communication 04/11/2014). In FY 2012, prescribed fire was applied to approximately 135,508 acres (USDA, 2014).

The Forest has a history of treating non-native invasive plants, particularly in biologically sensitive areas. The prescribed burning program is the most important practice used for restoration of pre-settlement habitats, which is effectively protecting, improving and maintaining threatened, endangered, Forest Service sensitive and candidate species habitat. Since 2004 approximately eight analyses have been conducted specifically to reduce or remove non-native invasive plants. The Silhouette project proposes to treat non-native invasive plants within approximately 8,704 acres (USDA, 2014).

Table 35 summarizes current and predicted (extreme) changes in temperature and precipitation. According to TACCIMO Geospatial Report (USDA 2014), the historic baseline (1970 to 2000) for temperature has averaged 62 degrees Fahrenheit (F). In the long term, it is predicted to increase up to 67 degrees F. Precipitation for the Southern Region has averaged 3.21 inches per month. Modeling indicates there would be monthly precipitation ranging from 3.27 to 3.51 inches.

Table 35 also displays current and project temperature and precipitation extremes using the national scale. Baseline data (2010) for Louisiana indicates the State receives approximately 4 to 5 inches of precipitation per month. By 2099, precipitation is expected to decrease to 1 to 4 inches month. In 2010, monthly temperatures averaged 53 to 64 degrees F. By 2090, temperature is expected to increase to a range of 75 to 86 degrees F in the coastal areas of the State.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 117

The national predictions were mirrored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s summary of climate trends for the southern region, “Average annual temperatures in the region are projected to increase by 4 to 9°F by 2080. Models do suggest that rainfall will arrive in heavier downpours with increased dry periods between storms. These changes would increase the risk of both flooding and drought” (EPA 2014).

Table 35. Current and Projected Temperature and Precipitation Extremes at Regional and State Scale

Scale Temperature (monthly) Precipitation (monthly)

Historic 2009-2099 (F) Historic 2009-2099 (Inch) Baseline (F) Baseline (Inch) Southern 62.42 65.2 -67.28 3.21 3.27 to 3.51 Region*

Louisiana 53 to 64 75 to 86 4 to 5 1 to 4 **

Data Source: *TACCIMO Geospatial Report for Southern Region (USDA 2014, pp. 3-5), ** TACCIMO Geospatial Report for National Scale (USDA 2014, page 6)

In order of magnitude, the categories of threats most relevant to this analysis include:

Frequency of extreme weather events (intense storms) or drought, Wildfire risks Outbreaks of insects, diseases, Spread of nonnative invasive species (http://forestthreats.org/threatssummary)

Assessing Carbon Stocks and Potential Impacts of the Project to Sequestration of Carbon The Kisatchie National Forest covers approximately 4 percent of Louisiana's 13.8 million acres of forested land. The Catahoula Ranger District covers approximately 22 percent of the Forest and the project area has the potential to affect about 4 percent of the district (Page, 2018).

There are approximately 148,000 owners of Louisiana forestland. Private, non-industrial landowners own 62 percent of the state's forest land, forest products industries own 29 percent, and the public owns nine percent. Data for estimating current carbon storage on the Kisatchie NF was derived from a 2013 Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) carbon assessment report. There is approximately 703 million metric tons (mmt) of carbon sequestered in the state of Louisiana. Of this total, the Kisatchie NF’s contribution is 45 mmt. Most carbon contributions come from private lands (596 mmt) and other public lands (63 mmt). Due to project scale (the project represents 1 percent of the Forest’s acreage) it is not possible to provide carbon estimates at a smaller scale (USDA 2013).

Scope of Analysis This analysis identifies those risks most relevant to the Silhouette Ecosystem Management project area. The scope of this analysis is confined to the project area, which in relation to the Forest, is

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 118

small in scale, encompassing less than 9,000 acres (approximately 1.4 percent of the Forest’s 603,769 acres).This scale is most relevant to the questions (USDA 2009) addressed by the analysis:

1. How would climate (change, variability) affect movement towards the project’s purpose and need which focuses on restoring native plant communities including long leaf pine, reducing the threat of insect and disease including SPB, and reducing invasive plants. The indicators are: o Qualitative assessment of how would the project would build resistance to climate-related stressors such as drought, wildfire, insects, and disease (USDA 2010)

o Qualitative assessment of how the project would increase ecosystem resilience by minimizing the severity of climate change impacts, reducing the vulnerability and/or increasing the adaptive capacity of ecosystem elements.

2. How would the project impact climate change in terms of storing or releasing carbon into the atmosphere? The indicator is: o Qualitative discussion on short-term and long-term emissions and alterations to carbon cycle caused by mechanical treatments and the prescribed fire used in site preparation treatments.

Climate Change Threats to Local Resources Currently, all acres in the Silhouette project area have reduced resiliency. Reduced resiliency increases the potential for density-related mortality in trees, and reduced resiliency to insect and disease particularly Southern pine beetle (SPB). Treatments have been designed to increase forest resiliency and sustainability. Resiliency should increase the ability of the restored longleaf community in the project area to survive natural disturbances such as insect and disease, uncharacteristic fire and the extreme weather events associated with climate change. Resources at risk in the project area include rare and endemic plants and soils and watersheds.

Vegetation and Endemic Plants: As environmental conditions change, the ability of endemic plant species to adapt may be negatively affected. Water availability may decrease in some areas while temperatures generally increase. Climate change coupled with other factors such as habitat loss could lead to extirpations and increased risks of extinction. Forest Service sensitive plants and candidate species that could be affected include: Panicled indigo bush (Amorpha paniculata), Pineland bog button (Lachnocaulon digynum), Yellow fringeless (Platanthera integra) orchid, Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii) and Long-beaked baldsedge (Rhynchospora scirpoides, as threats to these species include changes in hydrology and/or alternation of wetland habitat (Moore and French 2014, unpublished report), unpublished report). Sessile-leaved bellwort (Uvularia sessilifolia) is a candidate species that is sensitive to disturbance that warms habitat for this northern species plants (Moore 2018).

Non-native invasive plants: Approximately 8,704 acres within the project area is currently populated with eighteen species of non-native invasive plants (Moore D. , 2018). Climate change is expected to be a source of widespread disturbances; and, disturbance is a major factor in noxious weed invasions. Higher temperatures would occur and precipitation cycles would be modified from current patterns over the project area.

Soils and watersheds: Decreased soil moisture due to less precipitation expected from climate change and impaired or unsatisfactory soil conditions from wildfire events can lead to an overall

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 119

decrease in long-term soil productivity. There may also be a loss of sequestered carbon through burning of the overstory and through increased erosion rates.

Burn Frequency and Carbon Storage: Meldahl and Kush (2006) found that a fire-maintained longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystem may offer the best option for carbon (C) sequestration among the southern pines. Longleaf is the longest living of the southern pines, and products from longleaf pine will sequester C longer than most since they are likely to be solid wood products such as structural lumber and poles. In addition, a fire-maintained longleaf pine ecosystem supports a productive understory of grasses and herbaceous plants. A study initiated in 1973 to determine the effects of using prescribed fire for hardwood control was used to assess the amount of C in the overstory, understory vegetation, litter layer, and soils.

Strategies to Address Climate Change Actions to address climate change are those that:

Enhance adaptation by anticipating and planning for disturbances from intense storms, Reduce vulnerability by restoring and maintaining resilient native ecosystems, The Silhouette project encompasses several of the strategies that would address climate change including (but not limited to) improving forest health by reducing the potential for density-related mortality, decreasing the risk of SPB, promoting the native and resilient long leaf pine, increasing the effectiveness of ongoing prescribed burning, removing non-native invasive species that compete with endemics for habitat and nutrients, including water.

Environmental Consequences Evaluation Criteria and Indicators:

3. How would climate (change, variability) affect movement towards the project’s purpose and need which focuses on restoring native plant communities including long leaf pine, reducing the threat of insect and disease including SPB, and reducing invasive plants. The indicators are: o Qualitative assessment of how would the project would build resistance to climate-related stressors such as drought, wildfire, insects, and disease (USDA 2010)

4. How would the project impact climate change in terms of storing or releasing carbon into the atmosphere? The indicator is: o Qualitative discussion on short-term and long-term emissions and alterations to carbon cycle caused by mechanical treatments and the prescribed fire used in site preparation treatments.

Alternative A Vegetation and Endemic Plants

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 120

For vegetation resources, under the projected future climate conditions, the dense forest conditions resulting from the no action alternative would be at a high risk of density-related and southern pine beetle mortality. Vegetation would have reduced resilience to survive and recover from potential large scale impacts. Under drier and warmer weather conditions, the potential impacts of these risks to ecosystem would be increased. Carbon stocks would unchanged or increase as tree density increases in the project area.

Individual tree growth would decrease. As forest health continues to decrease, vegetation within the project area would be more susceptible to extreme weather events and insect and disease outbreaks. Vegetation in the project area would experience higher mortality (release of carbon) than growth (carbon storage). This trend would result in areas becoming a carbon source to the atmosphere. However, the amount of carbon is not measurable as the project area represents about 1 percent of the Forest. The Forest’s contribution to the State is minimal in comparison to private and other lands and occupies approximately 4 percent of the State’s total acres.

Alternative A would not improve the ability of endemic plant species (Forest Service sensitive and candidate species) to adapt to suitable areas. Climate change which affects hydrology and/or wetland habitat could lead to extirpations and increased risks of extinction of plants.

Soil and Watershed

In alternative A, high tree densities could contribute to increased potential for insects and disease and hazardous fuels. Fire hazard increases progressively as litter accumulates, flammable understory shrubs increase in size, and needle drape develops (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV-114). Wildfires with higher severity could have adverse effects caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching. Soil heating can kill soil biota, alter soil structure, consume organic matter, and remove site nutrients during the burn (USDA, Forest Service. 1989b p. IV- 80). If wildfires were to occur with a high severity soil productivity could be affected.

Carbon Storage

Higher temperatures are predicted to occur along with extreme weather and reduced precipitation. Although fire-excluded forests contain higher carbon stocks, this benefit is outweighed in the long term by the loss that would be likely from uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires if left untreated (Hurteau et al. 2011). Although not specifically calculated for this project, it is reasonable to assume that the potential for indirect high-severity fire effects from fire would increase as tree density increases. Fire events that could occur with no treatment (alternative A) would release carbon into the atmosphere. Kolb et al. (2007) have shown that biomass and carbon may fail to recover. Savage and Mast (2005) showed that these conditions can persist for decades.

Cumulative Effects

In alternative A, prescribed fire within the project area would be implemented in 2,076-acre blocks the foreseeable future (within 10 years). Approximately 775 acres of mechanical treatment would be implemented from 2018 to 2022. However, without mechanical treatment throughout the entire project area, prescribed fire would be less effective. Without effective prescribed fire use, forest resiliency would be reduced and the resources in the project area would become more vulnerable to climate related stressors and associated carbon loss.

Alternatives B and C Under projected, future climate conditions, treatments would increase tree growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual trees. Thinning to a BA of 60 ft2/ac would reduce the susceptibility to bark beetle infestations by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 121

improving stand health and growth by reducing competition. Species associated with the desired forest type would be favored during thinning, preparing these stands for native community restoration at a later time. Improved forest health would improve resiliency to extreme weather and altered precipitation patterns.

Mechanical treatment and site preparation prescribed burning (also see cumulative effects) would help to mitigate the negative impacts of stand replacing fire by consuming less biomass and releasing less carbon into the atmosphere (Finkeral and Evans 2008, Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).

Some of the carbon within the estimated 45 mmt (forest-wide) of biomass removed by mechanical thinning would be sequestered for a time in the form of building materials. This assertion is supported by Ryan et al. (2010) who found that wood products which substitute standard building materials such as steel and concrete produce far less greenhouse gas emissions during their production while simultaneously sequestering carbon. Finkeral et al. found that while the treatment initially produced a 30 percent reduction in the carbon held in trees, it significantly reduced the threat of an active crown fire, which they predicted would kill all the trees and release 3.7 tons of carbon per acre in any untreated areas (Finkeral et al. 2008).

For endemic and candidate plant species, the actions proposed in alternatives B-C would provide more resiliency to local vegetative communities, move towards effectively restoring the natural fire regimes and reduce the risk of habitat loss due to severe high effects. These actions are particularly important to endemic species sensitive to alterations in hydrology.

In alternatives B and C potential increase/spread of noxious or invasive weeds caused by disturbance would be reduced by incorporating the mitigations, BMPs, and noxious or invasive weed treatments for the project. Increasing forest resiliency and function within the project area would diminish the impacts of climate change.

In order to realize a management-based net gain in soil carbon, there must be an increase in carbon entering the soil through a productivity increase over current levels or a decrease in decomposition and erosion (Neary et al. 2002). Productivity in southern forest ecosystems is high due to moisture and the decomposition rates.

The action alternatives propose removal of woody brush, mid-story and overstory vegetation through machinery and/or herbicides on about 8,704 acres. This is expected to actually decrease the amount of carbon sequestered over current stand conditions, but the harvest action would convert the existing stored carbon on-site to below ground storage, thus reducing its potential loss from wildfire (Neary et al. 2002). Implementation of alternatives B and C would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire (through effective use of prescribed fire) that could result in loss of soil productivity, downstream water quality and watershed function, as well would improve overall soil productivity in the long-run through increased understory vegetation. The increase in ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which have higher fine root turnover rates than large woody plants would result in greater soil organic matter content over time.

Cumulative Effects Cumulatively, mechanical treatment proposed in this project, combined with the 775 acres of vegetation treatment and the routine application of prescribed fire (that produce only low-to- moderate severity effects) would reduce on-site carbon stocks and releases carbon into the atmosphere at a lower rate than high-severity fire. Research by Hurteau and North (2009) has also shown that the long-term gains acquired through prescribed fire and mechanical thinning outweighs short-term losses in sequestered carbon. Meldahl and Kush (2006) found that a fire- maintained longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) ecosystem may offer the best option for carbon

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 122

(C) sequestration among the southern pines. Longleaf is the longest living of the southern pines, and products from longleaf pine will sequester C longer than most since they are likely to be solid wood products such as structural lumber and poles. In addition, a fire-maintained longleaf pine ecosystem supports a productive understory of grasses and herbaceous plants. Public Health and Safety Current Condition The project area is in a rural setting with a dispersed population, and the stands proposed for treatment in the project area currently do not pose any special threat to human health and safety other than approximately 5 miles of road which are in poor condition. Keeping the roads open in their degraded state is a public health and safety risk. Entirely obliterating or completely rehabilitating the roads to their original condition is not economically feasible at this time. The desired condition is to protect long-term soil productivity by maintaining or improving soil condition and function (towards satisfactory). Soil loss would be below tolerance and no visible signs of excessive erosion would be present. Watershed function would be maintained or improved and move towards functioning properly. Public health and safety risks related to using roads would be decreased or removed. There is a need to eliminate or successfully mitigate resource damage and health & safety risks related to roads.

Currently the Catahoula Ranger District has a “No Hunting & No Public Access” boundary around the administrative and Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard sites that encompasses approximately 636 acres. These sites are within the project area boundary.

Effects on Public Health and Safety Alternative A – No Action Under the No-Action Alternative, conditions regarding employee and public health and safety would remain constant. Without any management activities, these stands would continue to experience natural mortality, creating snags in the forest that may be hazardous to recreationists hiking, camping, and hunting in the project area. Potential wildfires could threaten local landowners and forest users. Smoke from wildfires would cause hazardous driving conditions on local roads, increasing the probability of traffic accidents. The transportation system would continue to deteriorate, increasing the potential for accidents at washouts and gullies or slippery road surfaces. The “No Hunting & No Public Access” boundary would remain the same instead of increasing the safety of employees and public visitors. Alternative B – Proposed Action Harvesting trees in the project area would increase the likelihood of travelers and local residents encountering heavy equipment and/or logging trucks on local roads. Gravel trucks or industrial logging trucks entering roads and highways could be hazardous to drivers. However, the presence of logging and site preparation equipment and transport vehicles is not uncommon in the area. Signs placed at dangerous locations would warn motorists of any hazardous conditions. Past harvest activities that have been performed in the area resulted in no significant ground disturbance. The herbicides (Glyphosate, Triclopyr, Imazapyr, Fluidone, Endothall, Imazamox & 2,4-D) proposed for use are Class A herbicides which do not pose a risk that would require mitigation measures in addition to those described in the VM-FEIS (pages II-57 through II-64). Herbicides will be applied at the lowest effective rate according to the labels, meeting project objectives within the guidelines for the protection of human and wildlife health. Application rate and work time must not exceed typical levels unless supplementary risk assessment shows that this will not increase risk to human or wildlife health or the environment beyond standards. In pounds per acres, the typical application rates of active ingredient are as shown in the Forest Plan

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 123

(Kisatchie National Forest, 1999, p.2-55). Notice signs (FSH 7109.11) are clearly posted, with special care taken in areas of anticipated visitor use. A District Safety Plan for pesticide use, including an emergency spill plan shall be in place prior to implementation of the proposed actions (see FEIS-VM, ROD, page A-13). If a spill would occur, the spill must be quickly contained, herbicide prevented from entering streams or lakes, and the appropriate agencies and persons would be promptly notified. The safety plan is located at the District Office. Method and timing of the herbicide application must maximize objectives and minimize non-target effects (FEIS-VM, Vol. 1, page II-62). Herbicides should not be applied within 100 feet of any public or domestic water source or within 30 feet of any perennial or intermittent wetland, spring, or stream. Selective treatments (which require added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations (FEIS-VM, Vol. 1, page II- 63). For more information regarding specific pesticides go to: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/protecting-forest/integrated-pest-management/pesticide- management/pesticide-risk-assessments.shtml. Modifying the a “No Hunting & No Shooting” and “No Public Access” boundaries around the administrative and Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard sites would increase the safety of the employees that work in and around the administrative sites. Public health and safety would increase as well for those who visit the area. The construction of the helipad would not pose a risk to public health and safety but could increase it. It would give another alternative landing site in response to emergencies dealing with employees and the public. Landline and Road maintenance and/or spot surfacing activities may also hinder travelers and local residents. Such maintenance actions would be intermittent and would be conducted only on roads utilized by logging and transport equipment. However, improved road surfacing would create a safer environment for forest users. The roads that have been proposed for closing to motorized vehicle use are those that pose the greatest risk to public safety and resources. The closures would also reduce or eliminate the public safety risks. The roads that are proposed for opening to motorized vehicle will provide adequate access to Forest Service land (Wells, 2018).

Prescribed burning activities would continue to be conducted throughout several stands in the project area. Smoke from burning activities may hinder traffic by reducing visibility. Signs will be placed in appropriate locations to warn drivers of any hazardous conditions. Smoke may also affect sensitive individuals. Local residents would be contacted prior to conducting burns so they are able to evacuate the area for the duration of the burn. Burning would be performed when harmful conditions would be minimized. Smoke management guidelines would be followed. Areas shall not be burned for at least 30 days after herbicide treatment (ROD, FEIS, VMCP/P, P. A-11).

Alternative C – Hand tools (No Herbicides) This alternative would have the same effects as alternative B with the exception of herbicides not being used.4 o 4

Cumulative Effects

Monitoring of all activities would be done through supervision, on-site inspections, project reports, herbicide use reports, and post-project evaluations. It is unlikely that there would be any cumulative effects as a result of this alternative.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 124

None of the proposed actions involving bird nesting, structure installation, soil erosion control or recreation enhancements should have short term and long term impacts on public health and safety.

Based on the Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment done for each individual chemical the U.S. EPA has determined that the proposed pesticides (Imazamox, Imazapyr, Triclopyr, Endothall, Fluridone, Glyphtosate and 2,4-D) show no substantial evidence of carcinogenicity for humans. As with any well-studied, well-tested pesticide, there is always some equivocal evidence of carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, which may remain a cause of concern, at least in terms of risk perception. While these concerns are understandable, there is no compelling basis for challenging the position taken by the U.S. EPA/OPP; accordingly, no quantitative risk assessment for cancer is conducted as part of the current Forest Service risk assessment (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2011). It is possible and even likely that some individuals will be exposed to multiple sources of glyphosate as a result of Forest Service programs. For example, an individual consuming contaminated fish might also consume contaminated water and/or vegetation. For glyphosate, these multiple sources of exposure are inconsequential. The only substantial exposure scenario involves the consumption of contaminated vegetation after terrestrial applications. All other plausible combinations of exposures would not have a substantial impact on the risk characterization (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2011). The risk of adverse health effects is increased for workers engaged in spray applications of 2,4-D as well as nearby residents who might consume fruit or vegetation contaminated with spray drift from forestry applications (i.e., hazard quotients exceed 1) (USDA Forest Service, 2016). As noted by the U.S. EPA/OPP: Because of the low toxicity of imazamox and its metabolic degradates, there is no concern regarding the potential for cumulative effects of imazamox and its degradates with other substances with a common mode of action. Imazamox belongs to the imidazolinone class of chemistry. The herbicidal activity of the imidazolinones is due to the inhibition of acetohydroxy acid synthase (AHAS), an enzyme only found in plants. AHAS is part of the biosynthetic pathway leading to the formation of branched-chain amino acids. Animals lack AHAS and this biosynthetic pathway. This lack of AHAS contributes to the low toxicity of imazamox in mammals. We are aware of no information to indicate or suggest that imazamox has any toxic effects on mammals that would be cumulative with those of any other chemical (U.S. EPA/OPP 2002, p. 78232.) (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2010). Despite imazapyr’s structural similarity to imazapic, as well as its similarity to the pesticides, imazethapyr and imazamethabenz-methyl (Assert®), the available data do not support the conclusion that these pesticides share a common mechanism of toxicity such that combined exposure to them would result in cumulative effects. First, as noted, the toxicity data for imazapyr show no adverse effects, including no skeletal muscle effects. Second, the toxic endpoints for the three structurally similar pesticides are quite varied: imazapic (skeletal muscle effects); imazethapyr (an increased incidence of clinical signs during gestation, ulcerations in the mucosal layer of the stomach and gall bladder, increased abortions, maternal deaths, decrements in body weight gain) and imazamethabenz-methyl (transient decreased body weight, mild liver effects, slight increase in a common kidney lesion). Accordingly, for the purposes of this RED, EPA has not assumed that imazapyr has a common mechanism of toxicity (U.S. EPA/OPP (2006a, p. 7)) (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2011). Triclopyr is a relatively typical weak-acid auxin herbicide. 12 Herbicides such as aminopyralid, clopyralid, and picloram are similar with respect to their 13 structure, pharmacokinetics, and toxicity. It is reasonable to anticipate that exposure to triclopyr 14 and other weak acid herbicides would result in essentially additive risks (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2011).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 125

The Agency has found no information indicating endothall shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. Endothall does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. Therefore, for the purposes of tolerance reassessment and a decision on reregistration eligibility, EPA has not assumed that endothall shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds. In the future, if additional information suggests endothall shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other compounds, additional testing may be required and a cumulative assessment may be necessary (U.S. EPA/OPP (2005a, pp. 1-2) (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, 2009).

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 126

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

ID Team Members: Anthony Page, District Silviculturist (Team Leader)

William E. Bratcher, District Ranger

Dave Moore, Forest Botanist

Emlyn Smith, District Wildlife Biologist

Larry Kile, Fire Management Officer

Camelia Steward, Outdoor Recreation Assistant

Brian Gidcumb, Catahoula District Assistant Fire Management Officer

John Mayer, District Archeologist

Alvin Wells, Timber Management Assistant

John Walden, District Transportation Engineer

Velicia Bergstrom, Forest Archeologist

Tedmund Soileau, Forest Hydrologist/Fisheries Biologist

Federal and State Officials and Agencies Louisiana Forestry Association

LA Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Grant Parish Police Jury

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wild Turkey Federation

LA Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism

LA Natural Heritage Program

Town of Pollock

Village of Georgetown

Town of Ball

Town of Pollock

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 127

Others Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc.

The Nature Conservancy

LA Native Plant Society

Breezy Hill Enduro Club

New Way Investments LLC

Roy O. Martin LBR. CO. LLC.

Mr. Allen Thompson

Ms. Betty Pearce

Mr. & Mrs. Chad Fontenot

Mr. Charles Thomas Jr.

Mr. Chester Corley

Mr. Clifford McManemin

Mr. Daniel Armstrong

Mr. Dean Taylor

Mr. Dick Artley

Mr. and Mrs. Donald McClure

Dr. and Mrs. Michael MacRoberts

Fred & Stanley Baker

Mr. Gene Allen

Mr. George Wagner

Mr. Glyn Futrell

Ms. Helen Moore

Ms. Helen Watson

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Elliot

Mr. Jack Garner

Mr. John Anthony

Mr. John Dunn

Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Costantino

Mr. Keith Griffith

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 128

Ms. Lisa Smith

Ms. Marion Hatfield

Mr. Matthew Barnhill

Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Gauthier

Mr. and Mrs. Mitchel Thompson

Mr. and Mrs. Durand Luttrull

Mr. Odyest Lasyone Sr.

Ms. Patricia Robertson

Mr. Rhett Desselle

Mr. Rick Bryan

Mr. Roger Corley

Mr. Roger Allison

Mr. Ronney Broussard

Mr. Ronney Futrell

Ms. Thelma Bordelon

Mr. Winston Pace

Mr. Wallace Wilson

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 129

Chapter 5 – References

Air State of Louisiana. 2012. Louisiana Smoke Management Program. 26 pp. Available online at: http://www.ldaf.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/FOR/publications/forest%20fire/SmokeMa nagementProgram.pdf. Accessed on May 5, 2014. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for FY 2012 through FY 2017 Prescribed Burn EA. Catahoula Ranger District. Kisatchie National Forest. Bentley, LA. USDA Forest Service. 2011. FY 2012 through FY 2017 Prescribed Burn EA. Catahoula Ranger District. Kisatchie National Forest. Bentley, LA. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Kistachie National Forest 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Kistachie National Forest. Pineville, LA. _____. 2002. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-98A. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on Air. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 4. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_4.pdf. Accessed on May 5, 2014. Botany Ajilvsgi, Geyata. 1979. Wildflowers of the Big Thicket, East Texas and Louisiana. Texas A&M University Press, College Station and London, Texas. 360 pp. Allen, Charles M., and S. Thames. 2007. Observation of Vegetation Change on Cajun Prairie, a Coastal Prairie Flora in Southwestern Louisiana. Journal of Botanical Research of the Institute of Texas. 1(2): 1141-1147. Allen, Charles M., D.A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2002. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of Louisiana. Allen’s Native Ventures, LLC, Pitkin, Louisiana. 333 pages. Allen, Charles M., D.A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2004. Grasses of Louisiana, 2nd edition. Allen’s Native Ventures, Pitkin, Louisiana. 320 pp. Batcher, Michael S. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Melia azederach. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/meliazed.html Accessed December 19, 2009] Bogler, David J. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Sapium sebiferum. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sapiseb.html Accessed July 15, 2009. Bradley, B. A., D. M. Blumenthal, D. S. Wilcove, and L. H. Ziska. 2010. Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:310-318. Collins, Brandon M., Jason J. Moghaddas, and SC plantsott L. Stevens. 2007. Initial changes in forest structure and understory plant communities following fuel reduction activities in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Management and Ecology. Pages 102-111. Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson, J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. and Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical Forages: an

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 130

interactive selection tool, at http://www.tropicalforages.info], CSIRO, DPI&F (Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed December 19, 2006. Correll, D.S., and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. First Printing. 1881 pp. Cronquist, Arthur. 1980. Vascular flora of the Southeastern United States, Volume 1: Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Diggs, George M., Barney L. Lipscomb, and Robert J. O’Kennon. 1999. Shinners & Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. 1626 pp. Diggs, George M., Barney L. Lipscomb, Monique D. Reed, and Robert J. O’Kennon. 2006. Illustrated Flora of East Texas: Volume I: Introduction, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. 1594 pp. Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 1993. Flora of North America North of Mexico: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org). Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 1997. Volume 3, Magnoliophyta: Caryophillidae Part 1. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org). Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 22, Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part) and Zingiberidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org). Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 26: Magnoliophyta: Lilidae, Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org). Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 23: Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org). Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 25, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Frank, S.G. and W.J. Platt. 1999. Effects of long-term fire exclusion on tree species composition and stand structure in an old-growth Pinus palustris (Longleaf pine) forest. Plant Ecology 140: 15-26. Gandhi, Kancheepuram N., and R. Dale Thomas, with collaboration from Stephan L. Hatch. 1989. Asteraceae of Louisiana. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 4. Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 202 pp. Gilliam, F. S. & Christensen, N. L. 1986. Herb-layer response to burning in pine flatwoods of lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 113: 42-45. Glitzenstein, J. S., Platt, W. J. and Streng, D. R. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat on tree dynamics in north Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecol. Monog. 65: 441-476.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 131

Godfrey, Robert K., and Jean W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia. 712 pp. Godfrey, Robert K., and Jean W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia. 933 pp. Grace, S. L. & Platt, W. J. 1995. Effects of adult tree density and fire on the demography of pregrass stage juvenile longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). J. Ecol. 83: 75-86. Gucker, Corey L. 2010. Kummerowia stipulacea, K. striata. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013. Hellmann J. J., J. E. Byers, B. G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534-543. Howard, Janet L. 2004. Sorghum halepense. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013. Hyatt, Philip E., and David C. Moore. 1999. History of the Kisatchie National Forest TESC plants plant species list: viability analysis, overview and justifications for specific species. Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species, ISSG Global Invasive Species Database. Available at http://www.issg.org/database). Accessed January 2012. Jeong, Su-Jung, Chang-Hoi Ho, Hyeon-Ju Gim, and Molly E. Brown. 2011. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982-2008. Global Change Biology 17:2385-2399. Judd, Walter S., C.S. Campbell, E.A. Kellogg, and P.F. Stevens. 1999. Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts. Keith, Eric L., and Jason R. Singhurst. 2004. Geocarpon minimum (Caryophyllaceae), new to Texas. SIDA 21(2): 1165-1169. Larke, Julia O., and Latimore M. Smith. 1994. Rare Plants of Pine-Hardwood Forests in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Lott, Michael S., J. C. Violin, R. W. Pemburton, and D. F. Austin. 2003. The reproductive biology of the invasive ferns Lygodium microphyllum and L. japonicum (Schizaeaceae): implications for invasive potential. American Journal of Botany 90: 1144-1152. Louisiana Department of and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Rare plant tracking list. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Available at http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/naturalheritage/2009%20Rare%20Plant%2 0Tracking%20List.pdf . Accessed July 19, 2013. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program. Rare plant fact sheets. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 132

Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Available at http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/naturalheritage/rareplants/rareplantfactsheets/. Accessed July 19, 2013. MacRoberts, Barbara R., M.H. MacRoberts, and L.S. Jackson. 2004. Observations on Parnassia grandifolia DC (Saxifragaceae) in the west Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 86 (2): 98-103. MacRoberts, Barbara R., M.H. MacRoberts, L.M. Stacey, and D.C. Moore. 1997. The Status of Parnassia (Saxifragaceae) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 83(1): 53-57. Martin, David L., and L.M. Smith. 1993. A survey and description of the natural plant communities of the Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula and Evangeline districts. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 274 pp. McKenney, Daniel W., John H. Pedlar, Keven Lawrence, Kathy Campbell, and Michael F. Hutchison. 2007. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Distribution of North American Trees. BioScience 57(11):939-948. Meyer, Rachelle. 2009. Albizia julibrissin. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013. Meyer, Rachelle. 2005. Triadica sebifera. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013. Middleton, B. A. 2006. Invasive species and climate change: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report: 2006-1153. 5 pp. Miller, James H., E.B. Chambliss, and N.J. Lowenstein. 2010. A field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests. Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-119. Asheville, North Carolina. Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT) website. 2004. Pyracantha coccinea species account from the Kemper Center for Home Gardening. Available at http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Plant.asp?code=E940#lbl_culture. Accessed July 19, 2013. Munger, Gregory T. 2002a. Lonicera japonica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed October 14, 2013. Munger, Gregory T. 2002b. Pueraria montana var. lobata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed February 22, 2013. Munger, Gregory T. 2003. Ligustrum spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed October 14, 2013.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 133

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Current version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed October 14, 2013). Neal, Joe. 2000. New Weeds in North Carolina Nurseries: Identification, Spread and Management. 2000 Nursery Short Course. North Carolina University and North Carolina Association of Nurserymen. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/pdf/short_course/2000/2000.pdf . Accessed October 19, 2012. Newman, Dara. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Sorghum halepense. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia. Available from ISI, The Global Invasive Species Initiative web page at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sorghal.html, Accessed January 19, 2012. Noel, J. M, Platt, W. J. & Moser, E. B. 1998. Characteristics of old and second growth stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the Gulf coastal region of the U.S.A. Cons. Biol. 12: 533-548. Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2004. Phyllanthus urinaria report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/phyllanthus_urinaria.htm. Accessed October 19, 2012. Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2006. Melia azedarach report. Available at http://www.hear.org/pier/species/melia_azedarach.htm. Accessed December 19, 2012. Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2011. Paspalum urvillei report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/paspalum urvillei.htm. Accessed August 22, 2011. Parmesan, Camille. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, and Evolution and Systematics 37:637-669. Pike, David A., Matthew L. Brooks, and Carla D’ Antonio. 2010. Fire as a Restoration Tool: A Decision Framework for Predicting the Control or Enhancement of Plants Using Fire. Restoration Ecology 18:274-284. Pittman, A.B. 1993. Geocarpon minimum Mackenzie Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, Mississippi. Available at http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/930726.pdf Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp. Reid, Christopher. 2006. Rare plant Species of Louisiana-February 2006. Accessed from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries website, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program site, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) are identified on the USFS Region 8 Intranet, at http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/fwr/PETS_FSWeb/ref/fs/080701_SC plants_fsweb.xls.

Rice, Peter M. 2005. Fire as tool for controlling nonnative invasive plants. Available at www.weedcenter.org/management/tools.htm#burning. Bozeman, MT: Center for Invasive Plant Management. Root, Terry L, Jeff T. Price, Kimberly R. Hall, Stephen H. Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweigk and J. Alan Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. Vol. 421. Pages 57-60.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 134

Simmons, Mark T., S. Windhager, P. Powers, J. Lott, R.K. Lyons, and C. Schwope. 2007. Selective and non-selective control on invasive plants: the short-term effects of growing- season prescribed fire, herbicide, and mowing in two Texas prairies. Restoration Ecology 15(4): 662-669. Simmons, Mark T., S. Windhager, P. Powers, J. Lott, R.K. Lyons, and C. Schwope. 2007. Selective and non-selective control on invasive plants: the short-term effects of growing- season prescribed fire, herbicide, and mowing in two Texas prairies. Restoration Ecology 15(4): 662-669. Steyermark, Julian A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Wisteria floribunda, Wisteria sinensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, June 17]. Swearingen, J. 2006. WeedUS: Database of Plants Invading Natural Areas in the United States. Available at http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/WeedUS.xls TexasNNIP.org. 2011. Available at http://www.texasNNIP.org/NNIP [Accessed 12/18/06 & 8/22/2011] Thieret, John W. 1980. Louisiana Ferns and Fern Allies. Lafayette Natural History Museum (published in conjunction with the University of Southwestern Louisiana), Lafayette, Louisiana. Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1993. Atlas of the Vascular Flora of Louisiana. Volume I: Ferns & Fern Allies, Conifers and Monocotyledons. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA, by Moran Colographic Printing. 218 pp. Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1996. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana. Volume II: Dicotyledons Acanthaceae – Euphorbiaceae. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA by Bourque Printing Inc. 213 pp. Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1998. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana. Volume III: Dicotyledons Fabaceae – Zygophyllaceae. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA by Bourque Printing Inc. 248 pp. U.S. Geological Survey/ National Wetlands Research Center (USGS NWRS). 2000. Chinese Tallow: Invading the Southeast Coastal Plain. USGSFS-154-00. Lafayette, Louisiana. Accessed at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov. Urbatsch, Lowell. 2000. USDA NRCS Plant Guide, exotic weed species, Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense. Available from the USDA NRCS plants Database at http://plants.usda.gov. (Accessed July 8, 2005) USDA Forest Service. Southern Regional Task Force. 2008. In: Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems [online]. Available at http://www.invasive.org/south/taskforce.html. Accessed February, 2011.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 135

_____ 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Revised Land and Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest. _____. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning, A Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National Forests and National Grasslands. Southwestern Region. Albuquerque, NM. USDA, NRCS. 2012. The plants Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. Vincent, Michael A. 2005. On the spread and current distribution of Pyrus calleryana in the United States. Castanea 70(1): 20-31. Waggy, Melissa A. 2009. Melia azedarach In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2009, November 16]. Weakley, Alan S. 2010. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. (Working Draft of March 8, 2010). University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume I, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 991 pp. Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume II, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 1181 pp. Yatskievych, G. 2013. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume III, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 1382 pp. Climate Change Bell, Barbara. 2014. April 11, 2014 personal communication with P. Cote. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Climate Impacts in the Southeast. Accessed April 10, 2014. Online at: http://epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html. Finkral, A.J., and A.M. Evans. 2008. The effects of a thinning treatment on carbon stocks in a northern Arizona pine forest. Forest Ecology and Management 255:2743–2750. Grimm et al. 2013. Climate-change impacts on ecological systems: introduction to a US assessment. From: Front Ecol Environ 2013; 11(9): 456–464, doi:10.1890/120310. 9pp. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at http://www.lter.uaf.edu/pdf/1777_Grimm_Staudinger_2013.pdf Kolb, T.E., J.K. Agee, P.Z. Fulé, N.G. McDowell, K. Pearson, A. Sala, and R.H. Waring. 2007. Perpetuating old ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and Management 249:141–157. Meldahl, Ralph and John S. Kush. 2006. Carbon Sequestration and Natural Longleaf Pine Ecosystems. Southern Research Station. GTR 092-027. 2 Pp. From: Connor, Kristina F., ed. Proceedings of the 13th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–92. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 640 p. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/23352. Moore, Dave and Sheila French. 2014. Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project Botany and Non-Native Invasive Species Specialist Report. Unpublished.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 136

NCASI and USDA Forest Service.2014. COLE 1605(b) Report for Louisiana. Cole Development Group. April 11, 2014. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at: NCASI: http://www.ncasi2.org/, USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/durham/4104/. 13 Pp. Neary, Daniel G., Kevin C. Ryan, and Leonard F. DeBano, eds. 2005. (Revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42- Vol.4. Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 pp. Page, Anthony. 2014. Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project Silviculture Specialist Report. Unpublished. Savage, M., and J.N. Mast. 2005. How resilient are southwestern ponderosa pine forests after crown fires? Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 35:967–977. Soileau, Ted. 2014. Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project Soils and Watershed Specialist Report. Unpublished. USDA Forest Service. 2013. Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Center, Forest Threat Facts No. 2. Revised March 2013. 2Pp. Accessed online at: http://www.forestthreats.org/products/fact-sheets/EFETAC_climate.factsheet_2013.pdf on April 9, 2014. _____. 2011. Forest Inventory and Analysis. Appendix F: Carbon Sequestration Technical Guidance. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us January 21, 2011. 7 Pp. _____. 2014. Forest Inventory and Analysis. Total Forest Carbon Storage in U.S. Forests by State and Ownership Group. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at: http://www.fia.fs.fed.us. _____. 2013. Forest Inventory Analysis Total Carbon Storage in U.S. Forests by State and Ownership Group. Accessed online on April 10, 2014. _____. 2014. Forest Threat Facts. No. 2. Revised March 2014. Accessed online April 10, 2014 at www.forestthreats.org. _____. 2014. Kisatchie National Forest 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Accessed online April 10, 2014 at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795834.pdf. _____. 2010. National Roadmap to Responding to Climate Change. Accessed online April 10, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/pdf/roadmap.pdf. _____. 2014. Schedule of Proposed Actions for Kisatchie National Forest: 2006-2014. Accessed online April 10, 2014 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/components/reports/sopa-110806- 2014-04.html. _____. 2014. Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options. TACCIMO Climate Report Southern Region. April 9, 2014. 9 Pp. _____. 2014. Template for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Management Options. TACCIMO Management Options by Source Report. TACCIMO Literature Report. April 9, 2014. 135 Pp. Vose, James, Peterson, David. L, and Toral Patel-Weynand. 2012. Effects of Climate Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Stations. General

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 137

Technical Report PNW-GTR-870. Accessed online on April 9, 2014 at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/42610. Wiedinmyer, C., and M.D. Hurteau. 2012. Prescribed Fire as a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science and Technology 44:1926–1932.

Heritage Resources Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.1966. National Historic Preservation Act. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ONLINE. Available at: http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/nhpa1966.htm [accessed 2012-2013]. _____. 2005. Protection of Historic Properties. Code of Federal Regulations, title 36, part 800. (accessed 2012-2013). Bergstrom, Velicia. 2008. Programmatic Agreement among the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest; The Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer; The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; The Caddo Nation of Oklahoma; and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the Kisatchie National Forest of the Southern Region of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (PA). USDA, Forest Service, Pineville. Gavalis, Miranda and Velicia Bergstrom. 2014. Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of 3,738.3 Acres in the Vicinity of Silhouette on the Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, Grant and Rapides Parishes, Louisiana (Draft). USDA, Forest Service, Pineville. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Accessed online: www. achp.gov/nhpa.html Gutzman Mark H. 2011. Historic Silhouette: Heritage Management Plan. On file, USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest, 2500 Shreveport Hwy, Pineville, LA. Louisiana Division of Archaeology. 2008. Guidelines for Section 106 Investigation and Report Standards. Available online at http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/HOMEPAGE/report.shtml Parker, Patricia and Thomas King. 1998. National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. USDI, NPS, Inter-agency Resources Division. USDA Forest Service. 1945. Master Plan, Silhouette, Kisatchie National Forest, Alexandria, LA. On file at the USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District, Bentley, Louisiana. _____. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for Kisatchie National Forest, USDA-Forest Service,Southern Region, Atlanta, GA.

Recreation and Scenery Deng, Songqiu. 2012. Yan Jiafeng; Guan Gingwei and Matsato Katoh. Short-term effects of thinning intensity on scenic values of different stands. The Japanese Forest Society and Springer 2012. Minor, Charlotte. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Recreation Specialist Report. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. 92 pp. Unpublished Report. Online:

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 138

https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413027.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2014. McCool, Stephen F., R.E. Benson, and J. L. Ashor.1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management. Volume 10:385–391. Page, Anthony. 2014. Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project Vegetation Report. Ms. On file at the Kisatchie NF, Catahoula Ranger District Project Record. X pp. Unpublished Report. Soileau, Ted. 2014. Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project Soils and Watershed Report. Ms. On file at the Kisatchie NF, Catahoula Ranger District Project Record. X pp. Unpublished Report. Stewart, Lee. 2014. Personal communication. April 10, 2014. USDA. Forest Service. 1975. National Forest Landscape Management. Vol. 2. USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 462. Online: http://naldr.nal.usda.gov/NALWeb/Agricola_Link.asp?Accession= CAT87208522. _____. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics: A Guide for Scenery Management, as revised. USDA Handbook 701. Online: http://library.rawlingsforestry.com/fs/landscape_aesthetics/. Accessed 7/12/2012. _____. 1976. ROS Users Guide. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. 38 pp. _____. 1986. ROS Book. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC. 276 pp. _____. 1999. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5391432.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2014. _____. 1999. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5391435.pdf. Accessed April 2, 2014. _____. 2013. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results: USDA Forest Service National Summary Report. Data Collected FY 2008 to FY 2012. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/2012%20National_Summary_Report_06 1413.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2014. _____. 2002. 2002 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kisatchie NF. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Online: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum. Accessed May 5, 2014. ______. 2012. 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kisatchie NF. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. 50 pp. Online: http://apps.fs.fed.us/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd3_A08006_Master_Report.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2014. ______. 2012. 2005 National Visitor Use Monitoring: Visitor Use Report, Kisatchie NF. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. Online: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/ReportCache/Rnd2_A08006_Master_Report.pd f. Accessed May 5, 2014.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 139

Silviculture (Vegetation) Barnett, J.P. and R.W. Dennington. 1992. Return to Longleaf. For. Farmer. 52:11-12. Boyer, William, D. 1990. Growing-Season Burns for Control of Hardwoods in Longleaf Pine Stands. USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Research Station. Report so. 256. Pp. 11. Croker, T.C., Jr.; Boyer, W.D. 1975. Regenerating longleaf pine naturally. Res. Pap. SO-105, New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station. 21 p. Drake. W.M. 1910. A Report on the Coconino National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Misc. Publication (1910). LEAFS. 2014. Longleaf Ecology and Forestry Society. Accessed online on April 10, 2014 at: http://www.longleafs.info/pages/ecosystem.html. The Longleaf Alliance 1995. Pine stands without No Longleaf Overstory and No Recent Fire History. Accessed online on February 13, 2015. Maple, William. 1977. Spring Burn and Longleaf Pine Seedling Height Growth. In Research Note. SO-228. Southern Forest Experiment Station. New Orleans, Louisiana. Available online at: - http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YIRsiw8AojQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq= Maople,+longleaf+pine&ots=rBZPDpyhAw&sig=XTfHglQxjE9_CxtzLwHTOP9hjoI#v= onepage&q=Maople%2C%20longleaf%20pine&f=false Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: a cultural history of wildland and rural fire. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA. USDA. Forest Service. 1974. Southern Pine Beetle Handbook. How to Identify Common Insect Associateds of the Southern Pine Beetle. Combined Forest Pest Research and Development Program. Agriculture Handbook No. 563. Pp 36. USDA. Forest Service. Pesticide Risk Assessment. Available online at: https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/protecting-forest/integrated-pest- management/pesticide-management/pesticide-risk-assessments.shtml _____. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. _____. 2014. Forest Service Handbook 2409.26d. Silvicultural Examination and Prescription. Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. _____. 1997. Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities in National Forests in the Southern Region. Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. Accessed online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/R8%20Old%20Growth%20Report.pdf. Pp. 137. _____. 1999. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. _____. 1999. Record of Decision. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Southern Region. Atlanta, GA. _____. 2002. Record of Decision. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Management Bulleting R-8 MB98A. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/FinalVMEIS/ROD_Coastal_skm100802.pdf.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 140

_____. 2002. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Management Bulleting R-8 MB98A. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/planning/vmeis/FinalVMEIS/SVMEIS_Coastal.pdf. USDI US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp. Zobrist, Kevin. Research Scientist. 2005. Final Technical Report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF). Rural Technology Initiative. University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, WA.

Soils and Watershed Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology. Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman and Hall: London. Clingenpeel, Alan. 1999. Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Uses. USDA Forest Service. National Forests in Mississippi. Jackson, Mississippi. Douglas, N.H. 1974. Freshwater Fishes of Louisiana. Claitor’s Publishing Division. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Hamel, Paul B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Chapel Hill, North Carolina and USDA Forest Service. Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 2012 Louisiana Water Quality Inventory: Integrated Report (305(b)/303(d)) FINAL. Appendix A: 2012 Integrated Report of Water Quality in Louisiana19 Mar. 2014. http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/WaterPermits/WaterQualityStandardsA ssessment/WaterQualityInventorySection305b/2012IntegratedReport.aspx. Louisiana Forestry Association, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Louisiana Department of Agriculture. (no date). Recommended Forestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana. Neary, D.G., et al. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. RMRS GTR 42 vol 4. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Scott, D. Andrew, Novosad, John, and Goldsmith, G. J. 2004. Ten-year Results from the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study in the Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Proceedings of the Forest Service National Earth Science Conference. San Diego, CA. 18-22 October 2004, Portland OR. Resh, V.E. et al. 1988. The Role of Disturbance in Stream Ecology. Journal of the North American Benthologists Society. 7: 433-455. State of Louisiana. 2005. Statewide Water Quality Assessment. Federal Clean Water Act 2000 Section 305(b) Report. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Planning. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. State of Louisiana. 1999. Investigation and Report Standards. Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. Office of Cultural Development. Division of Archeology and Historic Preservation. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. USDA Forest Service. 1989. A Guide for Prescribed Fire in Southern Forests. Technical Publication R8-TP-11. USDA Forest Service Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 141

_____. 1999. Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Uses National Forests in Mississsippi. 21 pages. _____. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region.Volumes I and II. Management Bulletin R8-MB-73. USDA Forest Service. Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 1999b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA. _____. 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle, Southern Region. Volume 1. Management Bulletin R8-MB-2. USDA Forest Service Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 388 pp. _____. 1989b. Final Environmental impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Vols. I and II. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 2000. Forest Service Manual 5100. Amendment 5100-2000-2. _____. 1976. General Technical Report SE-10. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook. Southern Forest Fire Laboratory. Macon, Georgia. _____. 1999. Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations) Final Report. Submitted by: Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. _____. 2007. Kisatchie National Forest (Fiscal Year 2007) Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan and Report. USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest. Claiborne, Webster, Grant, Rapides, Vernon, and Winn Parishes of Louisiana. _____. Undated. Prescribed Fire Management in the Southern Region R-8 (Training Manual) Table 4, page 27. _____. 1999. Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest. _____. 1989c. Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. USDA Forest Service Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA: USDA Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest. _____. June 1962. Revised Safety Plan for Breezy Hill Artillery Range. _____. 2002. Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-98A. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 2003. Triclopyr –Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments Final Report. Prepared by Patrick R. Durkin Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. Wagner, David and Dwayne Hightower. 2001. Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends, Kisatchie National Forest.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 142

Wildlife Black Bear Conservation Committee. 1992 First Edition. Black Bear Management Handbook for Louisiana, Mississippi and east Texas. Breedlove, R. 1998-2010. Breeding bird surveys for the Catahoula Ranger District. Unpublished report. Dickson, James G., 2001. Wildlife of Southern Forests – Habitat and Management. Hancock House Publishers. Hamel, Paul B. 1992. Land managers guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pages. Johnson, Paul and Brown, Kenneth. Undated. Field Notes From a Survey of Margaritifera hembeli on USFS Property. Catahoula Ranger District. Kisatchie National Forest. Johnson, P. 1993. Survey Notes for the Winn and Catahoula Ranger Districts. Unpublished report. Louisiana State University. Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Lowery, George H. 1974. Louisiana Birds. Louisiana State University Press. Lowery, George H. 1974. The mammals of Louisiana and its adjacent waters. Louisiana State University Press. NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Naturserve. 1999. Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. The Nature Conservancy. Accessed by USDA FS under Grant No. 97-CC2-230. Shively, Stephen. 1999. Survey for the Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli) in Grant Parish, LA. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries. Stewart, J.H. 1992. Status review Louisiana pearlshell, Margaritifera hembeli. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, MS. Trani, M.K., W.M. Ford, and B.R. Chapman . 2007. The Land Manager’s Guide to Mammals of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Southeastern Region. Durham, NC. 546 pp. Turner, Rick L., James E. Van Kley, Latimore S. Smith and Robert E. Evans. Ecological Classification System for the National Forests and Adjacent Areas of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpublished report submitted in fulfillment of an agreement between The Nature Conservancy, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, and KNF. The Nature Conservancy and Stephen F. Austin State University. USDA Forest Service. 2014. Catahoula Ranger District Compartment Prescriptions and stand data, RCW survey and location records. _____ 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA. _____. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region. _____. 1989 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Southern Region.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 143

_____. 1999. Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. _____. 2012. Kisatchie National Forest 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan and Report. Unpublished report. Pineville, Louisiana. _____. 2005. FY 2005 Wildlife Management Indicator Species Population and Habitat Trends. Unpublished report. Pineville, Louisiana. _____. Wildlife Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 2609.2, Chapter 420). U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Imazapyr. _____. 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Triclopyr. USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. Sept. 1989. _____. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. _____. 1989. Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel Recovery Plan. _____. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 296 pp. Wilson, Lawrence A. 1995. Land manager’s guide to the amphibians and reptiles of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 360 pages. Vidrine. M.F. 1993. The historical distributions of freshwater mussels in Louisiana. Louisiana State University, Eunice.

Socio-Economics Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0. Office of the President. 1994. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Population and Low-income Populations. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Quickfacts. Poverty 2008-2012. Online: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22000.html. Accessed April 26, 2014. _____. 2010. American FactFinder. Online: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml. Rapides Parish Demographics. Accessed April 26, 2014. ______. 2010. American FactFinder. Grant Parish Demographics. Online: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml. Accessed April 26, 2014. ______. 2010. American FactFinder. State of Louisiana Demographics. Online: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml. Accessed April 26, 2014. ______. 2010. American FactFinder2. United States Demographics. Online: http://factfinder2.census.gov. Accessed April 26, 2014.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 144

_____. 2014. Estimates of Resident Population Change and Rakings of Louisiana and Parishes: July 1 2012 to July 1, 2013. Population Divison. March 2014. Accessed online on April 16, 2014 at: (http://louisiana.gov/Explore/Demographics_and_Geography/ParishEstimates.php). USDA. 1997. Environmental Justice Departmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief Information Officer. Jaworski, Delilah. 2013. Four-Forest Restoration Initiative Socioeconomic Resource Report. Ms. On file at the Coconino NF 4FRI Project Record. Jaworski, Delilah. 2014. IMPLAN Modeling for Silhouette Project. Unpublished Report.

Environmental Assessment for Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project, Kisatchie NF 145

Appendix A-Alternative B and C Maps

Figure 27. Proposed “No Hunting” Map

Figure 28. Proposed “No Public Access” Map

Figure 29. Proposed Road Designation Map

Figure 30: Proposed Helipad

Figure 31: Proposed Treatment Map

Figure 32: Undesirable Vegetation Treatment Map

Appendix B – Alternatives B and C Design Features, BMPs and Mitigation

Table 36. Silhouette Alternative B and C Design Features, BMPs and Mitigation

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

Air Quality (AQ) AQ1 Incorporate all design features and mitigation found in X Forest plan compliance, utilize techniques that the Fiscal Years 2012-2017 Prescribed Burning reduce or minimize smoke emissions Program EA and Decision. AQ2 Do not conduct prescribed burning when the predicted X Forest plan compliance, utilize techniques that atmospheric dispersion (mixing height and transport reduce or minimize smoke emissions wind speed) does not meet criteria outlined in “A Guide for Prescribed Fire in the Southern Forests”, the KNF supplement to Forest Service Manual (FSM 5140), or State regulations and guidelines, or when predictions indicate that smoke might drift into highways, airports, hospitals, populated areas, or other sensitive areas. AQ3 Conduct each management ignited prescribed fire X Forest plan compliance, utilize techniques that according to a burn plan prepared before ignition. reduce or minimize smoke emissions The appropriate line officer must approve the burn plan before carrying out a management ignited fire, or to continue with a prescribed natural fire. AQ4 Louisiana Voluntary Smoke Management (LVSM) X Forest plan compliance, utilize techniques that guidelines will be adhered to. Smoke warning signs reduce or minimize smoke emissions will be placed on state highways and parish roads where smoke has the potential to limit visibility for motorists. Aquatics (A) A-1 Maintain integrity of SMZ – see SW#1-10, 17, 19-22, X Minimize disturbance to streamside zones or

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

30, 31, 37-38. bottomland area, provide shade necessary for maintaining water temperature required by aquatic organisms. A-2 Utilize erosion control measures on roads and skid X Minimize potential for stream silting (impact to trails, see SW #25-29. aquatic habitat) Botany (B) B1 Prohibit slash pile construction within populations of X Mitigates effects of disturbance and burning. SC plants. B2 Construct slash piles at least 10 to 20 feet away from X Mitigates effects of disturbance and burning. known populations of RFSS. B3 Prohibit temporary road construction or X Eliminates direct loss of plants. reconstruction within populations of SC plants. B4 Prohibit construction, reconstruction or log landings X Mitigates effects of disturbance. in identified populations of SC plants. B5 Place slash piles on previously used locations such as X Reduces loss of native seed bank, limits extent of old piling sites, old log deck sites, or other disturbed severe disturbances and reduces severely disturbed sites to avoid severe disturbance to additional sites that are more prone to invasion by NNIP. locations where possible. B6 Treat weed infestations within treatment units before X Forest plan direction implementing treatments. B7 Review timber sale contract clauses for vehicle X Prevent spread of potential and existing NNIP by cleaning and incorporate appropriate clauses. vehicles used in management activities by washing vehicles and equipment prior to entering the project area and when moving from one area to another Heritage Resources and Tribal Relations (H) H1 See FW 162 and FW 163 X H2 A 25-meter buffer would be placed around prehistoric X Minimize indirect effects due to soil erosion. resource areas to minimize indirect effects due to soil erosion. Protection measures include archaeological monitors during mechanical activities H3 In the event that additional or previously unknown X

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

archaeological resources are discovered at any time during project implementation, the activity will cease immediately and the forest archaeologist will be notified. The activity in that location shall be suspended until an evaluation of the resource has been made by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Louisiana SHPO, the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (36CFR800.13). Public Health and Safety (PHS) PHS-1 Include all herbicide-related direction (FW-110 to X FW-117) to apply registered herbicides and meet requirements and label instructions. PHS-2 See SW37-SW41 X Recreation and Scenery (RS) RS1 In acres of high SIO in compartments 98 (66 acres X Minimize impacts to areas with high SIOs (FW-072) and along 0.3 miles of Little Creek Trail and 0.7 miles of Hickman Trail), 100 (80 acres and 0.4 miles of Hickman Trail), 101 (22 acres), 104 (260 acres and 0.2 miles of Little Creek Trail): (1)Design vegetation treatments to repeat in form, line, color and texture found in the natural or natural appearing landscape, (2) Retain shelterwood trees for a period not to exceed 3 years after seedling establishment if 15 or more contiguous acres of the stand are visible from the travelway and it does not conflict with other resource requirements, (3)Design treatments to retain shelterwood trees for a period not to exceed 3 years after seedling establishment if 15 or more contiguous acres of the stand are visible from the travelway and it does not conflict with other resource requirements (KNF) (Guideline). See Page F-2 of the KNF Forest Plan FEIS is SIO map for Catahoula District, and, (4)

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

No more than 30 contiguous acres of a seed-tree regeneration area with a leave tree BA between 10 and 20 square feet may be visible from the Little Creek and Hickman Trail and any designated (road) travelway. Adjacent stands less than 8 years old must be considered a part of the opening when determining compliance with this 30-acre restriction. Stands less than 8 years old separated by less than 330 feet must be considered part of the opening when determining compliance. Regeneration areas on opposite sides of a road, but otherwise adjacent, will be considered a contiguous opening (KNF) (Guideline). See Page F-2 of the KNF Forest FEIS for the SIO map for the Catahoula Ranger District. RS2 In acres of high SIO in compartments 98 (66 acres X Minimize impacts to areas with high SIOs (FW-072) and along 0.3 miles of Little Creek Trail and 0.7 miles of Hickman Trail), 100 (80 acres and 0.4 miles of Hickman Trail), 101 (22 acres), 104 (260 acres and 0.2 miles of Little Creek Trail): (1)No more than 15 contiguous acres of a clear-cut or seed-tree regeneration area with a leave-tree BA of less than 10 square feet per acre may be visible from the travelway (Little Creek, Hickman, designated roads). Adjacent stands less than 8 years old must be considered a part of the opening when determining compliance with this 15-acre restriction, (2)Stands less than 8 years old separated by less than 330 feet must be considered part of the opening when determining compliance. Deviations from the 15-acre restriction may be approved on a case-by-case basis on lands with a DFC theme of restoration, (3)Strive to avoid numerous even-aged regeneration areas in close proximity during the same planning cycle, and (4) Retain groups of trees or large single trees within cutting unit boundaries. Emphasis on trees to be retained should be in accordance with the DFC.

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

Retain and protect mid-story and understory species with desirable flowering characteristics. RS3 In High SIOs: Use feathering as an edge treatment. X Minimize impacts to areas with high SIOs (FW-072 Feathering is removal of some trees along the cutting unit boundary to create a transition in vegetation height and / or density between the opening and adjacent forest canopy. It is appropriate in all moderate SIO zones but is required in all concern level 1 areas. Feathering is accomplished by using several techniques singly or in combination. Possible techniques are: leaving the existing understory just inside the cutting unit boundary, thinning the overstory canopy along the interior edge of the cutting unit boundary, or leaving vegetation of progressively greater height from the interior of the cutting unit to the boundary. The technique used depends heavily on site conditions. The width of the feathered edge should at minimum equal the height of the adjacent uncut stand. RS4 In high SIOs: No cutting or trees bordering trail that X Minimize impacts to areas with high SIOs (FW-072) have blazes or diamonds as these are trail markers and avoid impacts to the designated trail system RS5 In all SIO (all of the project area): Strive to establish X Maintain scenic integrity and aesthetic quality irregular stand shapes that are based on or mimic natural boundaries such as changes in vegetation, soil type, or topography. RS6 In all SIOs (all of the project area): Within developed X Maintain scenic integrity and aesthetic quality recreation sites and other highly sensitive locations, use cut tree marking. If leave-tree marking must be used, obliterate by overpainting with dark gray paint within one year after the timber sale is closed. RS7 In project area (both high and low SIOs): Treat slash X Maintain scenic integrity and aesthetic quality that results from harvest or other management activities so it is no higher than 2 feet above the surface of the ground, by lopping, chopping,

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

crushing, burning, chipping or removal from zone or a combination of the preceding methods. Slash is not piled or windrowed adjacent to the treatment zone. The treated zone should extend at least 150 feet beyond the edge of the cleared right-of-way of the travelway. Treatment must be accomplished within 1year of the slash-producing activity RS8 Leave no slash within 100 feet of Little Creek and X Maintain aesthetic quality of Little Creek and Hickman Trails (high SIO). Hickman Trails. RS9 Do not use windrowing as a site preparation method X Retain general forest aesthetic quality within low SIO areas. RS10 Locate all log landings out of sight in the high SIO X Maintain aesthetic quality travelway. See locations above. RS11 Widely post (paper, internet, trailheads) notices of X Minimize interruption of recreation-related activities upcoming trail or area closures due to project activities. Work with organized trail groups to disseminate information. Tine activities to ensure hunting opportunities are available from November to January, annually. Soil and Watershed – All activities (SW) SW1 Implement erosion control measures at the time of X To maintain long-term soil productivity and ground-disturbing activities. Revegetate areas as minimize soil erosion. promptly as practical. SW2 Construct sediment traps or stream stabilization X To minimize erosion and protect water quality structures, or plant or manipulate vegetation to protect and improve aquatic and streamside habitat, or where management activity is causing or may cause deterioration of the streamside environment. SW3 As determined by site-specific analysis, require X To minimize erosion and protect water quality appropriate structures at all stream crossings of designated trails and permanent and temporary roads: (1) Consider the feasibility of using bridges as drainage structures on all perennial streams, (2) At

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

intermittent and ephemeral streams consider crossing alternatives including culverts, bridges, aggregate and / or concrete fords, (3) Minimize crossings for roads and trails with deeply incised stream banks, and (4) Construct crossings at right angles to the stream. SW4 Plan and conduct forest management activities within X To protect soil, water, and riparian associated a zone at least 50 feet from a scour channel and resources extending at least 50 feet from the end of the channel. Prohibit the following practices: (1)Clear-cutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood regeneration methods, (2)Salvage of single / double trees, (3) Removal of overstory or understory vegetation within 5 feet of the scour channel, (4) Mechanical site preparation, (5) Log decks or landings, and (6)Extraction of common variety minerals. SW5 Within SHPZS do not allow the following practices: X To maintain long-term soil productivity and (1) Roads, multiple-use trails, plow lines, and skid minimize soil erosion. trails that run parallel to the scour channel, if feasible, (2) Stream crossings, unless they a) run at right angles to the scour channel, b) are site-designated to minimize soil and water impacts, and c) do not impede fish passage, (3)Timber harvest treatments, unless they a) remove less than 4.5 CCF per acre, b) occur only when soils are dry, and c) are intended to improve wildlife habitat, maintain or restore specific vegetation communities, or improve old growth structure, (4) Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site, (5) Tractor-plow firelines unless they are: a) used only for wildfire suppression; or b) are more than 33 feet from the scour channel for prescribed fire and used only for tie-in, and, (6) For prescribed fire, hand rake and subsequently revegetate the fireline between the end of the tractor-plow line and the edge of the scour channel.

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

SW6 Within Riparian Area Protection Zones (RAPZS) do X To protect soil, water, and riparian associated not allow the following practices: (1) Roads, plow resources. To minimize erosion, rutting, and lines, and skid trails that run parallel to the scour compaction of soils. channel, if feasible, (2) Log decks or landings, unless they cannot be effectively placed elsewhere, and, (3) Even-aged regeneration, temporary roads, skid trails, and mechanical site preparation, unless needed to restore or improve riparian vegetation community the actions can occur without fragmenting riparian habitat linkages, and soil rutting and compaction impacts can be adequately mitigated. Adequate mitigation may consist of one or a combination of the following: (1) Schedule treatments to occur during seasonally dry periods, (2) Designate on-site locations that can / cannot be treated, (3) Limit the size of even-aged regeneration harvests to less than 20 acres, (4) Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site, (5) Tractor-plow firelines unless they are: a) used only for wildfire suppression; or, b) are more than 33 feet from the scour channel for prescribed fire and used only for tie-in. For wildfires, revegetate plow lines as soon as possible. For prescribed fire, hand rake and subsequently revegetate the fireline between the end of the tractor- plow line and the edge of the scour channel SW7 Within the SHPZ and RAPZ: (1)Locate roads and X FW 525 multiple-use trails outside of SHPZ zones as much as possible, (2) Minimize vegetation clearing widths for roads and road-stream crossings, (3) Minimize clearing and ground disturbance at stream crossings, (4) Locate crossings at points of low bank slope and firm surfaces, at right angles to the stream, (5) Design roads, trails, and crossings to minimize impacts on riparian zones, and (6) Design roads, trails, and

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

crossings to minimize impacts on riparian zones. SW8 Install barriers, fences, or other methods in steams to X To minimize the chance of sediment being lost create artificial sediment trap buffers. downstream during construction SW9 Limit the use of construction equipment in streams to To minimize stream erosion and sedimentation the amount of time absolutely essential for X completion of the project. SW10 Establish fords only under conditions which will not X To minimize the amount of streambank erosion and cause significant streambank erosion stream sedimentation SW11 Construct and maintain roads and trails to minimize X To minimize the amount of streambank erosion and sedimentation and protect riparian and aquatic stream sedimentation habitats. SW12 Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a X To limit soil compaction and rutting. To maintain severe compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard long-term soil productivity and minimize soil during dry conditions only. erosion. SW13 At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in X To maintain long-term soil productivity and a condition of acceptable potential soil productivity minimize soil erosion. following silvicultural or other land management activities Soil and Water – Prescribed Burning Activities SW14 Follow prescribed burning parameters and soil X To maintain long-term soil productivity and exposure standards. minimize soil erosion. SW15 Conduct slash burns so they do not consume all litter X To maintain long-term soil productivity and and duff and alter structure and color of mineral soil minimize soil erosion. on more than 20 percent of the area. Steps taken to limit soil heating include use of backing fires on steep slopes, scattering slash piles, and burning heavy fuel pockets separately. SW16 Do not burn on severely eroded forest soils with a X To maintain long-term soil productivity and litter-duff depth averaging less than 1/2 inch. minimize soil erosion. SW17 Install waterbars on slopes, and a diversion berm 50 X To slow surface runoff, minimize soil erosion, and feet from the stream channel, on firelines prevent sediment from entering streams

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

SW18 Install waterbars and diversion ditches on firelines X To slow surface runoff and minimize soil erosion. during their construction. Revegetate firelines as soon as possible after the burn project has been completed. SW19 Locate plowed firelines outside filter strips along X To slow surface runoff, minimize soil erosion, and lakes, perennial or intermittent streams, wetlands, or prevent sediment from entering Streamside water-source seeps except at designated points. Management Zones (SMZs) Minimize soil disturbance by using the firelines only as a tie-in with natural barriers SW20 Plan the frequency at which a site is burned. Burn X To maintain long-term soil productivity and soils with poor productivity less frequently. minimize soil erosion SW21 When wetlands need to be protected from fire, blade, X To prevent damage to wetland vegetation that could disc, or plow firelines around them only when the leave areas of bare soil. water table is so low that the prescribed fire might otherwise damage wetland vegetation or organic matter. Reuse previous firelines as much as possible. Use the least-disturbing method affording adequate fire protection. SW22 If a fireline is required next to a wetland, it is not X To prevent soil erosion and runoff into wetlands. plowed in the transition zone between upland and wetland vegetation except to tie into a natural firebreak. Soil and Watershed – Trail Activities SW23 Divert water runoff from trails and contour trails or X To minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation construct drain dips. Construct waterbars on long pitches with greater than five percent slopes. If possible, avoid impacting soil with a severe erosion hazard. SW24 Minimize the number of stream crossings as much as X To minimize soil erosion and stream sedimentation possible. Construct crossings at right angles to the stream. Harden crossings or use bridges on larger. Soil and Water – Transportation System SW25 Protect road approaches at perennial streams with X To minimize erosion and protect water quality

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

aggregate, concrete, or asphalt for a minimum distance of 20 feet from the edge of the stream channel. Determine on a case-by-case basis the need for reinforced bridge approaches. Protection may be required to extend to the gradient break to include nearby transitions between the stream floodplain and other landforms. Construct wing ditches to buffer stream channels from direct road runoff. SW26 Utilize rip-rap, plants, mats or other methods to X To maintain long-term soil productivity and stabilize fill around road crossings and culverts to minimize soil erosion. prevent erosion. SW27 Minimize the miles of new road construction through X To maintain long-term soil productivity and use or improvement of existing corridors. Develop minimize soil erosion. roads for resource management according to the following priorities: (1) Use existing facilities, with no improvement, for year-round service, (2) If the existing facility is not adequate for year-round service, restrict use to acceptable seasons or conditions, (3)If the existing facility is not adequate for the intended use under any condition, improve to a standard capable of providing service with control relative to the season or soil conditions, (4) If seasonal or other part-time service is unacceptable, improve the facility to provide adequate year-round use, (5) If no existing facility is available to serve required access needs, construct the minimum facility adequate to provide needed services under controlled seasonal or part time use, (6) If the existing road is causing unacceptable resource damage that cannot be mitigated in a cost effective manner and there is need for the road for resource management, obliterate and construct the minimum standard road needed in a more acceptable location, and, (7) If year-round use is needed for a documented purpose, construct the minimum all-weather road.

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

SW 28 Reduce short-term impacts of road construction / X To minimize soil erosion and protect water quality. reconstruction on water quality by: (1) Monitoring and controlling construction and reconstruction activities within and immediately adjacent to water courses to periods of low flow, and, (2) Ensuring that effective erosion control measures are used during construction / reconstruction of major drainage structures and approaches. SW29 Reduce long-term impact of road construction and X To minimize soil erosion and protect water quality reconstruction on erosion and sedimentation of adjacent land, and protect the road investment by: (1) Providing adequate, timely temporary erosion control during construction and reconstruction in highly erodible soil areas, (2) Requiring permanent vegetation on cut and fill slopes for all roads, (3) Requiring permanent vegetation on entire roadway width, including road prism, for all local roads managed as intermittent service, and, (4) Restricting or prohibiting use as warranted to reduce unacceptable soil and water impacts and protect road investments. Soil and Water – Vegetation Management SW30 Protect channel stability of perennial and intermittent X To maintain long-term soil productivity and streams by retaining all woody understory vegetation minimize soil erosion. within at least 5 feet of the bank and by keeping slash accumulations out of the stream. SW31 Within SHPZS leave at least 75 percent of crown X To allow for crown cover to intercept rain fall and cover along perennial streams receiving timber dissipate rain droplet energy harvest treatments. SW32 Do not allow mechanical site preparation on slopes X To maintain long-term soil productivity and greater than 20 percent minimize soil erosion. SW33 Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a X To limit soil compaction and rutting. To maintain severe compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard long-term soil productivity and minimize soil

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

during dry conditions only. erosion. SW34 At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in X To maintain long-term soil productivity and a condition of acceptable potential soil productivity minimize soil erosion. following silvicultural or other land management activities. No more than 15 percent of an area (including landings and skid trails) may be rutted, compacted, eroded, displaced, puddled, etc. SW35 Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and X To maintain long-term soil productivity and soil indentations are aligned on the contour (with minimize soil erosion. grades under 5 percent). SW36 Prompt revegetation is done if treatments leave X To maintain long-term soil productivity and insufficient ground cover to control erosion by the minimize soil erosion. end of the first growing season. Soil and Water – Herbicide Use SW37 No herbicide shall be applied within 30 horizontal X To prevent herbicides from entering water related feet of lakes, wetlands, or perennial or intermittent resources. Water protection for aquatic, public, and springs and streams; or applied within 100 horizontal domestic sources. feet of any public or domestic water source. Selective treatments (requiring added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can see and avoid them. SW38 Do not allow ground application of herbicides by X To protect SHPZ and RAPZS associated resources broadcast methods within SHPZS and RAPZS. Allow from herbicide contamination. selective treatments only if all of the following conditions are met: (1)Additional site-specific analysis is performed, (2)Herbicides labeled for aquatic use are utilized, and (3)Significant environmental damage, such as noxious weed infestations, is being prevented. SW39 Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, X To prevent herbicides from entering water related

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not resources. Water protection for aquatic, public, and cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning domestic sources. water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. SW40 No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or X To prevent herbicides from entering water related sinkholes. No soil-active herbicide with a half-life resources. Water protection for aquatic, public, and longer than 3 months is broadcast on slopes over 45 domestic sources. percent, erodible soils, or aquifer recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. SW41 Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the X To prevent herbicides from entering water related field are not located within 200 feet of private land, resources. Water protection for aquatic, public, and open water or wells, or other sensitive areas. domestic sources. Transportation (T) T1 Utilize mitigation measures for soil and water, X recreation, cultural resources, vegetation, wildlife and botany/noxious weeds in project design to minimize resource impacts from the transportation system. Vegetation (V) V1 See Appendix C, Forest Plan Direction Wildlife (W) W1 None of the proposed activities would take place X Minimize disturbance within the boundary of an active RCW cluster during the nesting season. W2 During logging operations no skid trails or log sets X Minimize disturbance would be allowed within the boundary of an active RCW cluster site. W3 Include protective measures in contract clauses and X X Limit damage or destruction of a cavity tree or bird restrictions for logging, raking and backfiring for burning) when working around cavity trees or birds W4 Maintain integrity of SMZ – see SW#1-10, 17, 19-22, X Minimize disturbance to streamside zones or 30, 31, 37-38. bottomland area and provide shade necessary for maintaining water temperature required by aquatic organisms.

Design Description Purpose Comment Criteria No. Forest Plan Specialist Compliance Recommendation

W5 Utilize erosion control measures on roads and skid X Minimize potential for stream silting (impact to aquatic trails, see SW #25-29 habitat)

Appendix C – Kisatchie NF Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Direction Applicable Forestwide Standards and Guidelines

Heritage Resources Manage heritage resources in accordance with applicable federal laws, regulations, policy, agreements, and in the public interest. Emphasize the protection of significant heritage properties, completion of the Forestwide inventory, and assessing the significance of inventoried properties. (KNF) (STANDARD)

Tier all coordination relating to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36CFR800) to the Southern Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA) and the MOU or other agreements between the Southern Region of the Forest Service, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the SHPOS of the Southern Region are incorporated by reference. The Forest heritage program serves as the Forest/ SHPO point of contact. (KNF) (STANDARD)

Use the Kisatchie predictive model to stratify survey intensity within each priority category. The three recognized resource probability zones are subject to periodic refinement based on previous and ongoing inventory, using conventional analysis techniques and GIS technology. Parameters defining these zones generally include distance from water, degree of surface topographic dissection, stream rank, soil types, and proximity to known heritage properties. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

Priority for heritage resource inventory is as follows:

1. Lands proposed for exchange or diminishing of federal jurisdiction. 2. Lands proposed for new borrow pits or surface minerals extraction. 3. Areas proposed for site preparation (if not previously field surveyed). 4. Areas proposed for EAM. 5. Areas proposed from UEAM.87 6. Other Forest areas proposed for projects 7. Other Forest Areas, no project proposed, including wilderness. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) Use certified heritage resource technicians to assist project inventories under direct guidance of heritage resource staff. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

Consult HRM status atlas, GIS HRM database, and Forest Heritage Program manager in the planning stages of projects involving ground disturbance, diminished jurisdiction, or increased public use of, or access to, an area. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

Transportation FW-553: Provide a road system suitable for land and resource management activities and forest administration.

FW-558: Provide local road access for resource activities such as timber sales, range allotments, and campgrounds at the minimum acceptable service level.

FW-565: Develop, maintain, and manage the forest road system as needed to respond to resource management objectives.

FW-566:Constructed transportation routes inventoried in the forest transportation system (roads and trails) should remain open for public travel unless any of the following occurs: (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

 The road is unsafe for motorized public travel.

 There is unacceptable resource damage.

 Closures or restrictions are needed to meet other resource needs.

FW-569: Use travelway restrictions or closures as described below: (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

 Travelways open for limited use: Travelway is open for seasonal use or specific to vehicle types. Traffic is restricted by a gate or sign. Use for a “let-down” wire gate is not permitted.

 Travelways closed to all motorized vehicular use: Travelways are closed to all motorized vehicular traffic for periods greater than one year. Traffic is blocked with an earthen mound or other similar physical barrier. A gate is not a recommended closure device. Administrative use would be permitted only in performance of emergency duties.

 Travelways permanent closed (obliterated): After site specific analysis the travelway is determined not to be needed again. It will be obliterated, revegetated, and removed from the forest transportation system.

Kisatchie Travel Management Plan

 Part A: Amends (Amendment #7) the Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest (Forest Plan) to prohibit motorized travel off designated routes forestwide (Appendix A1, EA). Exemptions from the designated motorized uses pursuant to 36 CFR §212.51 include the following vehicles and uses, exclusively.

1. Aircraft;

2. Watercraft;

3. Over-snow vehicles;

4. Limited administrative use by the Forest Service;

5. Use of any fire, military, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency;

6. Authorized use of any combat or combat support vehicle for national defense purposes;

7. Law enforcement response to violations of law, including pursuit.

Vegetation, Wildlife and Herbicidal Use FW-584: Create and sustain the diverse forest plant communities by managing towards desired future conditions that meet habitat objectives for selected management indicators within appropriate management and sub-management areas.

FW-597: Use the clear-cutting regeneration method only in the following circumstances:

 To restore native plant communities;

 To establish, enhance or maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species;

 To enhance wildlife habitat, or to provide for recreation, scenic vistas, utility lines, road corridors, facility sites, reservoirs, or similar development;

 To provide for the establishment and growth of desired trees or other vegetative species that are shade intolerant where an adequate seed source is not available.

FW-606: Use release and weeding treatments within areas to obtain desired growth rates, stocking levels, species composition, groundcover establishment and/or wildlife habitat conditions.

FW-701: Identify and map exotic pest plant species infestations as they are located. Use appropriate control methods as funding allows, including, but not limited to, prescribed fire, herbicides, manual removal, and mowing.

FW-716: Maintain clusters, replacement and recruitment stand in an open park-like condition with a basal area ranging from 60 to 80 square feet per acre.

FW-726: Use midstory removal and control in all clusters, replacement and recruitment stands outside of Kisatchie Hills Wilderness.

FW-728: Prescribed burning on a two to five year rotation is preferred for midstory vegetation control.

FW-729: In clusters, replacement or recruitment stands where hardwood midstory is too large to be killed by prescribed burning, the following methods may be used to remove midstory:

 Mechanical methods such as a feller-buncher, hydro-ax, drum chopper, mulcher, or shearing blade;

 Manual methods such as chainsaws or brush hooks;

 Herbicides applied by injection, hypo-hatchet, or hand-sprayer;

 Or a combination of these methods.

FW-736: Artificial cavity trees shall be used in any RCW population, regardless of MIL, if suitable cavity trees are limited.

FW-819: Thinning of stands considered unsuitable as foraging habitat (average DBH of less than 10 inches) is encouraged and may take place at any time.

FW-820: During thinning operations, provide for the following habitat:

 Retain a minimum BA of at least 40 square feet per acre for pines equal to or greater than 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH).

 Maintain a maximum total BA of 70 square feet per acre in foraging habitat for active or recruitment clusters.

MA-3 Standards and Guidelines

MA-3-03: Classify this management area as suitable for timber production except in areas specifically classified unsuitable by Forestwide standards and guidelines.

MA-3-05: Pursue restoration or maintenance of native plant communities on all sites through the re-establishment of natural community composition, structure, and ecological processes.

SMA-3BL Standards and Guidelines

SMA-3BL-01: Apply prescribed fire at the landscape scale every 2-5 years, with increased emphasis on growing season burns.

SMA-3BL-02: Prescribe dormant season and early growing season burns to reduce impacts of brown spot needle blight on high-blight-risk longleaf restoration sites; and to release longleaf seedlings from competition.

MA-5 Standards and Guidelines

MA-5-06: Restore and maintain native plant communities for all sites through the re- establishment of natural community composition, structure, and ecological processes.

MA-5-08: Adhere to guidance presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and Its Habitat on the National Forests in the Southern Region and the USFWS’ Recovery Plan for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Second Edition.

SMA-5CL Standards and Guidelines

SMA-5CL-02: Prescribe dormant season and early growing season burns to reduce impacts of brown spot needle blight on high-blight-risk longleaf restoration sites; and to release longleaf seedlings from competition.

Soils and Watershed Resources Forestwide Objectives related to Soil and Water

Maintain or improve the Forest’s long-term soil productivity. This is accomplished through land management practices designed to meet requirements for minimizing soil erosion and compaction, by not exceeding allowable soil loss for any given soil, by revegetating disturbed areas, and by restoring degraded areas to a natural condition (USDA Forest Service. 1999c, p 2-3). Maintain or improve the integrity of aquatic ecosystems to provide for high water quality, stream-channel stability, natural flow regimes, water yield, and aquatic resources by managing in accordance with the Clean Water Act and by meeting all State and federal water quality standards (USDA Forest Service. 1999c, p 2-3). Also See FW Direction for soil and water in Appendix B

Recreation Goal 4: Provide for scenic quality and outdoor experiences which respond to the needs of forest users and local communities. Provide access to a wide variety of recreational opportunities and facilities.

Dispersed recreation

Objective 4–2: Provide visitors the opportunity to pursue a wide variety of developed and dispersed recreation activities, with a minimum amount of regulation, consistent with the assigned recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) class. The Forest’s ROS class objectives are as follows:

_ Primitive: 8,700 acres.

_ Semiprimitive nonmotorized: 57,269 acres.

_ Semiprimitive motorized: 89,963 acres.

_ Roaded natural-appearing: 217,152 acres.

_ Roaded natural modified: 191,671 acres.

_ Rural 6,162 acres

Objective 4–3: Develop, maintain, and protect existing and potential developed and dispersed recreation sites and trails consistent with public use and demand through construction, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation activities.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines

General

FW–326: Provide visitors the opportunity to pursue a wide variety of recreation activities with a minimum of regulation. Manage use with information rather than regulation when possible. Post required regulations as needed to insure visitors are aware of them. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–327: Manage dispersed recreation activities equitably with other activities and uses of Forest resources. Give recreation consideration comparable to other activities and Forest uses during site specific environmental analysis. Actively manage ORV, equestrian, hunting, and other dispersed activities. Promote a diversity of recreation uses. Minimize barriers to dispersed use such as range fences and closed roads, unless appropriate in assigned ROS class. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–338: Manage recreation settings in accordance with the ROS. Recognize the ROS system is flexible; activities and improvements inconsistent with the assigned class may be appropriate and desirable. Strive to provide recreation opportunities in different ROS class settings, including rural, roaded natural and semiprimitive. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–342: Provide off-road vehicle (ORV) recreation opportunities that are compatible with the environmental setting, minimize off-road vehicle effects on the land and resources, promote public safety, and minimize conflicts with other uses of the Forest.(KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–343: Designate Kisatchie National Forest lands as open, restricted, or closed to ORV use as follows: (KNF) (STANDARD)

_ Open — Areas on which all types of motorized vehicles may be operated off roads without restrictions.

_ Restricted — Areas on which motorized vehicle use is restricted by times or season of use, types of vehicles, vehicle equipment, or types of activity specified in orders issued under authority of 36 CFR 261.

_ Closed — Areas on which all motorized vehicle use is prohibited, except by permit, under authority of 36 CFR 261.

FW–345: Prohibit or restrict the use of ORVS in accordance with 36 CFR 295 on additional areas when unacceptable effects from ORV use occurs to other resources or Forest visitors. Examples of additional areas where ORV use may be prohibited or restricted include but are not limited to: recently rehabilitated areas and utility rights-of-way subject to unacceptable soil and water impacts. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–346: As stated in 36 CFR 295, provide the public an opportunity to participate in the process of allowing, restricting, or prohibiting use of areas and trails to one or more specific vehicle types off of Forest development roads. Provide 60 days advance notice to allow for public review of proposed or revised designations. In emergency situations, temporary designations up to 1 year in length may be made or revised without public participation if needed to protect the resources and / or to provide for public safety. (KNF) (STANDARD)

Trails

FW–349: Avoid displacement or relocation of Forest system trails by new roads whenever possible. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–350: Address the potential effects of management activities adjacent to system trails during site-specific analysis. Require appropriate techniques to mitigate the effects of management activities. Measures to mitigate the effects of activities may include vegetative screening, avoidance, reclamation, and timing of project implementation to reduce impacts during high use periods.(KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–353: Maintain trail markers or blazes to provide the public with clear trail route identification. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–363: Vegetation along trails is treated to maintenance levels identified in the publication Trails South. Priority is given to correcting unsafe conditions, preventing resource damage, and providing for intended recreation experience level. (VM-23) (GUIDELINE)

Scenery Objective 4–1: Manage the Forest to create and maintain landscapes having high scenic diversity, harmony, and unity for the benefit of society through the application of the Scenery Management System, and consistent with assigned scenic integrity objectives (SIO). The SIOS are as follows:

Very high: 8,699 acres.

High: 93,980 acres.

Medium: 89,155 acres.

Low: 415,020 acres.

Very low: 1,278 acres.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines

High SIO

FW–407: In high SIO areas, human activity may only repeat the form, line, color, and texture found in the natural or natural-appearing landscape. The high SIO allows human alteration and management activity that is not visually evident. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–408: Uneven-aged regeneration is generally preferred over even-aged in high SIO areas. Allow even-aged regeneration to affect spatial diversity, mimic natural processes, or facilitate restoration of natural plant communities. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–409: Shelterwood is the preferred evenaged regeneration method in high SIO areas. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–410: Retain shelterwood trees for a period not to exceed 3 years after seedling establishment if 15 or more contiguous acres of the stand are visible from the travelway and it does not conflict with other resource requirements. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–411: Shelterwood regeneration areas with a residual basal area of 20 square feet per acre or more have no scenery-based size restriction if leave trees are retained for a period of at least 3 years after seedling establishment. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–412: No more than 30 contiguous acres of a seed-tree regeneration area with a leave tree BA between 10 and 20 square feet per acre may be visible from the travelway. Adjacent stands less than 8 years old must be considered a part of the opening when determining compliance with this 30-acre restriction. Stands less than 8 years old separated by less than 330 feet must be considered part of the opening when determining compliance. Regeneration areas on opposite sides of a road, but otherwise adjacent, will be considered a contiguous opening. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–413: No more than 15 contiguous acres of a clear-cut or seed-tree regeneration area with a leave-tree BA of less than 10 square feet per acre may be visible from the travelway. Adjacent stands less than 8 years old must be considered a part of the opening when determining compliance with this 15-acre restriction. Stands less than 8 years old separated by less than 330 feet must be considered part of the opening when determining compliance. Deviations from the 15-acre restriction may be approved on a case-by-case basis on lands with a DFC theme of restoration. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–414: Strive to avoid numerous even-aged regeneration areas in close proximity during the same planning cycle. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–415: Strive to establish irregular stand shapes that are based on or mimic natural boundaries such as changes in vegetation, soil type, or topography. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–416: Retain groups of trees or large single trees within cutting unit boundaries. Emphasis on trees to be retained should be in accordance with the DFC. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–417: Retain and protect midstory and understory species with desirable flowering characteristics. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–418: Use feathering as an edge treatment. Feathering is the partial cutting of trees along the cutting unit boundary to create transition in vegetation height and /or density between the opening and adjacent forest canopy. Feathering is appropriate in all high SIO zones and is required in all concern level 1 areas. Feathering is accomplished by using several different techniques singly or in combination. Possible techniques are, leaving the existing understory just inside the cutting unit boundary, thinning the overstory canopy along the interior edge of the cutting unit boundary, or leaving vegetation of progressively greater height from the interior of the cutting unit to the boundary. The technique used depends heavily on site conditions. The width of the feathered edge should at a minimum equal the height of the adjacent uncut stand. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–419: Treat slash resulting from harvest or other management activity so it is no higher than 2 feet above the surface of the ground, by lopping, chopping, crushing, burning, chipping or removal from zone or a combination of the preceding methods. Do not pile or windrow slash adjacent to the treatment zone. The treated zone should extend 200–600 feet beyond the edge of the cleared right-of-way of the travelway; the actual width is determined on a case-by-case basis by or in consultation with the Forest landscape architect. Treatment must be accomplished within 1 year of slash production. In the most sensitive areas, such as within developed recreation sites, more intense treatment may be required, such as chipping and scattering or outright removal. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–420: Within the boundaries of developed recreation sites and other highly sensitive locations, use cut-tree marking. If leavetree marking must be used, obliterate by over-painting with dark gray paint within one year after the timber sale is closed. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–421: Locate all log landings out of sight in the high SIO travelway. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–422: Minimize construction or improvement of roads that join the travelway. (KNF)(GUIDELINE)

FW–423: Do not use windrowing as a site preparation method within high SIO areas.(KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–424: For all proposed herbicide treatments in high SIO areas, the Forest Landscape architect must be consulted. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–425: Stumps that result from harvest operations may be ground down to or below natural grade in the most sensitive areas, such as within recreation site boundaries. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

Low SIO

FW–442: In lands with the low SIO human alterations and management activities dominate the original scenic attributes of the natural or natural appearing landscape character being viewed. They borrow from naturally established design attributes — form, line color, and texture — so completely and at such a scale that the scenic attributes are those of natural occurrences with the surrounding area. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–443: Establish irregular stand shapes that are based on or mimic natural boundaries such as changes in vegetation, soil type or topography. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–444: Treat slash that results from harvest or other management activities so it is no higher than 2 feet above the surface of the ground, by lopping, chopping, crushing, burning, chipping, or removal from zone; or a combination of the preceding methods. Slash should not be piled or windrowed adjacent to the treatment zone. The treated zone should extend at least 50 feet beyond the edge of the cleared right-of-way of the travelway. Treatment must be accomplished within one year of the slash producing activity.(KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–445: Minimize number of log landings visible from the travelway. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

FW–446: Do not use windrowing as a site preparation method within low SIO areas. (KNF) (GUIDELINE)

MA 5

Desired Condition: For people using the area, there is a high probability of experiencing the sights and sounds of other people or viewing the evidence of management activities. The highest

amount and variety of dispersed and developed recreation facilities, opportunities and experiences are provided to meet the needs of local demand.

Prescribed Fire (Including Air Quality) Forest Plan: pages 2-7 through 2-74 (Forestwide Standards and Guidelines), ROD: page R-13 (Rationale for the Decision, Issue #10 Prescribed Burning), page R-19 (Monitoring and Evaluation), and page R-20 (Mitigation), FEIS: pages 2-4 through 2-11 (Management Prescriptions and Management Areas), pages 3-1 through 3-162 (Affected Environment), and pages 4-1 through 4-134 (Environmental Consequences).

VM-FEIS: Volume I, pages II-44 through II-65 (Method-Specific Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures) and IV-80 (Soil). Volume II, pages 2-11 through 2-13 (Personal Protective Equipment and Mitigation Measures), VM-ROD: pages A-1 through A-14 (Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures).

SPB-FEIS: pages 2-24 through 2-28 (Mitigation and Specific Mitigating Measures).

RCW-FEIS: pages 202 through 207 (Monitoring—Proposed Action).

BM: pages 9 through 13 (Recommendations for Restoration and Management of Hillside Seeps, and Standards and Guidelines for Bog Management).

Conservation Assessment for Prairies and associated rare plants species of the Kisatchie National Forest: pages 15-20.

Conservation Assessment for the Louisiana bluestar Amsonia ludoviciana: pages 10-18.

Conservation Assessment for the Barbed rattlesnakeroot Prenanthes barbata: pages 17-20.

Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Louisiana pine snake Pituophis ruthveni: pages 14-15.

Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Recovery Plan, 2003: pages 162-205 (Section 8—Guidelines).

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): Louisiana Division of Archaeology, pages 1 through 18 (Investigation and Report Standards).

Biological Evaluations for the Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, September 2011 (Appendix C).

See Soil and Watershed section of Appendix B

A detailed Burn Plan will be prepared for each proposed unit identifying required resources, concerns, and specific burning parameters. The burn will be executed by qualified personnel under the supervision of a prescribed burn boss whose level of qualification will be based on the complexity of the unit. Contingency forces would be identified in the BP and the burn boss will be responsible to ensure their availability. (Project-specific mitigation)

Louisiana Voluntary Smoke Management (LVSM) guidelines would be adhered to. Smoke warning signs will be placed on state highways and parish roads where smoke has the potential to limit visibility for motorists. (Project-specific mitigation)

Burn blocks, recreation areas and trails will be patrolled prior to ignition to minimize any risk to forest users. Signs or lookouts will be posted on trail crossings to warn users of the proposed actions. (Project-specific mitigation)

Air Quality FW-060: Do not conduct prescribed burning when the predicted atmospheric dispersion (mixing height and transport wind speed) does not meet criteria outlined in A Guide for Prescribed Fire in the Southern Forests, the KNF supplement to Forest Service Manual (FSM 5140), or State regulations and guidelines, or when predictions indicate that smoke might drift into highways, airports, hospitals, populated areas, or other sensitive areas. (Forest Plan) (GUIDELINE)

FW-053: Conduct each management ignited prescribed fire according to a burn plan prepared before ignition. The appropriate line officer must approve the burn plan before carrying out a management ignited fire, or to continue with a prescribed natural fire. (KNF) (STANDARD)

Botany

Table 37. Botany-Related Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction

Emphasis Description Management Emphasis

Overall emphasis on restoration and maintenance of the composition, Native Management structure and processes that formed the major landscape plant communities Community Area 3 on those LTAS where they occurred prior to the large scale logging of the Restoration early 1900s.

Longleaf Pine Emphasis would be on restoring native fire dependent longleaf pine Management native communities in an intermediate time period while providing a moderate Area 3BL community level of protection to other resources. restoration

Objective 2–1: Manage to restore or maintain the structure, composition, Native Forest-wide and processes of the four major landscape forest ecosystems known to community Objective occur on the Forest, and unique or under-represented inclusional restoration communities embedded within them.

Objective 2–2: Provide for healthy populations of all existing native and Forest-wide desirable nonnative wildlife, fish, and plants by managing major forest Species viability Objective ecosystems at the scale and distribution appropriate to maintain species viability.

Objective 2–3: Manage to protect, improve, and maintain habitat conditions Forest-wide Rare plant for all threatened, endangered, sensitive, and conservation species occurring Objective protection on the Forest. Natural Objective 2–5: Manage to protect or enhance the unique plant and animal Forest-wide Community communities, special habitat features, habitat linkages and corridors, and Objective management aquatic ecosystems associated with streamside habitat and riparian areas. FW–003: During project planning, consider the impacts to biological Forest-wide Biological diversity parameters at stand and landscape levels. Applicable aspects of Standards and Diversity composition, structure and function should be considered within each Guidelines environmental analysis. Forest-wide FW–008: Prepare site-specific environmental analyses which include Standards and Rare plant analysis biological evaluations (BES) or assessments (BAS) of a project’s Guidelines effects on species federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed; or

Emphasis Description Management Emphasis

those identified by the Forest Service as sensitive or conservation species. FW–009: A biological evaluation of whether a project could affect any Forest-wide Biological species federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed, or identified Standards and Evaluation by the Forest Service as sensitive (i.e., PETS species), is done as part of site- Guidelines specific forest plan implementation and project preparation. FW–010: Use integrated pest management (IPM) principles during site- Forest-wide specific analysis. The IPM decision-making and action process includes Standards and Pest Management biological, economic, and environmental evaluation of pest-host systems to Guidelines manage pest populations. FW–018: Cooperate with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program in Forest-wide Rare plant identification, documentation, protection, and management of animal or Standards and coordination plant species recognized by the Forest Service as sensitive or conservation Guidelines species, and in the management of State Registry Natural Areas. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) Forest-wide Longleaf Scenic FW–370: Schedule right-of-way mowing dates to promote wildflower Standards and Byway wildflower growth. (KNF)(GUIDELINE) Guidelines maintenance Threatened, FW–664 to FW-700 Project-level endangered, planning and sensitive, and analysis other rare plant species

Appendix D – Alternative B and C Proposed Vegetation Treatments by Silvicultural Method, Stand, and Acres

Silhouette acres by treatments Compartments Stands ACRES Treatments 0086 12 36.0164 1st thinning to 40 BA 0086 6 33.61085 1st thinning to 40 BA 0074 9 21.19257 1st thinning to 60 BA 0073 15 4.196805 1st thinning to 60 BA 0073 10 27.62137 1st thinning to 60 BA 0073 2 27.91259 1st thinning to 60 BA 0072 3 76.39761 1st thinning to 60 BA 0072 21 18.05919 1st thinning to 60 BA 0069 4 11.14622 1st thinning to 60 BA 0069 1 67.96721 1st thinning to 60 BA 0087 4 30.85956 1st thinning to 60 BA 0087 56 8.930119 1st thinning to 60 BA Total acres 363.9

0087 18 7.891341 Clearcut 0074 6 37.03084 Clearcut 0072 5 25.53415 Clearcut 0072 19 15.13475 Clearcut 0087 54 2.477258 Clearcut 0087 15 9.707227 Clearcut 0087 24 15.55964 Clearcut 0087 23 9.129469 Clearcut 0087 44 8.767252 Clearcut 0071 2 40.5036 Clearcut 0071 27 2.54876 Clearcut 0074 24 23.42125 Clearcut 0087 55 61.47282 Clearcut 0087 26 8.540859 Clearcut Total acres 267.7

0071 21 19.77411 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0071 11 30.85113 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0070 33 24.72233 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0070 29 14.09111 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 2 69.80705 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 20 77.40316 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 7 39.51734 Clearcut w/LL reserves

0086 3 13.96511 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 34 36.65565 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 16 65.87806 Clearcut w/LL reserves 0069 24 28.57613 Clearcut w/LL reserves Total acres 421.2

0087 53 5.277185 Free thinning 0087 48 6.447018 Free thinning 0087 45 3.264125 Free thinning 0087 49 6.472764 Free thinning 0087 46 5.206087 Free thinning 0087 47 5.264157 Free thinning 0087 52 5.224347 Free thinning 0087 50 4.431991 Free thinning 0086 13 70.75873 Free thinning to 40 BA (LL conversion) 0074 18 40.887 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 3 13.91842 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 23 11.95331 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 20 63.03336 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 5 33.45144 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 7 68.18622 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 21 17.51947 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 19 31.77005 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 12 8.758056 Free thinning to 60 BA 0074 22 28.24623 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 12 10.87689 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 3 16.18574 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 5 195.979 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 11 20.34869 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 23 11.81292 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 7 49.47334 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 10 10.20471 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 20 123.4506 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 6 39.88051 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 8 73.3817 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 24 52.41228 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 4 18.15984 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 19 31.58145 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 22 19.40928 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 7 73.34129 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 18 9.984708 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 17 9.604413 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 26 10.00206 Free thinning to 60 BA

0071 12 71.30793 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 1 47.39062 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 13 58.67784 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 9 220.7171 Free thinning to 60 BA 0071 5 103.7592 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 7 10.12913 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 3 4.381488 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 39 10.49304 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 4 50.32369 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 36 10.78586 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 13 57.14277 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 37 15.98915 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 38 10.31842 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 10 38.84122 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 34 16.99318 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 10 48.85231 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 14 33.93157 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 32 10.3223 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 33 10.11274 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 28 20.47599 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 13 38.30067 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 26 19.36924 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 6 122.3495 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 28 15.05072 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 14 9.475329 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 13 20.21844 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 35 8.855977 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 19 35.73307 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 2 76.1988 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 11 26.89534 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 32 12.72989 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 35 27.56995 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 36 19.36176 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 8 29.30737 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 34 21.57336 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 31 18.72101 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 15 56.34925 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 16 62.14188 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 30 9.65351 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 17 302.7084 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 38 17.65835 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 22 53.99323 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 24 10.19031 Free thinning to 60 BA

0086 29 11.8314 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 1 42.02905 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 5 38.30361 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 9 39.67872 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 39 17.80149 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 20 28.99309 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 11 14.65447 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 19 44.68469 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 16 29.26977 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 13 130.8157 Free thinning to 60 BA 0073 14 36.13659 Free thinning to 60 BA 0069 31 9.725089 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 30 77.1339 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 37 9.374064 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 14 9.475328 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 10 36.59623 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 1 21.05437 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 13 21.11968 Free thinning to 60 BA 0087 51 12.25914 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 42 17.11763 Free thinning to 60 BA 0070 1 48.87995 Free thinning to 60 BA 0086 21 23.43978 Free thinning to 60 BA 0072 9 11.94586 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) 0070 28 12.96064 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) 0086 23 10.19736 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) 0086 10 39.55656 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) 0086 14 49.123 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) 0086 4 26.33914 Free thinning to 60 BA (LL conversion) Total acres 3942.0

0087 38 6.46642 Planting

Total planting acres 695.4

Appendix E – Soil and watershed BMP’s

Resource Protection Measures

Resource protection measures listed in Table 1 include references to the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) and the Recommended Forestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana (Louisiana Forestry Association et al.) These protection measures are known as Best Management Practices (BMP’s). Forestwide (FW) represents the numbering system for FW Standards and Guidelines found in the RLRMP. BMP’s are not needed for the No Action Alternative since no ground disturbance would occur.

Table 1. Resource Protection Measures Required for All Action Alternatives

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

BMP’s Common To Various Activities

Implement erosion control measures at the time of ground- To maintain long-term soil #1 073 disturbing activities. Revegetate areas as promptly as practical. productivity and minimize soil erosion.

Construct sediment traps or stream stabilization structures, or To minimize erosion and protect plant or manipulate vegetation to protect and improve aquatic water quality #2 094 and streamside habitat, or where management activity is causing or may cause deterioration of the streamside environment.

As determined by site-specific analysis, require appropriate To minimize erosion and protect structures at all stream crossings of designated trails and water quality permanent and temporary roads Consider the feasibility of using bridges as drainage structures on all perennial streams. At intermittent and ephemeral streams consider #3 100 crossing alternatives including culverts, bridges, aggregate and / or concrete fords. Minimize crossings for roads and trails with deeply incised stream banks. Construct crossings at right angles to the stream.

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

Plan and conduct forest management activities within a zone at To protect soil, water, and least 50 feet from a scour channel and extending at least 50 feet riparian associated resources. from the end of the channel. Prohibit the following practices: Clear-cutting, seed-tree, and shelterwood regeneration methods Salvage of single / double trees #4 510 Removal of overstory or understory vegetation within 5 feet of the scour channel Mechanical site preparation Log decks or landings Extraction of common variety minerals

Within SHPZS do not allow the following practices: To maintain long-term soil Roads, multiple-use trails, plow lines, and skid trails productivity and minimize soil that run parallel to the scour channel, if feasible erosion. Stream crossings, unless they 1) run at right angles to the scour channel, 2) are site-designated to minimize soil and water impacts, and 3) do not impede fish passage Timber harvest treatments, unless they 1) remove less than 4.5 CCF per acre, 2) occur only when soils are dry, and 3) are intended to improve wildlife habitat, #5 513 maintain or restore specific vegetation communities, or improve old growth structure Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site Tractor-plow firelines unless they are: 1) used only for wildfire suppression; or 2) are more than 33 feet from the scour channel for prescribed fire and used only for tie-in. For wildfires, revegetate plow lines as soon as possible. For prescribed fire, hand rake and subsequently revegetate the fireline between the end of the tractor-plow line and the edge of the scour channel To protect soil, water, and Within Riparian Area Protection Zones (RAPZS) do not allow riparian associated resources. To the following practices: minimize erosion, rutting, and Roads, plow lines, and skid trails that run parallel to compaction of soils. the scour channel, if feasible Log decks or landings, unless they cannot be effectively placed elsewhere #6 518 Even-aged regeneration, temporary roads, skid trails, and mechanical site preparation, unless 1) needed to restore or improve riparian vegetation community 2) the actions can occur without fragmenting riparian habitat linkages, and 3) soil rutting and compaction impacts can be

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

adequately mitigated. Adequate mitigation may consist of one or a combination of the following: Schedule treatments to occur during seasonally dry periods. Designate on-site locations that can / cannot be treated. Limit the size of even-aged regeneration harvests to less than 20 acres. Harvesting and site preparation methods that expose bare soil on more than 10 percent of the site Tractor-plow firelines unless they are: 1) used only for wildfire suppression; or 2) are more than 33 feet from the scour channel for prescribed fire and used only for tie-in. For wildfires, revegetate plow lines as soon as possible. For prescribed fire, hand rake and subsequently revegetate the fireline between the end of the tractor-plow line and the edge of the scour channel

Within the SHPZ and RAPZ: To maintain long-term soil Locate roads and multiple-use trails outside of SHPZ productivity and minimize soil zones as much as possible; erosion. Minimize vegetation clearing widths for roads and road-stream crossings; Minimize clearing and ground disturbance at stream #7 525 crossings; Locate crossings at points of low bank slope and firm surfaces, at right angles to the stream; and, Design roads, trails, and crossings to minimize impacts on riparian zones. Design roads, trails, and crossings to minimize impacts on riparian zones.

Install barriers, fences, or other methods in steams to create To minimize the chance of #8 528 artificial sediment trap buffers. sediment being lost downstream during construction

Limit the use of construction equipment in streams to the To minimize stream erosion and #9 529 amount of time absolutely essential for completion of the sedimentation project. Establish fords only under conditions which will not cause To minimize the amount of #10 530 significant streambank erosion streambank erosion and stream sedimentation

Construct and maintain roads and trails to minimize To minimize the amount of #11 531 sedimentation and protect riparian and aquatic habitats. streambank erosion and stream sedimentation

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a severe To limit soil compaction and compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard during dry rutting. To maintain long-term #12 600 conditions only. soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.

At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in a To maintain long-term soil #13 601 condition of acceptable potential soil productivity following productivity and minimize soil silvicultural or other land management activities erosion.

Prescribed Burning BMP’s

Follow prescribed burning parameters and soil exposure To maintain long-term soil #14 073 standards. productivity and minimize soil erosion.

Conduct slash burns so they do not consume all litter and duff To maintain long-term soil and alter structure and color of mineral soil on more than 20 productivity and minimize soil #15 074 percent of the area. Steps taken to limit soil heating include use erosion. of backing fires on steep slopes, scattering slash piles, and burning heavy fuel pockets separately.

Do not burn on severely eroded forest soils with a litter-duff To maintain long-term soil #16 075 depth averaging less than 1/2 inch. productivity and minimize soil erosion.

Install waterbars on slopes, and a diversion berm 50 feet from To slow surface runoff, the stream channel, on firelines minimize soil erosion, and #17 077 prevent sediment from entering streams

Install waterbars and diversion ditches on firelines during their To slow surface runoff and #18 078 construction. Revegetate firelines as soon as possible after the minimize soil erosion. burn project has been completed.

Locate plowed firelines outside filter strips along lakes, To slow surface runoff, perennial or intermittent streams, wetlands, or water-source minimize soil erosion, and #19 079 seeps except at designated points. Minimize soil disturbance prevent sediment from entering by using the firelines only as a tie-in with natural barriers Streamside Management Zones (SMZs)

Plan the frequency at which a site is burned. Burn soils with To maintain long-term soil #20 081 poor productivity less frequently. productivity and minimize soil erosion When wetlands need to be protected from fire, blade, disc, or To prevent damage to wetland plow firelines around them only when the water table is so low vegetation that could leave areas that the prescribed fire might otherwise damage wetland of bare soil. #21 083 vegetation or organic matter. Reuse previous firelines as much as possible. Use the least-disturbing method affording adequate fire protection.

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

If a fireline is required next to a wetland, it is not plowed in To prevent soil erosion and #22 084 the transition zone between upland and wetland vegetation runoff into wetlands. except to tie into a natural firebreak.

Trail System

Divert water runoff from trails and contour trails or construct To minimize soil erosion and drain dips. Construct waterbars on long pitches with greater stream sedimentation #23 361 than five percent slopes. If possible, avoid impacting soil with a severe erosion hazard. Minimize the number of stream crossings as much as possible. To minimize soil erosion and Construct crossings at right angles to the stream. #24 362 stream sedimentation Harden crossings or use bridges on larger streams to reduce sedimentation. Transportation System

Protect road approaches at perennial streams with aggregate, To minimize erosion and protect concrete, or asphalt for a minimum distance of 20 feet from the water quality edge of the stream channel. Determine on a case-by-case basis the need for reinforced bridge approaches. Protection may be #25 101 required to extend to the gradient break to include nearby transitions between the stream floodplain and other landforms. Construct wing ditches to buffer stream channels from direct road runoff. Utilize rip-rap, plants, mats or other methods to stabilize fill To maintain long-term soil #26 527 around road crossings and culverts to prevent erosion. productivity and minimize soil erosion.

Minimize the miles of new road construction through use or To maintain long-term soil improvement of existing corridors. Develop roads for resource productivity and minimize soil management according to the following priorities: erosion. Use existing facilities, with no improvement, for year- round service. If the existing facility is not adequate for year-round service, restrict use to acceptable seasons or conditions. If the existing facility is not adequate for the intended use under any condition, improve to a standard capable of providing service with control relative to the season #27 556 or soil conditions. If seasonal or other part-time service is unacceptable, improve the facility to provide adequate year-round use. If no existing facility is available to serve required access needs, construct the minimum facility adequate to provide needed services under controlled seasonal or part time use. If the existing road is causing unacceptable resource damage that cannot be mitigated in a cost effective manner and there is need for the road for resource

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

management, obliterate and construct the minimum standard road needed in a more acceptable location. If year-round use is needed for a documented purpose, construct the minimum all-weather road.

Reduce short-term impacts of road construction / To minimize soil erosion and reconstruction on water quality by: protect water quality. Monitoring and controlling construction / reconstruction activities within and immediately #28 560 adjacent to water courses to periods of low flow; and Ensuring that effective erosion control measures are used during construction / reconstruction of major drainage structures and approaches.

Reduce long-term impact of road construction and To maintain long-term soil reconstruction on erosion and sedimentation of adjacent land, productivity and minimize soil and protect the road investment by: erosion. Providing adequate, timely temporary erosion control during construction / reconstruction in highly erodible soil areas Requiring permanent vegetation on cut and fill slopes #29 561 for all roads Requiring permanent vegetation on entire roadway width, including road prism, for all local roads managed as intermittent service Restricting or prohibiting use as warranted to reduce unacceptable soil / water impacts and protect road investments.

Vegetation Management

Protect channel stability of perennial and intermittent streams To maintain long-term soil by retaining all woody understory vegetation within at least 5 #30 523 productivity and minimize soil feet of the bank and by keeping slash accumulations out of the erosion. stream. Within SHPZS leave at least 75 percent of crown cover along To allow for crown cover to #31 524 perennial streams receiving timber harvest treatments. intercept rain fall and dissipate rain droplet energy

Do not allow mechanical site preparation on slopes greater To maintain long-term soil #32 599 than 20 percent productivity and minimize soil erosion.

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

Mechanical equipment should be used on soils with a severe To limit soil compaction and compaction hazard or severe rutting hazard during dry rutting. To maintain long-term #33 600 conditions only. soil productivity and minimize soil erosion.

At least 85 percent of an activity area should be left in a To maintain long-term soil condition of acceptable potential soil productivity following productivity and minimize soil #34 601 silvicultural or other land management activities. No more than erosion. 15 percent of an area (including landings and skid trails) may be rutted, compacted, eroded, displaced, puddled, etc. Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and soil To maintain long-term soil #35 602 indentations are aligned on the contour (with grades under 5 productivity and minimize soil percent). erosion.

Prompt revegetation is done if treatments leave insufficient To maintain long-term soil #36 605 ground cover to control erosion by the end of the first growing productivity and minimize soil season. erosion.

Herbicide Use

No herbicide shall be applied within 30 horizontal feet of lakes, To prevent herbicides from wetlands, or perennial or intermittent springs and streams; or entering water related resources. applied within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic Water protection for aquatic, water source. Selective treatments (requiring added site- public, and domestic sources. specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may #37 520 occur within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can see and avoid them.

Do not allow ground application of herbicides by broadcast To protect SHPZ and RAPZS methods within SHPZS and RAPZS. Allow selective associated resources from treatments only if all of the following conditions are met: herbicide contamination. Additional site-specific analysis is performed #38 521 Herbicides labeled for aquatic use are utilized Significant environmental damage, such as noxious weed infestations, is being prevented

Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes To prevent herbicides from worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water entering water related resources. #39 654 or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public Water protection for aquatic, water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. public, and domestic sources.

No herbicide is broadcast on rock outcrops or sinkholes. No To prevent herbicides from soil-active herbicide with a half-life longer than 3 months is entering water related resources. #40 656 broadcast on slopes over 45 percent, erodible soils, or aquifer Water protection for aquatic, recharge zones. Such areas are clearly marked before treatment public, and domestic sources. so applicators can easily see and avoid them.

BMP # FW Mitigation Objective

Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not To prevent herbicides from located within 200 feet of private land, open water or wells, or entering water related resources. #41 660 other sensitive areas. Water protection for aquatic, public, and domestic sources.

Appendix F – Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA)

USFWS - 13 April 2011

USFWS - 13 April 2011 • CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT USFWS - 13 April 2011 for USFWS - 13 April 2011

the Louisiana Pine Snake USFWS - 13 April 2011

(Pituophis ruthveni) USFWS - 13 April 2011

USFWS - 13 April 2011 • BETWEEN

USFWS - 13 April 2011 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS - 13 April 2011 U.S. Forest Service Natu ral Resources Conservation ServiceUSFWS - 13 April 2011 U. S.Department of Defense, Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training USFWS - 13 April 2011 Center Texas Parks and Wildlife DepartmentUSFWS Louisiana - 13 April 2011

Department of Wildlife and FisheriesUSFWS - 13 April 2011 Association of Zoos and Aquariums USFWS - 13 April 2011

Amended and Revised: August 201USFWS3 - 13 April 2011

USFWS - 13 April 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. SUMMARY (ABSTRACT) ...... 3 2. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ...... 4 3. GOALS ...... 5 4. BENEFITS TO ADDITIONAL SPECIES ...... 6 5. COOPERATORS AND POINTS OF CONTACT ...... 7 5.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES ...... 7 5.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ...... 7 5.1.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 7 5.1.3. U.S. Department of Defense, Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center ...... 7 5.1.4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 8 5.2. STATE AGENCIES ...... 8 5.2.1. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 8 5.2.2. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ...... 8 5.3. NON-GOVERMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ...... 8 5.3.1. Association of Zoos and Aquariums ...... 8 6. AUTHORITY ...... 9 6.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES ...... 9 6.1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service ...... 9 6.1.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service ...... 9 6.1.3. U.S. Department of Defense, Army ...... 10 6.1.4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service...... 10 6.2. STATE AGENCIES ...... 11 6.2.1. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 11 6.2.2. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department...... 11 7. CCA MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION ...... 12 7.1. LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE CCA WORK.GROUP FORMATION, ORGANIZATION, AND LEADERSHIP ...... 12 7.2. CCA ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT ...... 12 8. SPECIES INVOLVED ...... 12 8.1. DESCRIPTION ...... 12 8.2. LIFE HISTORY ...... 13 8.3. HABITAT ...... 14 8.4. DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS ...... 15 8.5. LAND OWNERSHIP ...... 19 9. THREATS INFLUENCING THE SURVIVAL OF THE LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE...... 19 9.1. THE PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR CURTAILMENT OF THE SPECIES' HABITAT OR RANGE ...... 20 9.2. OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ...... 22 9.3. DISEASE OR PREDATION ...... 22 9.4. THE INADEQUACY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS ...... 22

"\ ·U...

9.5. OTHER NATURAL OR MAN-MADE FACTORS AFFECTING ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE ...... 23 10. CONSERVATION STRATEGY COMMITMENTS ...... 24 10.1. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ...... 25 10.2. HABITAT CONSERVATION COMMITMENTS ...... 25 10.2.1. Landscape Level Conservation ...... 25 10.2.2. Local Level Conservation ...... 26 10.3. CONSERVATION ACTIONS SPECIFIC TO EACH COOPERATOR ...... 27 10.3.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service...... 27 10.3.1.1. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas ...... 27 10.3.1.2. Kisatchie National Forest ...... 28 10.3.1.3. U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station ...... 29 10.3.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in Louisiana ...... 30 10.3.3. U.S. Department of Defense, Army, Fort Polk Joint Readiness Training Center ... 30 10.3.4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 31 10.3.5. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department...... 32 10.3.6. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 32 10.3.7. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums' Louisiana Pine Snake Species Survival Plan Participants ...... 32 11. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ...... 33 12. CCA DURATION, RENEWAL, AND REVIEW ...... 33 13. EFFECT OF THE CCA IN EVENT OF LISTING ...... 34 14. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS ...... 34 APPENDIX A: SIGNATURE PAGES ...... 35 APPENDIX B: STRESSOR/ACTION MATRIX ...... 46 APPENDIX C: LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE OCCURRENCE MAPS (COUNTIES AND PARISHES OF OCCURRENCE, OHMCPs) ...... 58 APPENDIX D: LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE HABITAT MANAGEMENT UNIT MAPS ...... 61 APPENDIX E: LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE CCA WORK.GROUP MEMBERS ...... 66 APPENDIX F: LITERATURE CITED ...... 67

1. SUMMARY (ABSTRACT)

The Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthvem) is recognized as one of the rarest snakes in North America (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p. 203; Himes et al. 2006, p. 114). This amended and revised Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) for the Louisiana Pine Snake, a candidate species for Federal listing as threatened or endangeredt, has been developed as a cooperative effort among private, state, and federal agencies in order to collectively implement proactive conservation measures and habitat management guidelines throughout a significant portion of the snake's known range. Furthermore, this CCA updates, supersedes, and improves upon the CCA for the Louisiana pine snake finalized in 2003 and is based upon current habitat threats, implemented management actions, and significant new information derived from research, threats assessments, and habitat modeling that were not available in 2003. Implementation of this CCA addresses conservation needs of the Louisiana pine snake, and will allow the parties to this CCA (Cooperators) to leverage knowledge and funding within a common conservation :framework to reduce threats to the species. The Cooperators believe that establishment, implementation, and refinement of the conservation measures herein defined will benefit the Louisiana pine snake. The effect of those conservation measures will be considered when determining the need for listing the Louisiana pine snake as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544). This CCA is conceptually based upon adaptive management principles, is voluntary, and flexible in nature.

Specifically, this CCA intends to guide conservation measures on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Department of Defense (DOD) by establishing a :framework of management actions through collaboration with all of the Cooperators. Indirectly, this CCA will increase management protection for the Louisiana pine snake on private lands through the inclusion of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs and their staff interactions with private landowners. Management of the Louisiana pine snake captive-bred assurance population and reintroduction program through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' (AZA) Species Survival Plan (SSP) and other Cooperators will enhance the long-term viability of the species in captivity and the wild.

t A petition to list the Louisiana pine snake was received on July 19, 2000. The species was designated a candidate for listing by the USFWS in 1999.

2. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

A significant factor influencing the current status of the Louisiana pine snake is the loss or modification of longleaf (Pinus palustris) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) communities throughout its historic (i.e., pre-settlement) range (USFWS 2012, p. 17). Those communities have been dramatically reduced by changes in land use and timber management. The historic range of longleaf pine dominated the Coastal Plain areas of the United States from Virginia to Texas through central Florida, and has been estimated at 37 million hectares (ha) (91 million acres (ac)), of which 23 million ha (57 million ac) were dominated by longleaf, and 14 million ha (34 million ac) occurred in mixed stands (Frost 2006, p. 9-42). Less than 1 million highly fragmented ha (2.5 million ac) remain today (Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, p. 17; Jose et al. 2006, p. 3) which provide habitat for many vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant species, some of which are endemic (or longleaf pine specialists), and a number of which are federally designated as candidate, threatened or endangered species. Much of the remaining longleaf pine habitat has been degraded by fire suppression, the predominant use of dormant season fire, and the implementation of intensive, short-rotation silviculture on non• federal lands (Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, p. 2; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p . 118-119, Frost 2006, p. 37). For the Louisiana pine snake, secondary threats are mortality associated with road and off• road vehicle traffic, erosion control blankets placed in road and pipeline rights-of-way that cause entanglement and intentional killing by humans (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p.203; Himes et al. 2002, p. 8-9; Rudolph 2011 in litt.; USFWS 2012, pp. 20-21). Fragmentation and loss of genetic diversity are additional factors that reduce the viability of populations (USFWS 2012, p. 19-20). As a result, populations of the Louisiana pine snake appear to have declined alarmingly, both in numbers and in range.

The Louisiana pine snake was designated as a candidate species under the authority of the ESA on October 1, 1999. Candidate species are plants and animals for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has sufficient information on their biological status and threats to propose them as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Candidate conservation can be facilitated through inter-agency agreements. A CCA is intended to direct specific conservation efforts, to outline management practices that will prevent further decline of their habitat, and to ensure regular, periodic review of their status with the goal of working to preclude the need to list the species.

This CCA is intended to establish a framework for Cooperator participation and specific actions for the Louisiana pine snake's protection, conservation, management, and improvement of the species' status. Initiation of this CCA will further conservation of the Louisiana pine snake on Federal lands by: • protecting known populations and additional potential habitat by reducing threats to its survival, • maintaining its ecosystem, • restoring degraded habitat, and • reintroducing captive-bred snakes to some of the restored habitat.

'\ ......

Indirectly, this CCA will conserve Louisiana pine snakes on private lands through habitat maintenance and restoration initiatives through programs of the NRCS. This CCA is voluntary and flexible in nature, and has been developed so that different conservation and management actions that reduce threats to the species can be agreed to and implemented by each Cooperator within their organization. Through such cooperation in establishment, refinement, and implementation of conservation measures and in conjunction with potential Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) with private landowners, the Cooperators hope to significantly reduce the threats upon the Louisiana pine snake.

3. GOALS

The goals of this CCA fall into two main categories:

A. Conservation and Management: By addressing Louisiana pine snake conservation throughout a substantial portion of the snake's range, the Cooperators hope to effectively conserve and increase Louisiana pine snake populations by: • developing and implementing habitat management strategies that maintain or enhance the species' habitat, • monitoring the response of the species to conservation and management initiatives, • supporting research related to the life history, ecology, and distribution/status of Louisiana pine snake populations, • providing education and outreach information to government agencies, private landowners, and the public, and • managing a captive-bred population that can feasibly support a reintroduction program.

B. Cooperation and Collaboration: By managing Louisiana pine snake conservation actions collaboratively, the Cooperators will: • increase consensus and scientific vigor, • maximize resource (i.e., expertise, funds and authority, public outreach) availability, • improve the chances for the species' long-term conservation and survival, • enable integration of monitoring and research efforts with habitat management activities (Adaptive Management), and • provide an organized conservation approach that encourages uniform actions and reporting.

By defining, reviewing and refining the steps necessary to accomplish and ultimately achieve these goals, many Cooperators believe that current and potential threats to the Louisiana pine snake will be significantly reduced and that the Louisiana pine snake and a significant portion of its habitat can be conserved. The effect of those conservation measures in this CCA, and any potential CCAAs with key private landowners, will be considered when determining the need for listing the Louisiana pine snake as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Cooperators generally believe that the conservation measures implemented by this CCA will contribute to improving the

species' conservation status and hopefully make listing the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA unnecessary within the foreseeable future.

4. BENEFITS TO ADDITIONAL SPECIES

Management actions established through this CCA are anticipated to result in the restoration and protection of significant portions of the longleaf pine ecosystem of east Texas and west-central Louisiana, a habitat that has experienced substantial decline.

Commitments made through this CCA should benefit the Louisiana pine snake, and species that occur in the longleaf pine ecosystem of east Texas and west-central Louisiana outlined below (Gregory 2013 in litt.):

Federally listed species: Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksii ), Texas trailing phlox (Phlox nivalis ssp. texensis), red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis).

Plant and animal species of concern: white firewheel (Gaillardia aestivalis var. winlderi), slender gay-feather (Liatrus tenuis), scarlet catchfly (Silene subciliata), Texas trillium (Trilliumpusillum var. texanum), Soxman's milkvetch (Astragalus soxmaniorum) Illinois flatsedge (Cyperus grayoides ), Texas Brown Tarantula (Aphonopelma hentzi), Bachman's sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis), Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), Le Conte's sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii), greater roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus ), southeastern American kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus), northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), western slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuates), western chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia miaria), coal skink (Plestiodon anthracinus), eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platyrhinos ), hispid pocket mouse (Chaetodipus hispidus), Baird's pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps sagittatus).

Additionally, other important species such as the eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo sylvestris), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginanus) will benefit.

5. COOPERATORS AND POINTS OF CONTACT

5.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

5.1.1. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas 2221 N. Raquet Street Lufkin, TX 75904 Forest Biologist, Jason Engle (936-639-8501, [email protected])

Kisatchie National Forest 2500 Shreveport Highway Pineville, LA 71360-2009 Forest Biologist, Jason Nolde (318-473-7160, [email protected])

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station P.O. Box 7600, SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962 Research Scientist, Craig Rudolph (936-569-7981, crudolphO [email protected])

5.1.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Louisiana NRCS 3737 Government Street Alexandria, LA 71302 Wildlife Biologist, John Pitre (318-473-7809, [email protected])

5.1.3. U.S.Department of Defense, Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center

Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center DPW-ENRMD 1697 23rd Street, Building 2543 Fort Polk, LA 71459-5509 Ecologist, Elizabeth Hoyt (337-531-1363, [email protected])

5.1.4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

East Texas Sub-office of the Arlington Ecological Services Office 506 Hayter Street :Nacogdoches, TX: 75965 Wildlife Biologist, Robert Allen (936-569-7981 ext. 4017, [email protected])

Louisiana Ecological Services Office 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 Lafayette, LA 70506 Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Michael Sealy (337-291-3123, [email protected])

5.2. STATE AGENCIES

5.2.1. State of Louisiana

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries :Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 98000 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 Biologist Program Manager, Amity Bass (225-765-2975, [email protected])

5.2.2. State of Texas

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744 Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Andy Gluesenkamp (512-389-8722, [email protected])

5.3. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

5.3.1. Association of Zoos and Aquariums

Association of Zoos and Aquariums Louisiana Pine Snake Species Survival Plan (SSP) Memphis Zoo 2000 Prentiss Place Memphis, T:N 38112 Curator of Reptiles, Steve Reichling (901-333-6711, [email protected])

6. AUTHORITY

The signatory Cooperators enter into this CCA under federal and state law. All Parties recognize that they each have specific statutory responsibilities which cannot be delegated, particularly with respect to the management and conservation of wildlife and habitat. Nothing in this CCA is intended to reduce or nullify any of the Cooperators' respective responsibilities.

6.1. FEDERAL AGENCIES

6.1.1. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS)

The USFS is a natural resource management agency responsible for 78 million ha (193 million ac) of national forests and grasslands in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The national forests and grasslands comprise 8.5 percent of the total land area in the United States, and roughly 20 percent of the land holdings of the federal government. The National Forests and Grasslands harbor the most imperiled species, and the second most federally listed species of any federal agency (Grooves et al. 2000, p. 275). The Forest Service Manual (FSM) provides specific direction and guidance for managing rare species on national forests, and allows the Regional Forester to designate species as Sensitive (FSM 2670.22, 2670.32). The Louisiana pine snake is designated Sensitive on the Regional Forester's list. General objectives for Sensitive Species include: (1) developing and implementing management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered, (2) maintaining viable populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish, and plant species and their habitats on national forests and grasslands, and (3) developing and implementing management objectives for Sensitive Species and their habitats. The authority to develop the concept of partnerships and enter into specific agreements is outlined in The Forest Service Manual (FSM 1580, 1580.1). Regional Foresters, Station Directors, and the Area Director are designated as signatory officials for cooperative agreements, and other FSM 1580 agreements for programs under their jurisdiction (FSM 1580.4ld)

6.1.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

The mission of the NRCS is to improve the health of America's natural resources while sustaining and enhancing the productivity of American agriculture. NRCS achieves this by providing voluntary assistance through strong partnerships with private landowners, managers, and communities to protect, restore, and enhance the lands and waters upon which people and the environment depend under the provisions of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended 16 U.S.C. 590f, and other applicable legislation. This legislation authorizes NRCS to cooperate with various Federal agencies, State and local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals in order to carry out its responsibilities and further the

conservation mission of NRCS on private lands in a voluntary, scientifically-based manner.

6.1.3. U.S. Department of Defense, Army (DOD)

The mission of the DOD is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of the U.S. DOD lands contain the most federally listed species of any federal agency. However, these lands represent only 3 percent of the land holdings of the federal government (Grooves et al. 2000, p.276). The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670o) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to prepare and implement an Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP), in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, and the head of each appropriate state fish and wildlife agency.

An INRMP is a planning document that allows DOD installations to implement landscape level management of their natural resources while coordinating with various stakeholders. INRMPs provide for the management of natural resources, including fish, wildlife, and plants; allow multipurpose use of resources (including public access where appropriate); integrates conservation measures with military operations; and are consistent with stewardship and legal requirements. Under the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. § 670c-1), the Secretary of a military department may enter into cooperative agreements with states, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and individuals to provide for the maintenance and improvement of natural resources on, or to benefit natural and historic research on DOD installations. Section 2684a of Title 10 of the United States Code, authorizes the Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Military Department to enter into partnerships with private conservation organizations, local, or state governments to prevent development or use of property that would be incompatible with the mission of the installation, or preserve habitat that is compatible with environmental requirements and eliminates or relieves current or anticipated environmental restrictions that may impede upon current or future operations.

6.1.4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

The mission of the USFWS is to work with others, in order to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The USFWS is responsible for the co-administration of the ESA and for monitoring candidate and species of concern. In 1973, the ESA was enacted for the purpose of conserving threatened and endangered species and preventing their extinction. All federal agencies were called upon to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for these species. Sections 2, 6, and 7 of the ESA, as well as the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-754), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) authorize the USFWS, in coordination with other Federal and State agencies, to facilitate conservation programs through inter-agency agreements.

6.2. STATE AGENCIES

6.2.1. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)

The mission of the LDWF is to manage, conserve, and promote wise utilization of Louisiana's renewable fish and wildlife resources and their supporting habitats through replenishment, protection, enhancement, research, development, and education for the social and economic benefit of current and future generations; to provide opportunities for knowledge of and use and enjoyment of these resources; and to promote a safe and healthy environment for the users of the resources (LDWF 2010, p. 9). The control and supervision of programs relating to the management, protection, conservation, and replenishment of these resources are assigned to LDWF in the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974, Article IX, Section 7 and in revised statutes under Title 36 and Title 56. The Louisiana Natural Heritage Program administers the provisions of law and rules and regulations regarding the Threatened and Endangered Species conservation program (Louisiana Acts 1974, No. 473, § 1. Amended by Louisiana Acts 1981, No. 736, § 1). The Louisiana pine snake is considered a Species of Conservation Concern (Lester et al. 2005, p. 36) and is classified as imperiled (S2) by the LDWF.

Under Louisiana Title 36:605, the Secretary of the LDWF may act as the sole agent of the State of Louisiana or designate one of the offices within LDWF or its Assistant Secretary to cooperate with the federal government and with other state and local agencies in matters of mutual concern.

6.2.2. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)

The mission of the TPWD is to manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. TPWD's primary responsibility is to monitor, conserve, protect, and enhance the state's fish and wildlife resources, much of which is, by statute, coordinated with other state and federal agencies (TPWD 2012, p. 5-6). Additionally, the director of TPWD is responsible for filing with the secretary of state a list of fish or wildlife threatened with statewide extinction (Parks and Wildlife Code, Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 68, Section 68.003). The Louisiana pine snake is considered a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), and State-listed as threatened in Texas (TPWD 2005, p.749). The Texas Natural Diversity Database is currently reviewing the status of the Louisiana pine snake throughout its range.

Under Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 83, Subchapter A, Section 83.005, any conservation agreement for the protection of species (an agreement between the state or a political subdivision of the state and the United States Department of the Interior under the federal ESA that does not relate to a federal permit) must be developed in consultation

with the Parks and Wildlife Department.

7. CCA MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

7.1. LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE CCA WORKGROUP FORMATION, ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP

In order to meet the objectives of this CCA, the Louisiana Pine Snake CCA Workgroup (LPSCW) will manage, administer, and periodically review this CCA. The LPSCW will consist of one or more designated representatives from each Cooperator participating in this CCA and may include technical and legal advisors and other members as deemed necessary. Cooperators may have multiple sub-organizations involved; e.g., individual Ranger Districts of the Kisatchie National Forest. The responsibility of this workgroup is to coordinate the implementation and administration of the CCA without superseding the jurisdictional responsibility of any Cooperator. The LPSCW will make recommendations for the conservation, management, and research needs of the Louisiana pine snake, particularly regarding their specific authority. Louisiana pine snake trapping (including locations, effort, and success) and other occurrence data collected by LPSCW representatives will be maintained and managed within a geodatabase by the USFS Southern Research Station or USFWS. A database of captive breeding data (including the individual snakes' origins, breeding pairings and location, egg production, hatching success, neonate survival, and disposition of individuals (release into wild or held for breeding)) will be maintained, managed, and distributed within the LPSCW.

Individual workgroup representatives of the LPSCW and the Cooperator that they represent can be found in Appendix E.

7.2. CCA ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT

The LPSCW will be responsible for the coordination of the conservation activities and monitoring of the conservation actions and commitments of the Cooperators to determine whether all actions are in accordance with the CCA. One designated Cooperator of the LPSCW will develop an annual assessment report of the Cooperators' progress towards implementing the conservation actions described in this CCA. LPSCW members will meet annually to review the progress that the Cooperators have made, and discuss recommendations for CCA revisions. Following the annual review, the LPSCW will publish an announcement to the repositories designated below detailing the progress made to date on the implementation of the conservation actions described in the CCA.

8. SPECIES INVOLVED

8.1. DESCRIPTION

Pine snakes (genus Pituophis) are large, short-tailed, non-venomous, powerful constricting

snakes with keeled scales, a single anal plate (the scale covering the cloaca) and disproportionately small heads (Conant and Collins 1991, pp. 201-202). Their snouts are pointed and they are proficient burrowers. The Louisiana pine snake (P. ruthveni) has a buff to yellowish background color with dark brown to russet dorsal blotches covering its total length (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 35; Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). The belly of the Louisiana pine snake is unmarked or boldly patterned with black markings. The Louisiana pine snake is variable in both coloration and pattern, but a characteristic feature is that its body markings are always conspicuously different at opposite ends of its body. Blotches run together near the head, often obscuring the background color, and then become more separate and well-defined towards the tail. Typically, there are no noticeable head markings, although rarely a light bar or stripe may occur behind the eye. The typical length of adult Louisiana pine snakes ranges from 122 to 142 centimeters (cm) (48 to 56 inches (in)) (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). The largest reported specimen was 178 cm (5.8 feet (ft)) long (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203; Davis 1971, p. 145).

The Louisiana pine snake is a member of the Class Reptilia, Order Squamata, Suborder Serpentes, and Family Colubridae. Stull (1929, pp. 2-3) formally described the Louisiana pine snake as a pine snake subspecies (P. melanoleucus ruthvem) based on two specimens taken in Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Reichling (1995, p. 192) reassessed this snake's taxonomic status and concluded that the Louisiana pine snake was geographically isolated and phenotypically distinct, and thus a valid evolutionary species. The Louisiana pine snake has subsequently been accepted as a full species, P. ruthveni (Crother 2000, p. 69; Rodriguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar 2000, p. 46; Collins and Taggert 2002, p. 33).

8.2. LIFE HISTORY

Sexual maturity is attained at an approximate length of 120 cm (4 ft) and an age of approximately three years (Himes et al. 2002, p. 686). The Louisiana pine snake is oviparous, with a gestation period of about 21 days (Reichling 1988, p. 77), followed by 60 days of incubation. Having the smallest clutch size (3 to 5) of any North American colubrid snake, the Louisiana pine snake is limited by a remarkably low reproductive rate (Reichling 1990, p. 221). However, the Louisiana pine snake produces the largest eggs (generally 12 cm (5 in) long and 5 cm (2 in) wide) of any U.S. snake (Reichling 1990, p. 221). It also produces the largest hatchlings reported for any North American snake, ranging 45 to 55 cm (18 to 22 in) in length, and up to 107 grams (g) (4 ounces (oz)) in weight (Reichling 1990, p. 221). Captive Louisiana pine snakes can live over 30 years, but females have not been observed to have reproduced beyond the age of 18 years (Reichling 2008a, p. 4, Appendix A).

Telemetry data indicate that Louisiana pine snakes are most often (80.9 percent) found within or near Baird's pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps) burrow systems (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389; Himes et al. 2006, p. 107), and that they use these burrow systems as nocturnal refugia, as hibernacula, and to escape from fire (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 386). Himes et al. (2006, p. 107) found that

Louisiana pine snakes had an average home range size of 33.2 ha (82 ac) (range 6.5 to 108 ha (16 to 267 ac)). Himes (1998, p. 18) found that adult males had larger home ranges (58.7 ha (145 ac)) than females (14 ha (25 ac)) and juveniles (5.5 ha (13 ac)). Due to its rarity, secretive nature, and preference for occupying pocket gopher burrow systems, Louisiana pine snakes are difficult to locate and capture, even in areas where they are known to occur (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 384). No nests of this species have been located in the wild.

Louisiana pine snakes appeared to be most active March-May and September-November (especially November) and least active December-February and summer (especially August) (Himes 1998, p. 12). Louisiana pine snakes were observed by Ealy et al. (2004, p. 391) to be semi-fossorial and essentially diurnal. Ealy et al. (2004, p. 390) documented that the species spent 59 percent of daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) below ground and moved an average of 163 meters (m) (541 ft) per day. Furthermore, Louisiana pine snakes in east Texas were relatively immobile (i.e., moved less than 10 m (33 ft)) on 54.5 percent of days monitored and all recorded movements occurred during daytime (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 391). Adult males in Louisiana moved an average of 150 m (495 ft) daily, adult females 106 m (348 ft), and juveniles 34 m (112 ft) (Himes 1998, p. 18).

Baird's pocket gophers are the primary prey of the Louisiana pine snake (Himes 2000, p. 97; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 58; Rudolph et al. 2012, p. 243), although the species has also been known to eat eastern moles (Sea/opus aquaticus), mice (Peromyscus sp. and Reithrodontomys sp.), cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus), and turtle (probably Trachemys scripta) eggs (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59; Rudolph et al. 2012, p. 244).

8.3. HABITAT

Louisiana pine snakes are endemic to the westerly extent of the longleaf pine ecosystem that historically existed in Louisiana and Texas. Louisiana pine snake habitat consists of sandy, well-drained soils in open pine forest (especially longleaf-pine savanna), a sparse midstory, and well-developed herbaceous ground cover dominated by grasses and forbs (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Abundant ground layer herbaceous vegetation is important for Louisiana pine snakes and their primary prey, the Baird's pocket gopher. These fire-climax park-like conditions are created and maintained by recurrent low-intensity ground fires that occur on a 3 to 5 year return interval. In the absence of recurrent fire, suitable Louisiana pine snake habitat conditions are lost due to vegetative succession. Using radio-telemetry in Bienville Parish, Louisiana, Himes (1998, p. 17) recorded native Louisiana pine snakes (nine adults and onejuvenile) most frequently in pine forests (56 percent), followed by pine plantation (23 percent) and clear-cuts (9 percent). Louisiana pine snakes have also been found in grasslands and pine plantations that contain sufficient herbaceous ground cover, and sandy soils (Reichling et al. 2008, p. 9).

Additionally, Baird's pocket gophers create the burrow systems in which Louisiana pine snakes are most frequently found (Rudolph and Conner 1996, p. 2; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 42; Rudolph et al. 1998, p. 146; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 62).

Up to 90 percent of radio-tagged snake relocations have been underground in pocket gopher burrow systems, and movement patterns are typically from one pocket gopher burrow system to another. In Louisiana, habitat selection by Louisiana pine snakes seemed to be determined by the abundance and distribution of pocket gophers and their burrow systems (Himes 1998, p. 41). Although active snakes did utilize debris and logs as temporary shelters, they were most often found adjacent to pocket gopher burrows. Snakes disturbed on the surface retreated to nearby burrows, and hibernation sites were always within burrows (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117).

Pocket gopher abundance is dependent upon an abundance of herbaceous groundcover and loose, sandy soils. The amount of herbaceous vegetation is related to canopy cover. Generally, a rich, herbaceous ground layer requires a high degree of solar penetration onto the forest floor. Himes (1998, p. 43) found that pocket gopher abundance was associated with a low density of trees and an open canopy, which allowed greater sunlight, more herbaceous understory growth, and better forage for pocket gophers.

8.4. DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS

The Louisiana pine snake is recognized as one of the rarest snakes in North America (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p. 203; Himes et al. 2006, p. 114). The Louisiana pine snake historically occurred in portions of northwest and west-central Louisiana and extreme east-central Texas (Conant 1956, p. 19). This area coincides with an isolated, and the most westerly, occurrence of the longleaf pine ecosystem and is situated west of the Mississippi River. Most of the sandy longleaf pine-dominated savannas believed to be the preferred habitat of the Louisiana pine snake had been lost by the mid-1930's (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246; Frost 1993, p. 30). Therefore, it is extremely likely that undocumented populations of this species historically occurred but were lost before the 1930s, since virtually all virgin timber in the south was cut during intensive logging from 1870 to 1920 (Frost 1993, p. 38).

The USFS Southern Research Station, Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture Laboratory in Nacogdoches, Texas, has compiled a 'historical records' database of all known Louisiana pine snake locations (excluding telemetry data). According to that database, 236 occurrence records of 218 individual Louisiana pine snakes at 162 unique locations have been verified from 1927 through March 27, 2013 (Pierce 2013 unpub. data). Based on this database, there are historical records for the Louisiana pine snake from seven parishes in Louisiana (Beauregard, Bienville, Jackson, Natchitoches, Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon) and 12 counties in Texas (Angelina, Hardin, Houston, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity, Tyler, and Wood). Currently, trapping is the only available method for surveying Louisiana pine snake populations. Since 1990, Louisiana pine snake trapping has been conducted by the USFS, the DOD (Fort Polk), the Memphis Zoo, and the LDWF. In total, trapping in selected areas throughout the entire (including historic) range of the Louisiana pine snake has resulted in 79 captures during 328,396 trap days (1992-2011). Supported by range-wide trapping results and the historical records database, Rudolph et al.

(2006, p. 467-469) concluded that the failure to document existing Louisiana pine snake populations at known historical localities, coupled with the extensive documented loss, degradation, and fragmentation of longleaf pine habitat, indicates that the Louisiana pine snake has been extirpated from significant portions of its historical range and that six occupied ranges were in existence at that time. Later, an additional Louisiana pine snake occupied range was observed on the Kisatchie District of the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. Based on counties or parishes with multiple Louisiana pine snake sightings and trap-captures during 1990 to 2011, extant Louisiana pine snake populations occur in four parishes (Bienville, Natchitoches, Sabine, and Vernon) in Louisiana and four counties (Angelina, Jasper, Newton, and Sabine) in Texas (Appendix C.). A single observation of a Louisiana pine snake found dead along a road in 2001 suggests that the current Louisiana pine snake population in Natchitoches Parish may extend into extreme northwestern Rapides Parish, Louisiana. In 2013, an adult female Louisiana pine snake was obtained which was captured as a juvenile in 2008 in Nacogdoches County near Garrison, Texas. The absence of Louisiana pine snake sightings and trap-captures during 1990 to 2011 indicates that the Louisiana pine snake has likely been extirpated from three parishes (Beauregard, Jackson, and Rapides) in Louisiana and six counties (Hardin, Houston, Polk, San Augustine, Trinity, and Wood) in Texas (USDA Forest Service 2011, pers. comm.).

Those seven existing Louisiana pine snake populations (based upon 1990 - 2011 occurrence data) are primarily concentrated on public lands (DOD lands at Fort Polk and Peason Ridge, Louisiana and the Kisatchie, Angelina, and Sabine National Forests) and privately-owned industrial timberlands in Louisiana and Texas. However, due to the expense and time required for trapping and the only recently available predictive habitat model (LRSF Model) (Wagner et al. 2009), sufficient Louisiana pine snake surveys have not occurred in all areas of potential habitat to precisely delineate the boundaries of the occupied range of extant populations. Consequently, although trapping data and opportunistic sighting records were used to establish the boundaries of occupied ranges, the estimates derived from these data are approximations.

To estimate the size of the occupied ranges, Louisiana pine snake records (n = 110, from 1990 to 2007) containing location data were plotted in a Geographic Information System (GIS). Using ArcMap (Version 9.2), a minimum convex polygon (MCP) was drawn around clustered records, and a one kilometer (km) (0.6 mile (mi)) buffer was drawn around each MCP (Occupied Habitat MCP (OHMCP)) (Appendix C.). Because trapping results are functions of trap location selection, trap success, and true presence or absence, trapping data only approximates Louisiana pine snake use of an area, but is the best available estimate. A one km (0.6 mi) buffer was used because telemetry data indicate this is a reasonable approximation of the area that a Louisiana pine snake uses during one or more years (D.C. Rudolph 2008a in litt.).

Using the methodology described above to estimate the seven extant Louisiana pine snake occupied ranges, The following OHMCPs have been delineated (Appendix C.): (1) the Bienville, LA OHMCP located on privately owned industrial timberlands in Bienville

Parish, USFS lands (a small section of the Winn District of the Kisatchie National Forest in extreme northern Natchitoches Parish), and a small amount of State lands; (2) the Kisatchie, LA OHMCP located on USFS lands (the Kisatchie District of the Kisatchie National Forest in Natchitoches Parish); (3) the Peason Ridge, LA OHMCP located on DOD lands (Peason Ridge Military Reservation in Vernon and Sabine Parishes) and a small amount of private lands; (4) the Fort Polk/Vernon, LA OHMCP located on DOD lands (Fort Polk Military Reservation (Main Post)), USFS lands (the Vernon Unit/Calcasieu District of the Kisatchie National Forest in Vernon Parish), and a small amount of private lands; (5) the Sabine, TX OHMCP located on USFS lands (the southern section of the Sabine National Forest in Sabine County) and a small amount of private lands; (6) the Scrappin Valley, TX OHMCP located on privately owned industrial timberlands in Newton County; and (7) the Angelina, TX OHMCP located on USFS lands (the southern section of the Angelina National Forest in Angelina and Jasper Counties) and private lands.

Population densities cannot be reliably estimated from trapping data because mark-recapture analyses cannot be conducted without sufficient numbers of Louisiana pine snake recaptures. Consequently, no estimates of Louisiana pine snake population densities exist.

The best available indices of current Louisiana pine snake occurrence are trap success and the number of capture/sighting records per population. How these metrics relate to true population size is unknown. With the exception of the Fort Polk/Vernon and Peason Ridge populations, most populations have shown a decline in trap success through time. Despite continued effort, some populations ve not experienced trap success or new individual occurrence records for many years. Occurrence records (all provided by Pierce 2013 unpub. data) are presented for each OHMCP (Appendix C.) below:

• The Bienville. LA OHMCP: Based on historic trap success and individual occurrence records (34 records from 2000 to 2012), the Bienville population is widely believed to be the largest extant Louisiana pine snake population (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465; Reichling et al. 2008, p. 10). Most records within this OHMCP (n = 29, (2000 to 2012)) have occurred on a 12,353 ha (30,525 ac) parcel of privately• owned industrial timberland (Reichling et al. 2008, p. 1) which is not covered by this CCA. On the Winn District, two individual records were obtained in 2000 and a recapture occurred in 2001, which was the last known observation on that District. • The Kisatchie. LA OHMCP: Two individual records (one non-capture sighting (2003) and one hand-capture (2007)) exist for this population since 2000. No Louisiana pine snakes have been documented within this OHMCP since 2007. • The Peason Ridge. LA OHMCP: Five individual records (from 2000 to 2012, all observed after 2005) exist for this population; one of which was a non-trap sighting. The trapping effort for the last three years (2010 to 2012) produced three captures. • The Fort Polk/Vernon, LA OHMCP: Twenty-eight individual records from 2000 to 2012 including four separate non-trap sightings exist for this population. Relatively moderate trap success and records of occurrence, and a large amount of potentially suitable habitat under active management, occur within this population.

• The Sabine, TX OHMCP: Only four individual records (all from trapping data obtained during 1993 to 1995) exist for this population. No trap success or any other sighting has occurred within this population since 1995. This population may be extirpated or is currently vulnerable to decreased demographic viability or stochastic environmental factors. • The Scrappin' Valley, TX OHMCP: Five individual records during 2000 to 2012 (all since 2005) exist for this population; however, two of those were road mortalities, two were removed from the wild for captive breeding, and one was sighted but not captw;ed. The most recent trap capture at this site was in 2008. The OHMCP of this population occurs on privately-owned property in Newton County, TX, and is not addressed by this CCA. • The Angelina, TX OHMCP: Six individual records (2000 to 2012) exist for this population. However, no unique occurrences, including trap success, have been documented since 2007. A previously captured snake was found dead on a road in 2009 and another previously captured snake was recaptured in 2012 and is being held to supplement the captive breeding program described below. This population may have become extirpated and/or is currently vulnerable to decreased demographic viability or stochastic environmental factors.

Additionally, as of April 2013, the captive-breeding Louisiana pine snake population consists of 83 individuals (39 males and 44 females) at 21 AZA institutions and 2 non-AZA institutions, which are divided into three groups separated by their different geographic origins -Bienville Parish, LA; Vernon Parish, LA; and eastern Texas. The Bienville portion of the population consists of 64 individuals (28 males and 36 females) distributed among 21 AZA institutions and 1 non-AZA institution. The Vernon portion consists of 13 individuals (7 male and 6 females) at 3 AZA institutions and 1 non-AZA institution. The Texas portion consists of 6 individuals (4 males and 2 female) at 2 AZA institutions (Reichling and Schad 2010, p. 1; Reichling 2012, p. 1, Reichling and Marti 2013, p. 4).

Because significant life history information is lacking for this species and current sampling methodology cannot determine population density, no estimates exist regarding the acreage or population size necessary to support a viable Louisiana pine snake population. Furthermore, the current and future status of the Louisiana pine snake must be viewed in light of the fact that most remnant Louisiana pine snake populations will remain demographically and genetically isolated into the future. Genetic studies are currently underway to define the genetic health of these populations and further inform the management of the captive breeding program.

Based on the low capture rates and limited habitat availability, Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 468) concluded that remnant Louisiana pine snake populations are not large. The Louisiana pine snake was classified in 2007 as endangered on the IUCN (World Conservation Union) Red List of Threatened Species (version 3.1; http://www.iucnredlist.org/). As a candidate, the Louisiana pine snake receives no formal Federal protection under the ESA. The State of Texas has designated the Louisiana pine snake as threatened and protected from direct harm

•

and unauthorized collection. InLouisiana, unpermitted killing or removal from the wild is prohibited and the Louisiana pine snake is classified as imperiled.

8.5. LAND OWNERSIDP

Using the methodology described above to estimate the seven extant Louisiana pine snake occupied ranges, those OHMCPs occur on 14,141 ha (34,943 ac) of DOD land, 21,630 ha (53,451 ac) of USFS land, 84 ha (206 ac) of State land, and 30,259 ha (74,770 ac) of private land (Table 1).

State OHMCP U.S. Forest Department State Private Total for Service of Defense Population StateLouisiana Bienville 1,034 (2,555) &J (2o6) 27,519 (68,002) z8,6.J7 (70,763)

Kisatchie 1,553 (3,8]8) 1,553 (3,8j8) State Peason Ridge 1•927 (4,']61) 12 (29) 1,939 (

State Texas Sabine 320 (791) 71 (1']6) 391(967) State Scrappin' Valley 2,047 (5,057) 2,047 (5,057)

State Angelina 3,837 (9,.S2) 574 (1,418) 4,411 (10,900)

StateState Total 4,157 (10,273) 2,692 (6,651) 6,849 (16,924)

State Total 21,6.Jo (53,451) 14,141 (3..,943) &J (2o6) 30,259 (7 Ownership State

TableState 1. Land ownership (ha (ac)) of estimated Louisiana pine snake populations (OHMCP)

9.State THREATS INFLUENCING THE SURVIVAL OF THE LOUISIANA PINE SNAKE

State The success of any conservation program is dependent upon eliminating or significantly reducing theState impact of threats to the species' existence. The following summarizes the five listing factors identifiedState in section 4(a)(l) of the ESA which must be considered by the USFWS in evaluating current threats to the Louisiana pine snake. In addition, identification of the specific threats to the LouisianaState pine snake and its habitat provides a framework for implementation of conservation measures to address those threats. Much of the information below comes directly from the most State recent Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form completed for the species (USFWS,State 2012).

State

State 19

State

9.1. THE PRESENT OR THREATENED DESTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR CURTAILMENT OF THE SPECIES' HABITAT OR RANGE

Both the quantity and quality of the longleaf pine ecosystem have declined in Louisiana and Texas since European settlement. The loss and degradation of most of the longleaf pine ecosystem, and hence of Louisiana pine snake habitat, was historically caused by logging, turpentining, fire suppression, alteration of fire seasonality and periodicity, conversion to off-site pine plantations, agriculture, and urbanization (Frost 1993, pp. 24-30). Between the 1930s and the 1980s, most of what still remained of the natural longleaf pine forest in Louisiana and Texas was converted to extensive pine plantation monocultures (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246). Consequently, the longleaf pine forest that existed as of the late 1980s in Louisiana and Texas has been reduced to 15 and 8 percent, respectively, of the acreage that existed in 1935 (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246). Importantly, the estimated 1935 acreages were a fraction of those that existed pre-European settlement, since virtually all virgin timber in the south was cut during intensive logging from 1870 to 1920 (Frost 1993, p. 30). Disruption of natural fire regimes, due to fire suppression and inadequate prescribed burning, is the leading factor responsible for the degradation of the small amount of remaining longleaf pine forest available within the Louisiana pine snake range (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 118). Habitat surveys conducted by Rudolph (2000, p. 7) indicate that changes in fire regimes may represent the greatest threat to Louisiana pine snake habitat quality in recent years. In the absence of frequent and effective fires, upland pine savannah ecosystems rapidly develop a mid-story of hardwoods and off-site species which suppress or eliminate any herbaceous understory. Since the presence of pocket gophers is directly related to the extent of herbaceous vegetation available to them, their population numbers and distribution declines as such vegetation declines. The resulting reduction of pocket gophers and their distribution directly impacts the number and distribution of Louisiana pine snakes.

All extant Louisiana pine snake populations have been affected by habitat loss and fragmentation, and all require active management to maintain suitable habitat conditions. Potential Louisiana pine snake habitat has been maintained or increased in some populations, whereas in other populations existing habitat continues to be lost and degraded, albeit at a slower rate than that which occurred historically. On private land, open pine habitats containing dense herbaceous vegetation are being (or have been) converted to densely-stocked, closed canopy, off-site industrial pine plantations that are harvested on very short rotations (less than 40 years) and managed with herbicides. These forests have sparse and poorly structured understory plant communities, an early successional trait that is present throughout the rotation, rendering them generally unsuitable for pocket gophers. Furthermore, if herbicide use alters the composition and/or density of the ground cover vegetation and pocket gophers decline in response, the Louisiana pine snake population in that area will decline as well (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 118). The use of fire is heavily reduced on private timberland because of the expense of fire liability insurance, legal liability, the planting of off-site pine species which have a reduced tolerance to fire, limited funds and personnel, and smoke management issues. Inaddition, the increasing

trend towards the divestiture of industrial forest lands in the southeast complicates establishing public-private partnerships and long-term forest management agreements.

The Bienville Parish, LA population of Louisiana pine snakes, presumably the largest extant population based on trapping results, primarily occurs on private industrial forest land. Much of this industrial forest has been converted to short-rotation loblolly pine plantations. Although the broadcast application of herbicides has been restricted in select plantations, these sites are managed with clear-cutting at 25-year harvest rotations and the use of targeted herbicides instead of prescribed burning (Smith 2008 pers. comm.). Two separate Louisiana pine snake Conservation Management Areas (CMAs), are being beneficially managed (via longleaf pine restoration, prescribed burning, and understory control) for the Louisiana pine snake by the private landowner. However, if the conversion of forests outside of the CMAs to short-rotation loblolly plantations results in a decrease in the suitability of these areas as Louisiana pine snake habitat (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470), the Louisiana pine snakes occupying the CMAs will become fragmented. Ifisolation occurs, the long-term persistence of Louisiana pine snakes in the CMAs has been questioned by some authorities (Reichling et al. 2008, p. 10) based on the belief that neither CMA is large enough to support a viable Louisiana pine snake population. Louisiana pine snakes have been found within loblolly pine plantations at these sites outside of the CMAs (Reichling et al. 2008, p. 6). However, based on trapping surveys and location records, Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 470) concluded that areas managed with these intensive silvicultural practices (e.g., clear-cutting, short rotations, planting of off-site pine species, and the use of herbicides instead of prescribed fire) do not support viable Louisiana pine snake populations. The buying and selling of the Bienville properties by timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) adds additional uncertainty regarding the future land use priorities on these sites. The recent conversion of a large portion of occupied habitat to short-rotation pine plantations highlights the potential conflicts between Louisiana pine snake conservation and economics on private land. Despite the beneficial management in the two CMAs, no formal conservation agreements currently exist for habitat occupied by this population. Furthermore, the Bienville properties are located near an area which is undergoing increasing natural gas exploration in association with a formation known as Haynesville shale. It is currently unknown if and at what level the Louisiana pine snake is being affected by those activities. However, well pad, pipeline, and road construction are anticipated to cause direct loss of existing habitat, and increased fragmentation, road mortality, and erosion control blanket exposure.

The quality of Louisiana pine snake habitat has been a concern on Federal lands in Louisiana and Texas in recent decades due to midstory encroachment and high stand density (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470). Forest fragmentation by roads and private inholdings and the concomitant smoke management and liability concerns, have hindered prescribed-burning and have caused natural fires to be suppressed. These factors have limited the development of healthy ground layer herbaceous vegetation in some areas. Since the 2003 signing of the CCA for the Louisiana Pine Snake between the USFWS, USFS, DOD, TPWD, and LDWF (USFWS 2003, pp. 30), extensive beneficial habitat management (prescribed burning and

thinning) within occupied and potential Louisiana pine snake habitat has occurred on Federal lands. The increases in the acreages of burning and thinning conducted have improved habitat conditions on many Federal lands that support Louisiana pine snake populations (Rudolph 2008b in litt.). Quantifying the extent to which these management activities have improved conditions for Louisiana pine snakes has remained difficult because vegetative responses to habitat management are not typically reported. Inaddition, not all areas of occupied Louisiana pine snake habitat or areas that have been identified by the LRSF Model as potentially preferable Louisiana pine snake habitat have received recent beneficial management.

9.2. OVERUTILIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

According to the United Nations Environment Program-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC 2009, p. 17), reportedly captive-bred Louisiana pine snakes were advertised for sale on four German websites in 2009 and two U.S. breeders were listed on another website. However, current levels of Louisiana pine snake collection to support the captive-bred snake market have not been quantified. Ongoing take of Louisiana pine snakes in Louisiana for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not currently considered a threat (Boundy 2008 in litt.) and there appears to be very little demand for this species by private collectors (Reichling 2008b in litt.). Given the restricted distribution, presumed low population sizes, and low reproductive potential of Louisiana pine snakes, even moderate collecting pressure would negatively affect extant populations of this species. Webb et al. (2002, p. 64) concluded that, in long-lived snake species exhibiting low capacity to produce young in large numbers, the sustained removal of adults from isolated populations would eventually lead to extirpation. Because extant Louisiana pine snake populations are isolated, dispersal does not occur between populations. However, the Louisiana pine snake is prohibited from non-permitted collection by State law in Texas and Louisiana, and most private land where extant Louisiana pine snake populations occur restrict public access. Inaddition, the secretive nature, preference for occupying pocket gopher burrows, and current rarity of the Louisiana pine snake make collection of this species difficult (Gregory 2008 in litt.).

9.3. DISEASE OR PREDATION

Disease and natural predation are not currently considered to be threats to this species survival.

9.4. THE INADEQUACY OF EXISTING REGULATORY MECHANISMS

In Texas, the Louisiana pine snake is listed as state threatened and prohibited from unauthorized collection. As of February 2013, unpermitted killing or removal from the wild is prohibited in Louisiana. Collection or harassment of Louisiana pine snakes is prohibited on USFS properties in Louisiana (USDA Forest Service 2002, p. 1). The capture, removal,

or killing of non-game wildlife from Fort Polk and Peason Ridge (DOD land) is prohibited without a special permit (U.S. Department of the Army 2008, p. 6; U.S. Department of the Army 2013, p. 51). However, those regulations do not protect the habitat of the species which has declined.

Malicious killing of snakes by humans is a significant issue in snake conservation because snakes arouse fear and resentment from the general public (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 40). Intentional killing of black pine snakes by humans along the Gulf Coast has been documented (USFWS 2007, p. 8). The intentional killing of Louisiana pine snakes by humans is likely, but the extent of the impact of this stressor is unknown. The Service does not have information related to the implementation, compliance, or enforcement of the existing regulatory mechanisms by the states or federal land managers.

9.5. OTHER NATURAL OR MANMADE FACTORS AFFECTING ITS CONTINUED EXISTENCE

The historic and ongoing fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem, and hence of Louisiana pine snake habitat, has resulted in extant Louisiana pine snake populations that are all isolated and small. Small, isolated populations experience decreased demographic viability, increased susceptibility of extirpation from stochastic environmental factors (e.g., weather events, disease), and increased threat of extirpation from genetic isolation and subsequent inbreeding depression and genetic drift.

Roads, and associated vehicular traffic, have been identified as important causes of snake mortality and population declines (Rudolph et al. 1999, p. 130; Himes et al. 2002, p. 686). Himes et al. (2002, p. 686) documented the death of 15 Louisiana pine snakes during their radio-telemetry study in Louisiana and Texas. Three of the 15 (20 percent) deaths were from vehicle mortality. Roads with moderate to high traffic levels reduce adjacent snake populations by 50 to 75 percent and measurable impacts extend up to 850 m (approximately one-half mile) from roads (Rudolph et al. 1999, p. 130). The threat of road mortality may be highest in the Longleaf Ridge Area of the south Angelina National Forest (Compartments 74 thru 77, 79 thru 92, and south portions of 73 and 78). Inthe Sabine National Forest, vehicle-induced mortality may be high in Compartment 139 (Foxhunter's Hill). Off-road vehicle use may also cause significant impacts to Louisiana pine snake populations. However, no significant data exists to quantify the impact of off-road vehicle use.

ECBs installed in pipeline, power line, and road rights-of-way can result in direct Louisiana pine snake mortality due to entanglement. Rudolph (2011 in litt.) demonstrated that synthetic erosion control blanket material caused immediate entanglement and snakes were unable to extract themselves after exposure.

The Louisiana pine snake has an extremely low reproductive rate, producing a very small clutch of 4 eggs on average (Reichling 1990, p. 221). The Louisiana pine snake's low fecundity (reproductive output) and low population growth rate magnifies the effect of all

other threats and increases the likelihood oflocal extirpations.

The extensive historic loss of habitat has reduced the Louisiana pine snake into seven (possibly less) isolated populations. The historic and ongoing loss of potential habitat on private land in the matrix between these extant populations has essentially eliminated the potential for successful dispersal among remnant populations, as well as the potential for natural re-colonization of vacant or extirpated habitat patches. In addition, the prospects are low for securing and restoring habitat corridors between most extant populations. Furthermore, snakes are vulnerable to increased intentional and unintentional mortality when they disperse outside of their home ranges and into developed areas (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 47).

Because extant Louisiana pine snake populations are few in number, small in size, demographically isolated and produce a relatively small number of eggs, any factor (e.g., habitat change, a loss of demographic viability, etc.) that results in a further decline in Louisiana pine snake densities within a remnant population is problematic for the long-term recovery of this species.

10. CONSERVATION STRATEGY COMMITMENTS

The commitments and actions described in this CCA focus on targeting education, conservation, improvement and management of the Louisiana pine snake's status and its habitat to directly address identified threats. Specifically, the Cooperators are using the best scientific information available to focus specific actions that directly influence the impact of identified threats within habitat that is preferable to the Louisiana pine snake (Appendix B). Because each of the Cooperators are bound to certain guiding agency/entity requirements based on mission, goals and responsibilities, the landscape and local level conservation actions (subsection 10.2) are intended to be adaptable and implemented by all Cooperators in accordance with their individual missions. All Cooperators will seek funding for carrying out the conservation actions identified below, and will collaborate on cost-sharing opportunities when possible. All funding commitments made pursuant to this CCA are subject to budget authorizations and approval by the appropriate agency/entity. The LPSCW will meet on an annual basis to evaluate the activities identified below and determine their effectiveness in conserving the Louisiana pine snake. Cooperator-specific conservation actions can be found in subsection 10.3. Appendix B links specific land-owning Cooperator actions directly to currently identified threats and provides a mechanism for reporting the impact of those actions.

For all land-owning Cooperators, the land areas identified in the CCA will be treated as habitat management units (HMUs) for the Louisiana pine snake, and protected as such to the maximum extent possible. HMUs were established by utilizing the LRSF Model in conjunction with professional land-manager expertise to identify areas that have the best potential for providing preferential habitat to Louisiana pine snakes regardless of known occupancy, current ground, midstory, or canopy conditions, or pocket gopher density presently occurring. Adverse impacts to the species will be avoided, and beneficial management activities will be continued or

••

implemented. Inconsideration of the premises of this document, the respective responsibilities and provisions of each Cooperator are as follows:

10.1. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

"The best hope to protect snakes' habitats and prevent malicious killing lies in public education" (Gibbons and Dorcas, 2005). All Cooperators agree that education and outreach efforts will be integral tools for the conservation of the Louisiana pine snake. The LPSCW will assess the need to distribute and improve current or develop additional outreach materials, and Cooperators will engage in public awareness programs that promote Louisiana pine snake conservation and encourage land users to avoid harassing or harming snakes. Cooperators that develop new outreach materials related to the Louisiana pine snake and/or its habitat will share those materials with other LPSCW members. Outreach materials include, but are not limited to pamphlets, newsletter articles, public announcements, factsheets, expert interviews to the media, and other educational materials. Public awareness programs include, but are not limited to, wildlife crossing signs, identification and conservation training programs for agency/entity staff, general public, hunters, foresters, loggers, and other stakeholders of lands containing Louisiana pine snakes. Inaddition, the LPSCW will reach out to, and utilize partnering organizations such as the Partnership for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC), The Nature Conservancy (1NC), Louisiana and Texas Chapters of the Wildlife Society, The Longleaf Alliance, and local universities for overall support.

Awareness can promote higher levels of environmental stewardship and protection for the Louisiana pine snake. The USFWS and USFS/SRS will create and manage repositories for Louisiana pine snake conservation research and information (e.g., Louisiana pine snake Sharepoint website (TBD), the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Louisiana Pine Snake Working Group Forum (http://gcpolcc.org/group/louisiana-pine-snake-working-group ) and the USFS/SRS Library of Publications (http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov /4159/pubsD. These repositories will include items such as Louisiana pine snake research, habitat management strategies, and outreach/education materials. Each Cooperator will provide new information to the repository managers and will post Louisiana pine snake information (and/or links to other appropriate websites) to their own internal and external websites.

10.2. HABITAT CONSERVATION COMMITMENTS

10.2.1. Landscape Level Conservation

This section describes general conservation actions that all Cooperators agree to implement at the regional or landscape level in accordance with their individual missions. These common and broad actions include:

• Seek funding and staffing necessary to carry out the conservation actions through all available channels.

... .

• Support the maintenance of the 'historical records" database by providing field data used to identify areas currently known to support, or historically supported Louisiana pine snakes. • Identify suitable or potentially suitable Louisiana pine snake habitat. • Avoid or minimize impacts to suitable habitat. • Identify conflicts between agency mission and potential impacts to Louisiana pine snake habitat. • Identify and reduce dispersal barriers between Louisiana pine snake populations when possible. • Develop and implement best management practices for avoiding or minimizing impacts to preferable and occupied habitat. • Provide support for research involving trapping and other techniques to better determine population numbers, range, distribution, habitat, behavior, and specific management requirements of the Louisiana pine snake. • Participate in the annual Louisiana Pine Snake Stakeholders Meeting to discuss the results of implementing this CCA. • Review and provide comment on any management plans, proposed strategies, reports, and other documents that may impact the Louisiana pine snake. • Serve on the Captive-bred, Reintroduction Advisory Team which devises plans for the maximum achievable results of the Captive-bred, Reintroduction Program. • Support reintroduction of Louisiana pine snakes into blocks of restored habitat where they may be extirpated.

10.2.2. Local Level Conservation

This section describes general conservation efforts that all Parties agree to implement at the local, installation or property level, in accordance with their individual missions. These site-specific efforts and actions include:

• For Federal projects, consider the effects of actions, including land management activities, on the Louisiana pine snake during the planning process, avoid or minimize impacts to habitat as well as potential corridors between populations where practical, and assess such impacts in NEPA documents. • Provide for review to the Cooperators any management plans, proposed strategies, reports, or other documents under that Cooperator's purview that may affect Louisiana pine snake recovery. • Train personnel to properly identify Louisiana pine snakes, and encourage personnel to report sightings to their LPSCW representative. • LPSCW representatives will compile and keep record of all Louisiana pine snake observations/occurrences for the area they oversee. These data will be shared with the LPSCW for inclusion into the geodatabase. 26

... .

• Avoid actions, where practical, that could further isolate existing Louisiana pine snake populations. • Conduct surveys, using traps, road cruising, other methods, or combination thereof, to document Louisiana pine snake presence and distribution on property or installation.

10.3. CONSERVATION ACTIONS SPECIFIC TO EACH COOPERATOR

10.3.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sen'ice

10.3.1.1. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas

• Specific compartments on the Angelina National Forest (67, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 (northern portion), 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93) and Sabine National Forest (127, 129, 132, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 142) are designated for inclusion into Louisiana pine snake habitat management units (LPS HMUs) (Appendix D). These compartments were selected because they have significant amounts of preferable soils based on the LRSF model. Other areas that are isolated from other Forest Service lands and/or have fragmented pockets of suitable soils were not included, because most likely these areas could not provide enough suitable habitat to support a viable population. Wilderness areas were excluded because of very limited management options, other than prescribed burning. Within the LPS HMUs, management actions such as prescribed burning, thinning, and longleaf pine restoration will be prioritized to maintain or establish herbaceous-dominated vegetative understory conditions on appropriate sites. o Conduct an aggressive prescribed burning program that is specifically designed to reduce or eliminate existing shrub encroachment, restore herbaceous dominated conditions, and prevent future woody shrub encroachment, within existing and potential longleaf pine woodlands. o Target burning in longleaf pine ecosystem areas that have the best potential to provide preferable habitat to the Louisiana pine snake and ensure that prescribed bums in the Longleaf Ridge area receive priority. o Ensure that bums are carried out during the most effective season and on a periodic and regular basis, preferably every 2 to 3 years in longleaf pine habitat, in order to maintain or expedite sufficient and timely restoration of herbaceous understory communities. o Initiate monitoring to measure the success of bums at reducing woody understory and restoring herbaceous understory conditions. Modify bum program, if needed, as new information on fire management is developed.

... .

o Consistent with the Angelina and Sabine NF Forest Plans and within historical longleaf pine habitat, where practicable, continue aggressive thinning and early conversion of existing slash pine and loblolly pine stands to longleaf pine forest. Retain all residual longleaf pines within these stands. • Inventory and evaluate off-road-vehicle (ORV) use and trails within potential Louisiana pine snake habitat to determine if and where ORV use is adversely affecting Louisiana pine snake populations. Consider roads for closure in HMUs that may have adverse effects on the Louisiana pine snake. Avoid establishing or designating ORV trails in LPS HMUs. Enforce the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for road closures and ORV use. Prevent public vehicle use of closed roads to the extent reasonably possible, from February through September, unless the road is required for administrative purposes, access to private land, school bus route, or permitted special use. • Support research, as funding and personnel are available, by establishing and maintaining herpetofaunal monitoring stations throughout longleaf pine woodland habitat to document the seasonal presence/absence of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians in the forest. • As funding and personnel are available, support studies to determine pocket gopher dynamics within USFS boundaries, including population numbers, distribution, suitable habitat, and the effects of fire. • Seek to acquire lands with preferable soils for Louisiana pine snakes, and that potentially connects populations and reduces habitat fragmentation.

10.3.1.2. Kisatchie National Forest

• Specific portions or entire compartments on the K.isatchie National Forest within the Catahoula Ranger District (RD), the Evangeline Unit and Vernon Unit of the Calcasieu RD, K.isatchie RD, and the Winn RD are designated for inclusion into Louisiana pine snake habitat management units (LPS HMUs) (Appendix D). These compartments were selected because they have significant amounts of preferable soils based on the LRSF model. Other areas that are isolated from other Forest Service lands and/or have fragmented pockets of suitable soils were not included, because most likely these areas could not provide enough habitat to support a viable population. Wilderness areas were excluded because of very limited management options, other than prescribed burning. Within the LPS HMUs, management actions such as prescribed burning, thinning, and longleaf pine restoration will be prioritized to maintain or establish herbaceous-dominated vegetative understory conditions on appropriate sites. o Conduct an aggressive prescribed burning program that is specifically

28 designed to reduce or eliminate existing shrub encroachment, restore

herbaceous-dominated conditions, and prevent future woody shrub encroachment, within existing and potential longleaf pine woodlands. o Target burning in longleaf pine ecosystem areas that have the best potential to provide preferable habitat to Louisiana pine snakes. o Ensure that bums are carried out during the most effective season and on a periodic and regular basis, preferably every 2 to 3 years in longleaf pine habitat, in order to expedite sufficient and timely restoration of herbaceous understory communities. o Initiate monitoring to measure the success of burns at reducing woody understory and restoring herbaceous understory conditions. Modify bum program, if needed, as new information on fire management is developed. o Consistent with the Kisatchie NF Forest Plan and within historical longleaf pine habitat, where practicable, continue aggressive thinning and early conversion of existing slash pine and loblolly pine stands to longleaf pine forest. Retain all residual longleaf pines within these stands. • Inventory and evaluate ORV use and trails within potential Louisiana pine snake habitat to determine if and where ORV use is adversely affecting Louisiana pine snake populations. Excluding the Intensive Use Area (IUA) and Limited Use Area (LUA) on the Vernon Unit, consider roads for closure in HMUs that may have adverse effects on the Louisiana pine snake. Avoid establishing or designating ORV trails in LPS HMUs. Enforce the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for road closures and ORV use. Prevent public vehicle use of closed roads to the extent reasonably possible, from February through September, unless the road is required for administrative purposes, access to private land, school bus route, or permitted special use (i.e.; military activity within the IUA and LUA). • Support research, as funding and personnel are available, by establishing and maintaining herpetofaunal monitoring stations throughout longleaf pine woodland habitat to document the seasonal presence/absence of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians in the forest. • As funding and personnel are available, support studies to determine pocket gopher dynamics within USFS boundaries, including population numbers, distribution, suitable habitat, and the effects of fire. • Seek to acquire lands with preferable soils for Louisiana pine snakes, and that potentially connects populations and reduces habitat fragmentation.

10.3.1.3. The U.S. Forest Senice Southern Research Station

• Continue, as funding permits, to assess the impacts of vehicular traffic on Louisiana pine snake populations.

• Provide research expertise to the Cooperators to assist in determining population numbers, range, distribution, habitat, behavior, and specific management requirements of the Louisiana pine snake. • Maintain relevant databases, including the historical records and trapping geodatabase, genetic structure of wild and reintroduced populations, prey records, etc.

10.3.2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in Louisiana

• Incorporate the Louisiana pine snake into the ranking factors for applicable Farm Bill Conservation Programs so that practices beneficial to the Louisiana pine snake (determined by USFWS and NRCS within parishes delineated by USFWS and NRCS) will receive higher priority. • Support initiatives and projects which could potentially provide direct benefit to the Louisiana pine snake, such as the Louisiana Native Plant Initiative and the Louisiana Longleaf Pine Initiative. • Provide information and education to local NRCS Field Office staff and clientele (private landowners) regarding Louisiana pine snake status, threats, habitat improvement actions, and reduction of potential adverse impacts to Louisiana pine snakes and their habitat. • Seek opportunities to partner with Cooperators and others for the purpose of increasing the amount of preferable Louisiana pine snake habitat throughout the historic range in Louisiana.

10.3.3. U.S.Department of Defense, Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center

• lbrough guidance of the Fort Polk INRMP, specific areas of Fort Polk and Peason Ridge are designated for inclusion into LPS HMUs (Appendix D). Those areas were selected because they have significant amounts of preferable soils based on the LRSF model. Some areas with preferable soils and suitable herbaceous ground cover, such as the Geronimo Drop Zone, Multi-Purpose Range Complex, and Redleg Impact Area, were not included in the HMU because they cannot be managed due to their existing land use. However, those areas provide additional habitat for the Louisiana pine snake because they are maintained by frequent fires caused by munition detonations in the impact areas and mowing within the drop zones. Within the LPS HMUs, management actions such as prescribed burning, thinning, and longleaf pine restoration will be prioritized to maintain or establish herbaceous-dominated vegetative understory conditions on appropriate sites. o Conduct an aggressive prescribed burning program that is specifically designed to reduce or eliminate shrub encroachment, restore herbaceous-

•• •

dominated understory conditions, and prevent future woody shrub encroachment, within existing and potential longleaf pine woodlands . o Ensure that burns are carried out during the most effective season and on a periodic and regular basis, preferably every 2 to 3 years in longleaf pine habitat, in order to ensure sufficient and timely restoration of herbaceous understory communities. o Initiate monitoring to measure the success of burns at reducing woody understory and restoring herbaceous understory conditions. Modify burn program, if needed, as new information on fire management is developed. o Within historical longleaf pine habitat, where practicable, continue aggressive thinning and early conversion of existing slash pine and loblolly pine stands to longleaf pine forest. Retain all residual longleaf pines within these stands. • Continue to educate soldiers and civilians about the Louisiana pine snake on Fort Polk and Peason Ridge. • Provide an education and awareness program about the Louisiana pine snake to soldiers and all Fort Polk personnel (including the 40-hour Environmental Compliance Officer's Course) regarding the importance, identification, and restrictions against and ramifications of causing harm to the Louisiana pine snake. • Continue distribution of flyers with photos of the Louisiana pine snake and information on its habitat and status. • Support research, as funding and personnel are available, by establishing and maintaining herpetofaunal monitoring stations throughout longleaf pine woodland habitat to document the seasonal presence/absence of terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. • Support/conduct research, subject to availability of funds, including surveys, to determine pocket gopher dynamics including population numbers, distribution, suitable habitat, and the effects of fire. Pocket gopher surveys can provide a crude index of potential LPS distribution and occupancy of an area. Iflogistical access issues are overcome and personnel are available, continue the pilot study begun in 2010 which was implemented to evaluate the effectiveness of documenting gopher mounds after prescribed fires. • Utilizing potential Army Compatible Use Buffer (ACUB) program funds, attempt to acquire property or conservation easements on lands with preferable soils for Louisiana pine snakes, and that connect populations and reduce habitat fragmentation. Priority will be given to those lands with the appropriate soils and locations that already contain "moderate to high-quality Louisiana pine snake habitat" and/or documented Louisiana pine snake occurrence.

10.3.4. U.S.Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

• Continue to monitor and report the status of the Louisiana pine snake, as required by Congress and current policy. Report implemented and proposed conservation efforts and the status of the Louisiana pine snake at the Annual Louisiana Pine Snake Stakeholders Meeting. • Review and comment on any development proposals that may impact the Louisiana pine snake. • Work with Cooperators on methods to reduce adverse impacts associated with any proposed project or activity that could adversely affect the Louisiana pine snake or habitat areas covered by this CCA. Update or modify this CCA as needed to insure that adaptive management practices are implemented. • Pursue willing private landowners and non-government entities that are interested in performing voluntary conservation actions to benefit Louisiana pine snakes in conjunction with CCAAs and conservation easements. • Pursue funding opportunities to help support the activities of the other Cooperators.

10.3.5. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

• Review and comment on development proposals that may impact the Louisiana pine snake within Texas. • Work with other Cooperators on proposed projects or activities within Texas that could adversely affect the Louisiana pine snake. • Work cooperatively to support specific projects that will create or maintain suitable habitat for the Louisiana pine snake. • Work with private landowners who may have or could create suitable habitat for Louisiana pine snakes, including incentive programs, subject to the availability of funds.

10.3.6. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

• Review and comment on development proposals that may impact the Louisiana pine snake within Louisiana. • Work with other Cooperators on any proposed project or activity within Louisiana that could adversely affect the Louisiana pine snake. • Work cooperatively to support specific projects or agreements that will create or maintain suitable habitat for the Louisiana pine snake. • Work with private landowners who may have or could create suitable habitat for Louisiana pine snakes, including enrollment in the Louisiana Natural Areas Registry Program.

10.3.7. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums' Louisiana Pine Snake Species Survival Plan Participants

• Maintain a self-sustaining captive population of Louisiana pine snakes as an assurance colony for wild Louisiana pine snake populations. • Manage the captive Louisiana pine snake population with the goal of maximizing and preserving genetic heterozygosity into the future. • Work with Cooperators to utilize captive-bred Louisiana pine snakes in research and initiatives that enhance the conservation of wild Louisiana pine snake populations. This may include preserving the genetic integrity of the geographically isolated natural Louisiana pine snake populations that are represented in the captive population. Or, after pending results from genetic analysis are available, may involve revising the breeding plan to mix individuals from those geographically isolated populations. • In cooperation with the USFS Southern Research Station and the USFWS, generate, maintain, manage, and distribute a database of captive breeding data (including the individual snakes' origins, breeding pairings and location, egg production, hatching success, neonate survival, and disposition of individuals (release into wild or held for breeding)).

11. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

This CCA is based on adaptive management principles. All Cooperators agree and recognize that implementation of the conservation actions included in this CCA will be considered experimental, consistent with the concepts of adaptive management. The experimental approach to habitat manipulations and desired forest conditions will provide managers with the most effective and efficient method to restore, enhance, maintain and/or create Louisiana pine snake habitat through the adaptive management process. The effectiveness of all conservation measures and monitoring methods will be reviewed by the Cooperators at the annual Louisiana Pine Snake Stakeholders Meeting. Based upon such evaluation, appropriate modifications to the management scheme, through the LPSCW, will be incorporated to further enhance the goals of this CCA.

12. CCA DURATION, RENEWAL, AND REVIEW

Long-term protection and management, as outlined in this CCA are needed for the continued conservation of the Louisiana pine snake. The initial duration of this CCA is five (5) years following the date of the last signature below, and will be automatically extended for another five• year term, unless terminated before the date of renewal by written notice from any Cooperator.

The LPSCW will annually review the CCA and its effectiveness to determine whether revision is needed. Any Cooperator may propose modifications to the CCA outside the annual review period by providing written notice to the other Cooperators. Any such notice will include a statement of the proposed modification and the rationale for the revision. The non-petitioning parties will make every effort to respond to the proposed modification, via written notice, within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice. Ifall parties agree that the modification is warranted, then the change will become effective immediately.

If some portion of this CCA cannot continue to be carried out or if cancellation is desired, the Cooperator requesting such action will notify the other Cooperators within thirty (30) days of the changed circumstances.

13. EFFECT OF THE CCA IN EVENT OF LISTING

The conservation and management commitments made in this CCA will be considered during the process of determining whether listing is necessary under the ESA. It is the intent and expectation of the Cooperators that the execution and implementation of this CCA will reduce threats and improve conservation of the Louisiana pine snake. If, subsequent to the effective date of this CCA, the Secretary of the Interior should determine pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. §1533(a)), that the Louisiana pine snake is threatened or endangered, the Cooperators will participate in recovery planning for the species.

14. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS

This CCA may be executed in any number of duplicate originals. A complete original of this CCA shall be maintained in the official records of each of the Cooperators.

.,.

Appendix A: SIGNATURE PAGES

The parties identified herein have established this Louisiana Pine Snake CCA to be executed as of the date of the last signature shown on the following pages.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Kisatchie National Forest Southern Research Station Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Defense Fort Polk and the Joint Readiness Training Center U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Association of Zoos and Aquariums

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

1 VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE U.S. Department of Agriculture 1 U.S. Forest Service DATE 1 National Forests and Grasslands in Texas VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

DATE 1

VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

1 DATE 1 VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1 DATE 1

DATE 1 VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

1 DATE VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor 1 DATE 1

DATE 1 VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

1 DATE VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor 1 DATE 1 36 DATE 1 VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

DATE 1

VAN EVERY,FOSt Supervisor DATE 1

·-

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

?- j. 5-1 3 MICHAEL L. BALBONI, Forest Supervisor • DATE • U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service Kisatchie National Forest

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

• For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

01 (01&.o1:a • ROBERT L. DOUDRICK, Ph.D., Director DATE • U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

7/ 2Z/ /J • N, State Conservationist DifTE U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

• For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

2 9- J v \ y l1 • T. GLENN MOORE, COL, Commanding • DATE • U.S. Department of Defense, Army Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk

")_L. T""' '-t}I 1 • WILLIAM B. HICKMAN, BG, Commanding DATE • U.S. Department of Defense, Army Joint Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk

...

CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

• Don R. Wilhelm, Acting Field Supervisor DATE U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2, Arlington, TX Ecological Services

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

JEFFREY D.W Field Supervisor DATE • U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4, Louisiana Ecological Services

...

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

• For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

D'ATE

43 D'ATE

D'ATE

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

ecretary and Fisheries

ecretary and Fisheries43

ecretary and Fisheries

• CANDIDATE CONSERVATION AGREEMENT

• For the Louisiana Pine Snake Pituophis ruthveni June 2013

• STEVEN or; ON, Vice President, Federal Relations • Association of Zoos and Aquariums

Appendix G – Public Comment Summary

Commenter Summary of Comment/Issue Response

Merlin Smith & Proposed road closing might After contacting Mr. Smith and Associates adversely affect ability to access discussing the closures with him managed timberland. we found that road closures are not in the proximity of their managed tracts.

Don Arnold Concerned that road closures North of Met with Mr. Arnold and visited all LA Hwy 8 would negatively affect road closures North of LA Hwy 8. him. Noted he had no concerns after reviewing them.

Police Juror David Concerned with closure of road Upon further review we determined Murrell C069G that is used by the public to that this road is well traveled road access forest land for hunting. for hunters during hunting season. In response we have decided to keep this road open.

Dick Artley Casual exposure to the chemical The project analysis is based on glyphosate is one of the causes of best available scientific birth defects, miscarriages, premature information. The Forest Service births, cancer - non-Hodgkin’s abides by the EPA’s risk lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia, assessments for all herbicide use DNA damage, autism, irreparable proposed in the Silhouette kidney and liver damage, infertility, Ecosystem Management Project. learning disabilities, ADHD and other Herbicides proposed for use in this neurological disorders (especially in project will be applied at the lowest children), mitochondrial damage, cell effective rate according to each asphyxia, endocrine disruption, label, meeting project objectives bipolar disorder, skin tumors, thyroid within the guidelines for the damage, decrease in the sperm count protection of human and wildlife and chromosomal damage.” health.

The commenter has attached many web links to articles discussing toxicity of glyphosate and whether or not it should be used. Most of the discussions are about use of glyphosate on and around food crops and the development of GMO roundup ready crops.

Studies cited in many of the articles were evaluated and included in the SERA 2011 risk assessment, where

appropriate. In some cases, the studies are about formulations of glyphosate used in other countries. In these cases, the relevance of the study is not clear because the formulations used in other countries may not be the same as those used in the United States. For instance, discussions about hazards associated with pesticide residues on food would not be relevant to the Silhouette Ecosystem Management project.

The Forest Service continuously evaluates new information relative to risks of using herbicides and includes the best available science in our NEPA documents.

The World Health Organization (IARC) recently announced its conclusion that based on limited evidence, glyphosate is probably a carcinogen. This conclusion is based on existing studies. The IARC does not take into account how a pesticide is used in the real world – generally there is no requirement to establish a specific mode of action, nor does mode of action influence the conclusion or classification category for carcinogenicity. Regulatory risk assessment for pesticides routinely considers evidence on potential carcinogenicity, both from animal studies (including some that may not have been published in the peer-reviewed literature, but which have been conducted to specified exacting standards) and also, where available, from epidemiological research.

The glyphosate risk assessment (SERA 2011) noted that some

“equivocal” evidence of carcinogenic or mutagenic potential have raised concerns, at least in terms of risk perception (e.g., Cox 1998a, 2004; Watts 2010). However, given the marginal mutagenic activity of glyphosate, the failure of several chronic feeding studies to demonstrate a dose-response relationship for carcinogenicity, and the limitations in the available epidemiology studies on glyphosate, the risk assessment found that the “Group E classification in U.S. EPA/OPP (1993a, 2002) appears to be reasonable.” Group E classification means that there is no evidence of carcinogenicity for humans.

Many web articles were supplied by the commenter to support the contention that there is a link between glyphosate use and occurrence of cancer. These web articles did not contain new information that would result in a change in findings about use of glyphosate proposed in this project.

Leonard N. Hedrick Concerned with run off into the Herbicides should not be applied drainage areas from the use of within 100 feet of any public or poisons (pesticides). domestic water source or within 30 feet of any perennial or intermittent wetland, spring, or stream. Selective treatments (which require

added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) may occur within these buffers only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed

infestations (FEIS-VM, Vol. 1, page II-63). (See EA page 123)

The majority of herbicide use in intensive forestry would involve

low-toxicity chemicals applies infrequently (USDA Forest

Service, 1989a, p. C-13). Current herbicide application technology

exists to minimize herbicide residue movement into sensitive surface waters. Short duration residue concentrations might occur during stormflow, but on-site

degradation processes and in-

stream dilution and degradation result in quick dissipation of herbicide residues. The effects of herbicide use on water quality

would be minimized with the use of streamside habitat protection zones (SHPZ), lowest effective application rates, and direct

application.

The management of the entire Concerned with the wildlife project area seeks to improve management in the project. Suggests vegetation species composition for we manage some of the land for game and nongame species. The quail, dove, turkey and deer. management is to create and sustain diverse forest wildlife habitats by managing towards desired future conditions that meet habitat objectives for selected

management indicators. A variety of woody and herbaceous species suited to site conditions and

burning regime are maintained to assure year round quality habitat (FW-702 and 703).

Appendix H – Transportation Specialist Report

Introduction

This report focuses on the direct, indirect and cumulative effects associated with road actions proposed in the Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project on the Catahoula Ranger District of the Kisatchie NF.

Regulatory Authority

Laws 1. National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964, as amended (16 U.S.C. 532-538). Authorizes road and trail systems for the national forests. Authorizes granting of easements across NFS lands, construction and financing of maximum economy roads (FSM 7705), and imposition of requirements on road users for maintaining and reconstructing roads, including cooperative deposits for that work.

2. Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 402). Authorizes state and local governments and participating federal agencies to identify and survey accident locations; to design, construct, and maintain roads in accordance with safety standards; to apply sound traffic control principles and standards; and to promote pedestrian safety.

3. Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978, as amended (23 U.S.C. 101a, 201-205). Supersedes the Forest Highway Act of 1958. Authorizes appropriations for forest highways and public lands highways. Establishes criteria for forest highways; defines forest roads, forest development roads and forest development trails (referred to as “NFS roads” and “NFS trails” in Forest Service regulations and directives); and limits the size of projects performed by Forest Service employees on forest roads. Establishes the Federal Lands Highway Program.

Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551). This act authorizes the regulation of national forests.

Regulations 1. Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart A). Subpart A of these regulations establishes requirements for administration of the forest transportation system, including roads, trails, and airfields, and contains provisions for acquisition of rights-of-way. Subpart A also requires identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands and use of a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale in determining the minimum road system.

a. Prohibitions (36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A). These regulations establish prohibitions on use of NFS lands, including prohibitions on possession and operation of motor vehicles on NFS roads, on NFS trails, and in areas on NFS lands.

2. Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212, Subpart B). Subpart B of these regulations provides for roads, trails and areas on National Forest System lands that are designated for motor vehicle us.

a. Prohibitions: After these roads, trails and areas are designated, motor vehicles use, including the class of vehicle and time of year, not in accordance with these designations is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13. Motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails and outside designated areas is prohibited by 36 CFR 261.13.

3. Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber (36 CFR Part 223). These regulations govern road construction related to Forest Service timber sale appraisals and contracts.

Other Authorities 1. Forest Service Directives. Direction on travel analysis, resides in chapters in FSM 7710, and FSH 7709.55. Direction on management and maintenance of NFS trails resides in FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18, and direction on management and maintenance of roads resides in FSM 7730 and FSH 7709.59. Direction on law enforcement activities resides in FSM 5300 and FSH 5309.11. This project will make travel management decisions that are specific to the Silhouette project area.

Management Direction The Kisatchie Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1999) provides the site-specific management direction and guidance for transportation:

Objective 1–1: Maintain or improve the Forest’s long-term soil productivity. This is accomplished through land management practices designed to meet requirements for minimizing soil erosion and compaction, by not exceeding allowable soil loss for any given soil, by revegetating disturbed areas, and by restoring degraded areas to a natural condition (KNF Revised Forest Plan, page 2-3).

Objective 3–7: Manage the transportation system to ensure that any roads constructed are designed according to standards appropriate to the planned uses (KNF Revised Forest Plan, page 2-5).

FW–553: Plan, locate, design, and construct/reconstruct Forest development roads with consideration for the following: resource management objectives, environmental needs, safety, traffic requirements, traffic service levels, vehicle characteristics, road users, season(s) of use, and economics. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-46)

FW–557: Use collector roads to collect traffic from local roads and connect with Forest arterial roads, serving multi- resource activities. Reconstruct collector roads to the minimum service level that is consistent with the use and purpose and that will safely accommodate projected traffic during design life. Specific standards for road reconstruction are located in the Road Preconstruction Handbook, FSH 7709.56. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–558: Provide local road access for resource activities such as timber sales, range allotments, and campgrounds at the minimum acceptable service level. Favor reconstruction over construction. Specific standards for local road construction and reconstruction are in the Road Preconstruction Handbook, FSH 7709.56. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–559: Follow road development and maintenance best management practices (BMPS) within wetlands and at stream crossings, as stated in section 404, Corps of Engineers Permit Requirements, and 40 CFR 233.22. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–560: Reduce short-term impacts of road construction / reconstruction on water quality by: (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–560: Reduce short-term impacts of road construction / reconstruction on water quality by: (KNF) (GUIDELINE): Monitoring and controlling construction / reconstruction activities within and immediately adjacent to water courses to periods of low flow; and ensuring that effective erosion control measures are used during construction /reconstruction of major drainage structures and approaches. (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–561: Reduce long-term impact of road construction and reconstruction on erosion and sedimentation of adjacent land, and protect the road investment by: (KNF) (GUIDELINE): Providing adequate, timely temporary erosion control during construction / reconstruction in highly erodible soil areas; Requiring permanent vegetation on cut and fill slopes for all roads; Requiring permanent vegetation on entire roadway width, including road prism, for all local roads managed as intermittent service; and restricting or prohibiting use as warranted to reduce unacceptable soil / water impacts and protect road investments. (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–562: Reduce impacts on botanical sensitive or inclusion areas which may occur due to road location and road construction / reconstruction. Whenever possible locate roads away from these areas. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–563: Reduce impacts on wildlife habitat resulting from road location and road construction/ reconstruction. Where options exist, choose a road location which minimizes loss of mast-producing vegetation. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–564: Reduce conflict of road users and cattle in range allotment areas by using right of-way fencing along roadways where appropriate. At fence crossings on traffic service level C and D local roads, install gates or other appropriate devices. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–565: Develop, maintain, and manage the Forest road system as needed to respond to resource management objectives. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–566: Constructed transportation routes inventoried in the Forest Transportation system (roads and trails) should remain open for public travel unless any of the following occurs: (KNF) (GUIDELINE):The road is unsafe for motorized public travel; there is unacceptable resource damage; and closures or restrictions are needed to meet other resource needs. (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–567: Prepare a site-specific analysis for proposed travel way closures or restrictions based upon the criteria in FW– 569. If the analysis indicates closure or restriction would be appropriate, the district ranger should submit recommendations and draft a road closure order for the Forest Supervisor’s approval. Only after Forest Supervisor’s closure order is signed can access to travel ways be restricted by physical barriers or signing. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-47)

FW–568: Site-specific analyses for travel restrictions shall analyze the effects on developed and dispersed recreation, the needs of people with disabilities, and the effects on other resources. Analyses that propose access restrictions will consider season of use, alternate routes, and availability of similar experiences. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-48)

FW–569: Use travel way restrictions or closures as described below: (KNF) (GUIDELINE):

Travel ways open for limited use: Travel way is open for seasonal use or for specific vehicle types. Traffic is restricted by a gate or sign. Use of a ‘let-down’ wire gate is not permitted.

Travel ways closed to all motorized vehicular use: Travel ways are closed to all motorized vehicular traffic for periods greater than one year. Traffic is blocked with an earthen mound or other similar physical barrier. A gate is not a recommended closure device. Administrative use would be permitted only in performance of emergency duties.

Travel ways permanently closed (obliterated): After site specific analysis the travel way is determined not to be needed again. It will be obliterated, revegetated, and removed from the Forest transportation system. (KNF Forest Plan, 2-48)

FW–570: In the Forest transportation system, provide developed and dispersed recreation access to people with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 re require that programs and facilities must, to the highest degree feasible, be readily accessible to and usable by all with mobility impairment. Provide equal access to all for Forest dispersed recreation opportunities. Persons with mobility impairment may be authorized to use closed roads. Coordinate requests on a case-by-case basis through the Forest accessibility coordinator. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-48)

FW–571: Close and obliterate temporary roads planned and constructed as part of a project. Use methods, timing, and mitigation measures in accordance with the site-specific project plan and with FSM 2432.35(b), FSH 2409.15, FSH 2409.18 (Chapter 40). (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-48)

FW–572: Reduce cost of road maintenance by: (KNF) (GUIDELINE) applying appropriate traffic control regulations to ensure compatibility with type of facility offered; controlling and scheduling resource management activities to seasons or conditions that favor perpetuation of road serviceability; and applying road use restrictions and prohibitions where warranted (KNF Forest Plan, 2-48).

FW–576: Maintain bridges, cattle guards, and other structures to be structurally sound and safe for use. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-49).

FW–577: Ensure that those bridges subject to the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) are identified, inventoried and inspected in accordance with FSM 7736. Ensure that structural load rating analyses are performed on all road bridges and, where needed, the safe load carrying capacities of all restricted bridges are posted. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) (KNF Forest Plan, 2-49).

Methodology This analysis is based on data in the Catahoula Ranger District Travel Analysis Process which evaluated the condition of every road on the district (USDA 2014). The analysis incorporates the roads analysis process (RAP) conducted specifically for the Silhouette project in 2017 where a change in road status is proposed (Walden 2017). In October of 2017, all roads with reconstruction needs were reviewed and the extent of reconstruction was verified (Walden 2017). The analysis uses the cost estimates generated from the TAP for road maintenance and infrastructure.

This project analysis incorporates by reference the soil and water design features and best management practices identified in the soil and watershed report for the Silhouette project. All supporting documentation for the transportation analysis is located in the project record.

Purpose and Need (Transportation)

The desired condition is to provide adequate access to the project and decrease or remove the public health and safety risks related to the transportation system. Long-term soil productivity would be maintained by maintaining or

improving soil condition and function. Soil loss would be below tolerance and no visible signs of excessive erosion would be present. Watershed function would be maintained or improved.

Alternative Descriptions The following is a description of the alternatives.

Alternative B is the proposed action alternative. Activities would occur on approximately 8,704 acres within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87. This alternative would insert 160 artificial RCW cavities and predator excluders, commercially thin about 3,942 acres of yellow pine and hardwoods (free thinning), site-specifically remove undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within the approximately 8,704 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or machinery, and commercially thin approximately 364 acres of loblolly (first thinning) within the RCW habitat management area.

Approximately 689 acres of loblolly and slash pine would be clear-cut and restored to the native longleaf pine plant community. Longleaf reserve tree areas would be established to provide a future seed source. Site preparation would take place on approximately 695 acres, this would include mechanical chopping, herbicides (such as Triclopyr and Imazpyr) and prescribe fire. The acres that are site prepped would be artificially planted in longleaf pine seedlings, released using herbicides (such as Triclopyr and Imazpyr), machinery and prescribed fire. Approximately 6 of the 695 acres were previously clearcut under the Stuart Seed Orchard EA decision signed on 4/12/12. These acres would be site prepped and hand planted to restore the longleaf pine plant community.

Stuart Lake recreation area (66 acres) would be enhanced through treating aquatic weeds in Stuart Lake (4 acres) by use of herbicides, deepening the shoreline of the lake, adding sand on the beach area, adding rock to day-use area & campground sites, replacing lake valve and conducting rehabilitation on dam structure & parking areas.

Cavity nesting structures for non-game wildlife i.e. bluebirds, martins and bats would be maintained and/or replaced within the project area. Soil erosion and sedimentation issue would be controlled on approximately 1 acre within stand 25 of compartment 87.

The boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction would be modified on approximately 381 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative sites. Also, the boundary of the existing “No Hunting” restriction would be modified on approximately 758 acres containing the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative sites.

A permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. (0.3 acres) in size would be constructed with water & electrical hookups and a permanent pole for wind sock. The construction of the helipad will enhance the prescribed burning efforts for longleaf restoration and emergency response.

To provide access to the treatment area, approximately 51.4 miles of existing, open road would be improved (including culvert replacement and road resurfacing). Approximately 5 miles of existing Forest Service roads that are in poor condition would be closed to motorized vehicles. The status of approximately 1.2 miles of road would change from closed to open for highway legal vehicle use only. To ensure project activities remain on national forest system lands, about 25 miles of property boundaries (landlines) would be re-established and maintained.

Table 1. Summary of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternative Proposed Activities Units A B C Insert artificial RCW cavities/predator excluders Each 0 160 160 Acres 0 3,942 3,942 Commercially thin (free thinning) yellow pine and hardwood to a range of 60 to 70 BA to improve the quality of forest health and RCW habitat Remove undesirable vegetation including midstory tree species and Acres 0 8,704 0 woody brush with machinery and herbicides to improve quality of forest health and RCW habitat Remove undesirable vegetation including midstory tree species and Acres 0 0 8,704 woody brush with machinery to improve quality of forest health and RCW habitat Commercially thin (first thinning) loblolly pine plantations to a range of Acres 0 364 364 60 BA to reduce tree density and SPB hazard

Clear-cut loblolly and slash pines with longleaf tree reserves Acres 0 689 689

Site preparation using machinery, herbicides, prescribed fire, and Acres 0 695 0 longleaf pine seedling hand-planting, pine seedling release through machinary, herbicides and prescribed fire

Site preparation using machinery, prescribed fire, and longleaf pine Acres 0 0 695 seedling hand-planting, pine seedling release through machinary and prescribed fire Hand plant non-stocked longleaf pine stands Acres 0 6 6 Acres 0 8,704 0 Herbicides and machinery invasive plant species treatment Machinery only invasive plant species treatment Acres 0 0 8,704 Stuart Lake recreation enhancement Acres 0 66 66 Erosion and sedimentation control Acres 0 1 1 “No Public Access” restriction boundary modification Acres 0 381 381 “No Hunting” restriction boundary modification Acres 0 758 758 Helipad construction w/water and electrical hookups Acres 0 0.3 0.3 Close existing open roads to motorized use Miles 0 5 5 Open road to highway legal vehicle use only Miles 0 1.2 1.2 Improve (including culvert replacements and road resurfacing) existing, Miles 0 51.4 51.4 open roads for prehaul maintenance Property Boundary (landline) maintenance Miles 0 25 25

Affected Environment

The Forest Service catalogs its roads in the official inventory, I-Web, by Maintenance Levels defined as follows:

Maintenance Level 5 – Single or Double Lane Paved Roads w/ high degree of user comfort

Maintenance Level 4 – Moderate User Comfort; primarily double lane aggregate roads with ditches

Maintenance Level 3 – Lowest level maintained to accommodate passenger car traffic

Maintenance Level 2 – Maintained primarily only to accommodate use by high clearance vehicles

Maintenance Level 1 – Closed to all traffic for periods greater than one year

Risk Results: According to the TAP, the existing road system contributed to low risk for sedimentation, invasive non- native plant species, habitat fragmentation, flooding risk and bridge safety. However, the existing road system contributed to medium/high risk for road navigation.

Benefit Results: According to the TAP, the existing road system contributed to low benefit for providing access to private property and developed recreation sites. However, the existing road system contributed to high benefit for providing access to fire suppression efforts, fuels management, dispersed recreation, forest product management and habitat improvement.

There are approximately 70 miles of road in the Silhouette project area (TAP 2017). Of these 70 miles, 54 miles are open to motorized vehicles; 5 miles are seasonally closed, and 11 miles are permanently closed. (Catahoula MVUM 2017). Fifty-one miles are maintained by USFS; 8 miles are maintained by the State, Louisiana Department of Transportation (LaDOT); 11 miles are maintained by Grant Parish. Table 2 displays road maintenance levels by jurisdiction and miles in the Silhouette project area.

Table 2. Silhouette Project Area Transportation System (TAP, 2017)

Jurisdiction/Primary Maintainer Maintenance Level Miles

USFS/USFS 1 11 USFS/USFS 2 25 USFS/Parish 2 0.081 USFS/USFS 3 6 USFS/Parish 3 2 USFS/USFS 4 3.5 USFS/USFS 5 5 Parish 5 9 LaDOT 4 8 Total 69.58

As stated in ‘Alternative Descriptions – Alternative B,’ access to the treatment area will require improvements to approximately 51.4 miles of Forest Service roads road maintenance and/or road reconstruction. 38 miles will remain open after the project. This includes 1.2 miles currently designated as seasonally open and will be changed to open year round. An additional 4.9 miles would be closed to motorized vehicles to improve soil condition and reduce public health and safety risks. Table 3 displays road work estimated costs for pre-haul maintenance and/or reconstruction.

Table 3. Project Area Road Work Estimated Cost for Pre-haul Maintenance and/or Reconstruction

Route ID Mileage Needed Road Work Cost 113 3.634 $ 36,340 113-A 1.158 $ 11,580 113-B 0.524 $ 5,240 144 3.765 $ 37,650 145 3.5 $ 35,000 146 1.095 $ 10,950 146-A 2.347 $ 23,470 146-B 0.229 $ 2,290 146-B 0.701 $ 7,010 147 0.933 $ 9,330 C069A 0.295 $ 2,950 C069B 1.307 $ 13,070 C069E 0.149 $ 1,490 C069G 0.139 $ 1,390 C069H 0.687 $ 6,870 C069I 0.093 $ 930 C069J 0.245 $ 2,450 C069K 0.32 $ 3,200 C070A 0.305 $ 3,050 C070B 0.188 $ 1,880 C070C 0.387 $ 3,870 C070D 0.944 $ 9,440 C070E 0.121 $ 1,210 C070F 0.088 $ 880 C070I 0.563 $ 5,630 C070J 0.265 $ 2,650 C070L 0.127 $ 1,270 C070M 0.488 $ 4,880 C070N 0.128 $ 1,280 C070O 0.064 $ 640 C071A 1.325 $ 13,250 C071A 0.29 $ 2,900 C071B 0.471 $ 4,710 C071C 0.67 $ 6,700 C071E 0.344 $ 3,440 C071F 0.799 $ 7,990

C071G 0.405 $ 4,050 C071I 0.218 $ 2,180 C071K 0.247 $ 2,470 C072A 0.316 $ 3,160 C072B 0.221 $ 2,210 C072C 0.267 $ 2,670 C072D 0.459 $ 4,590 C072E 0.871 $ 8,710 C072F 0.305 $ 3,050 C072G 0.584 $ 5,840 C072H 0.096 $ 960 C072I 0.634 $ 6,340 C072L 0.146 $ 1,460 C073D 0.538 $ 5,380 C073E 0.271 $ 2,710 C073G 0.515 $ 5,150 C073H 0.325 $ 3,250 C073J 0.117 $ 1,170 C073L 0.228 $ 2,280 C073N 0.082 $ 820 C074A 0.846 $ 8,460 C074C 0.745 $ 7,450 C074D 0.234 $ 2,340 C074E 0.265 $ 2,650 C074F 0.585 $ 5,850 C074G 0.155 $ 1,550 C074H 0.442 $ 4,420 C074J 0.154 $ 1,540 C074K 0.133 $ 1,330 C074L 0.11 $ 1,100 C074N 0.108 $ 1,080 C086A 0.83 $ 8,300 C086B 0.396 $ 3,960 C086C 0.52 $ 5,200 C086E 0.801 $ 8,010 C086G 0.213 $ 2,130 C086H 0.352 $ 3,520 C086I 0.188 $ 1,880 C086J 0.161 $ 1,610 C086K 0.218 $ 2,180 C086L 0.21 $ 2,100 C086N 0.794 $ 7,940 C086O 0.06 $ 600 C086O 0.125 $ 1,250 C086P 0.103 $ 1,030

C086Q 0.26 $ 2,600 C086R 0.195 $ 1,950 C086S 0.24 $ 2,400 C087A 0.326 $ 3,260 C087B 0.45 $ 4,500 C087C 0.564 $ 5,640 C087D 0.264 $ 2,640 C087E 0.444 $ 4,440 C087F 0.45 $ 4,500 C087G 0.245 $ 2,450 C087H 0.139 $ 1,390 C087I 0.055 $ 550 C087K 0.316 $ 3,160 C087L 0.317 $ 3,170 C087N 0.199 $ 1,990 C087O 0.244 $ 2,440 C087Q 0.746 $ 7,460 TOTAL 51.399 $ 497,350

Figures 1 through 4 illustrate the current road system by compartment map. Existing road surfaces include native soil, gravel, asphalt and bituminous surfacing.

Figure 1. Compartments 69 and 71 Current Road System

Figure 2. Compartments 70 and 73 Current Road System

Figure 3. Compartments 72 and 74 Current Road System

Figure 4. Compartments 86 and 87 Current Road System

Environmental Consequences The issues addressed in the transportation analysis include: (1) access to project activities, (2) public health and safety. The soils and water specialist report addresses impacts to soil and water resources and the recreation specialist report addresses how changes in the transportation system may affect recreation resources.

The environmental consequences include the application of design features and mitigation identified in Table 4.

Alternative A – No Action There would be no direct effects to the transportation system and the miles of open and closed roads in the project area would remain unchanged. Indirectly, at least 1.2 miles of MVUM seasonally designated roads will remain closed. Fifty- four miles of MVUM open road would remain open to the public and continue to contribute to public safety risks.

Alternatives B and C The environmental consequences include the application of design features and mitigation displayed in Table 4.

Table 4. Alternative B and C Transportation Design Features and Mitigation

Design Mitigation Objective FW Feature

Transportation System

Protect road approaches at perennial streams with aggregate, To minimize erosion concrete, or asphalt for a minimum distance of 20 feet from and protect water the edge of the stream channel. Determine on a case-by-case quality basis the need for reinforced bridge approaches. Protection #25 101 may be required to extend to the gradient break to include nearby transitions between the stream floodplain and other landforms. Construct wing ditches to buffer stream channels from direct road runoff. Utilize rip-rap, plants, mats or other methods to stabilize fill To maintain long- around road crossings and culverts to prevent erosion. term soil #26 527 productivity and minimize soil erosion.

Minimize the miles of new road construction through use or To maintain long- improvement of existing corridors. Develop roads for term soil resource management according to the following priorities: productivity and Use existing facilities, with no improvement, for minimize soil year-round service. erosion. If the existing facility is not adequate for year-round service, restrict use to acceptable seasons or #27 556 conditions. If the existing facility is not adequate for the intended use under any condition, improve to a standard capable of providing service with control relative to the season or soil conditions. If seasonal or other part-time service is unacceptable, improve the facility to provide adequate year-round use.

Design Mitigation Objective FW Feature

If no existing facility is available to serve required access needs, construct the minimum facility adequate to provide needed services under controlled seasonal or part time use. If the existing road is causing unacceptable resource damage that cannot be mitigated in a cost effective manner and there is need for the road for resource management, obliterate and construct the minimum standard road needed in a more acceptable location. If year-round use is needed for a documented purpose, construct the minimum all-weather road.

Reduce short-term impacts of road construction / To minimize soil reconstruction on water quality by: erosion and protect Monitoring and controlling construction / water quality. reconstruction activities within and immediately #28 560 adjacent to water courses to periods of low flow; and Ensuring that effective erosion control measures are used during construction / reconstruction of major drainage structures and approaches.

Reduce long-term impact of road construction and To maintain long- reconstruction on erosion and sedimentation of adjacent land, term soil and protect the road investment by: productivity and Providing adequate, timely temporary erosion control minimize soil during construction / reconstruction in highly erodible erosion. soil areas Requiring permanent vegetation on cut and fill slopes #29 561 for all roads Requiring permanent vegetation on entire roadway width, including road prism, for all local roads managed as intermittent service Restricting or prohibiting use as warranted to reduce unacceptable soil / water impacts and protect road investments.

Silhouette Annual Road Maintenance Activities The Forest Service annually administers a contract to maintain 16 miles of Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5 in the Silhouette Project Area. Road maintenance activities are described in the Forest Service Operations and Maintenance Handbook (FSH 7709.59) such as, but not limited to, road blading, draining maintenance, culvert installation, culvert replacement, spot surfacing and resurfacing, removal of slides and slumps, removal of danger trees, removal of road side vegetation for improved site distance on the roads, dust abatement, removal of overhanging vegetation to allow for access and installation of signs.

Other Road Improvements Needed to Access Project Area An indirect effect of the proposed activities is the removal of over-hanging tree limbs, brush, etc. to improve site distance and reduce road navigation risks. This effect would decrease over time as vegetation re-establishes – approximately 1 to 2 growing seasons. The potential for short term adverse effects of roads on soil and water are addressed within the respective soil and water specialist reports.

Fifty-one miles of roads in the project area will require improvement. The spot surfacing and gravelling component of this activity would use a rock source that was either commercial or from Forest Service land, but would not deplete all available rock sources in or adjacent to the project area. The total amount of material necessary is not quantifiable at this time but would be identified with specific road packages as implementation of the project proceeds.

Effects to soil and water resources, as well as, recreation resources are expected to occur during the project life cycle and are discussed within the respective specialist reports. Temporary road reconstruction mitigation would be defined in detail by contract specifications with the objective to minimize impacts to soil and water, wildlife and recreation resources and would utilize design features within these specialists’ reports to minimize impacts to the respective resources. In the long term, there would be no net change in the transportation system.

Motor Vehicle Use Map Changes The roads that have been proposed for closing to motorized vehicle use are those that pose the greatest risk to public safety and resources. The closures would also reduce or eliminate the public safety risks. The roads that are proposed for opening to motorized vehicle will provide adequate access to Forest Service land. Table 5 summarizes the proposed changes to the MVUM for Alternatives B and C:

Table 5. MVUM Summary of Changes for Alternatives B and C Route ID Miles Current MVUM Status Proposed MVUM Status

C069E 0.149 Open Closed

C069G 0.139 Open Closed

C069I 0.077 Open Closed

C070E 0.121 Open Closed

C070F 0.086 Open Closed

C070L 0.123 Open Closed

C071C 0.486 Open Closed

C071E 0.344 Open Closed Special Vehicle C072E 0.679 Designation/Season Designation Open 10/01-01/31 Special Vehicle C072E 0.192 Designation/Season Designation Closed 10/01-01/31 Special Vehicle C072G 0.476 Designation/Season Designation Open 10/01-01/31 C072G 0.107 Special Vehicle Closed

Designation/Season Designation 10/01-01/31 C072I 0.381 Open Closed

C073J 0.114 Open Closed

C074D 0.234 Open Closed

C086I 0.188 Open Closed

C086J 0.161 Open Closed

C086O 0.185 Open Closed

C086O 0.125 Open Closed (2 segments identified on TAP)

C086Q 0.26 Open Closed

C086S 0.24 Open Closed

C087H 0.139 Open Closed

C087I 0.05 Open Closed

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary is the 8,704-acre project area. The timeframe of the cumulative effects analysis for past projects is approximately 10 years. Ongoing and current projects were identified by the interdisciplinary team. Reasonably foreseeable projects were derived by reviewing the most recent (October 2017 to December 2017) Kisatchie NF Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA).

The Forest Service annually administers a contract to maintain 16 miles of Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5 3 in the Silhouette project area. Maintenance on approximately 5.73 miles of roads has occurred within compartments 70 and 71 during timber harvesting activities from September 2013 to March 2017. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable road-related projects in the project area. Although prescribed fire is an ongoing activity, road maintenance or reconstruction is not associated.

In Alternatives B and C, an additional 4.9 miles of road are proposed to close for resource protection and public health and safety. Approximately 1.2 miles of road are proposed to be permanently opened to provide adequate access to Forest Service land. Combined with current motor vehicle use (Catahoula MVUM 2017), this proposal would result in a total of 18.6 miles of roads closed in the project area either year-round or seasonally to mitigate resource impacts and reduce the risk to public health and safety.

Appendix I – Biological Evaluation

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION USDA - FOREST SERVICE, KISATCHIE NATIONAL FOREST CATAHOULA RANGER DISTRICT

Silhouette Silvicultural Management Plan

I. INTRODUCTION

This report documents the findings of the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the proposed management activities in Compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 on the Catahoula Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest. It also serves to provide the decision maker with information and determinations of the effects of proposed actions on proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive (PETS) species and habitats so that the best decisions can be made regarding these species and the proposal. PETS species are species whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. Through the BE process the proposed management activities were reviewed and their potential effects on PETS species disclosed. Evaluation methods included internal expertise on species' habitat requirements, field surveys, Forest Service inventory and occurrence records, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest, the recovery plans for the the red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW), Louisiana pearlshell mussel, the Louisiana black bear, bald eagle and the candidate conservation agreement (CCA) for the Louisisana pine snake.

This biological evaluation was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 2609.23R and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. A botanical evaluation was done separately to address impacts on sensitive and conservation plants.

PURPOSE AND NEED:

Differences between current and desired conditions have been identified within the project area. In order to move the project area toward the desired conditions, specific resource management actions were identified and the alternatives were developed. The purpose of this project is to implement the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) which will meet the needs of the RCW, reduce risk of Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) attack, restore native longleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak-hickory communities, improve forest access and recreation, maintain boundaries between forest and private landowners and modify existing no shooting boundaries in administrative areas, construct a permanent helipad and control soil erosion and sedimentation.

This project is needed to:

Reduce the risk of Southern Pine Beetle attack The SPB risk rating program, Southern Pine Beetle-Event Monitor (SPB-EM), created by the USDA

Forest Service Southern Research Station, was used to rate loblolly stands. Stands with a hazard rating of medium or high were selected for first thinning. Data produced by this model projected that approximately 364 acres of loblolly plantations have a high or medium SPB hazard rating. An additional 3,942 acres of southern yellow pine will be thinned to favor longleaf pine and reduce SPB risk.

Restore Native Vegetation Communities: Longleaf Pine The RLRMP calls for restoration of native vegetation communities. Based on current stand exam data, a large percentage of the project area’s forest type is currently loblolly and slash pine. The project would restore approximately 695 acres of offsite loblolly and slash pine sites to longleaf pine. Clearcutting 689 acres, leaving the desired longleaf and shortleaf where present. Site preparing, planting, releasing 695 acres in the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Increase suitable RCW habitat The desired future condition (DFC’s) of Management Area (MA) 5 is the management of RCW habitat and restoration of the historical vegetation. The RCW Recovery Plan recognizes that the fitness of woodpecker groups increases if they have foraging habitat. The RCW Recovery Plan defines quality habitat as substantial amounts of foraging areas that are burned regularly, have some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse to no hardwood midstory, and have a bunchgrass and forb groundcover. Foraging habitat is reduced by the presence of midstory hardwoods. Cavity trees must be in open stands with little hardwood midstory and few overstory hardwoods. Effective midstory control is a prerequisite to the management, conservation, and recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers throughout their range.

The entire project area is within the RCW habitat management area (HMA). The project area has not been thinned in many years and most of the stands proposed for treatment have basal areas (BA) greater than 90ft2. Some of the stands have been prescribed burned recently, however prescribed fire is only one tool for maintaining suitable habitat for the RCW. Basal area reduction is needed to provide the open stands of the desired future condition. All stands to be thinned will move them towards suitable habitat and fire will maintain them.

The RCW HMA population objective for the Catahoula ranger district is 317 active clusters; currently there are 74 active clusters. The project area has numerous recruitment stands that are currently not suitable for nesting. The project would include installation of 4-8 artificial inserts in each recruitment stand and cluster sites as needed.

Maintain Forest Service Boundaries Property boundary marking is inadequate in numerous locations, making it difficult to determine ownership. There are approximately 25 miles of private and NFS land interface in the project area. Boundary lines would be maintained or re-established to prevent ownership issues. Modification and marking of the no hunting – 758 acres, no public access - 381 acres restrictions within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard (orchard) and administrative boundaries will be accomplished.

Improve road conditions The RLRMP requires a road system suitable for land and resource management activities/administration and to provide user safety and traffic efficiency. Permanently open approximately 1.2 miles of USFS roads to highway legal vehicles; permanently closing approximately 5 miles of USFS roads to motorized vehicles. Approximately 51.4 miles of existing open roads would be improved with culvert replacement and resurfacing.

PROJECT LOCATION:

The project area is located in central Grant parish, approximately 3 miles west of Pollock, Louisiana in Township 6 and 7 North and Figu r e 1 : Vicin it y Ma p of t h e US FS , Kis a t ch ie Na t ion a l For es t , Ca t a h ou la Ra n ger Range 1 West. Dis t r ict ’s S ilh ou et t e P roject loca t ed in Gr a n t

II. AFFECTED AREA

A. General Information The proposed project is located within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 of the Catahoula Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest and includes approximately 8,704 acres. The area is generally located approximately 15 miles north of Alexandria Louisiana, in the center of Grant Parish.

B. Specific Information The Catahoula Ranger District has proposed activities in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 that include, timber harvesting (thinning and clearcut), site preparation (mechanical, chemical and/or fire), planting of longleaf, seedling release with herbicide/fire and handtools, herbicide treatment and control of non-native/invasive plant species, mechanical wildlife stand improvement, prescribed burning. Other activities include RCW cluster maintenance and installation of artificial cavities, road use designation and maintenance, land use and landline boundary adjustment and maintenance, establishing a helipad within the orchard in an existing opening, recreation area enhancements, soil erosion control and monitoring of effects of timber harvesting and prescribed burning. Most of these actions are necessary to achieve specific goals and objectives for Management Area 5 – RCW and Native Community Restoration.

III. CONSULTATION HISTORY

The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest, which this project implements, was concurred upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was informally consulted during the preparation of this document and will be consulted for concurrence on effects to all the threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed species before the decision is signed.

IV. PROPOSED ACTIONS

The proposed management activities strive to work towards the desired future condition of the Mangement Area - 5. In the RCW and Native Community Restoration Management Area, the emphasis is on management of RCW habitat and restoration of the historical landscape vegetation to those landtype associations on which it occurred.

Following is a list of proposed management actions by alternative, a detailed discussion is available in the environmental assessment document.

Alternative A – No action. This alternative is to take no action different than what is already naturally occuring or covered under a separate decision (i.e. prescribed fire, first thinnings).

Alternative B – Proposed Action The Forest Service is proposing to maintain or improve RCW habitat on approximately 8,704 acres in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 of the Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger District in Grant Parish, Louisiana.

The proposed action includes: 1) Installing 160 artificial cavities and predator excluders in active RCW or recruitment clusters. 2) Removing site-specific undesirable including noxious weeds and non-native invasive vegetation including reducing midstory and woody vegetation within the approximately 8,704 acres of the project area with the use of herbicides and/or machinery. 3) Thinning approximately 3942 acres of yellow pine retaining longleaf and shortleaf pine. (Table 4) 4) Thinning approximately 364 acres of loblolly pine plantations. (Table 4) 5) Restoring approximately 690 acres of longleaf pine by clearcutting “off-site” yellow pine retaining longleaf and shortleaf; 268 acres of clearcuts, 421 acres of clearcuts with reserves. (Table 4) 6) Preparing approximately 695 acres for tree planting by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) & handtools, prescribed burning, or mechanically chopping and hand planting to longleaf pine. 7) Releasing of 695 acres of pine seedlings by herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) & handtools, or prescribed burning. 8) Develop a permanent helicopter landing pad (0.3acres) with water and electrical hookups. 9) Close approximately 5 miles and open approximately 1.2 miles of Forest Service roads to motorized vehicle use. Improve approximately 51.4 miles of existing open roads with resurfacing and culvert replacement. 10) Enhance recreation at Stuart Lake (66 acres); treat 4 acres of aquatic weeds with herbicide, deepen the shoreline, add sand to the beach, replace lake valve and rehab dam structure. Make minor maintenance enhancements at the day-use and campground sites. 11) Modify the existing boundaries for the “no public access” area, 381 acres and “no hunting” area, 758 acres boundaries within the orchard and administrative sites. Mark and maintain these land use boundaries and landlines between property owners on approximately 25 miles. 12) Soil erosion and sedimentation issue would be controlled on approximately 1 acre within stand 25 of compartment 87.

Alternative C – No herbcide

All treatments and treatment locations are the same as alternative B. The only difference between alternatives is no herbicide would be used in this alternative.

All of the proposed actions, if approved, will occur within the next 3 to 7 years.

V. PETS Species Considered and Evaluated

A checklist for all the endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate animal species known to occur on the forest is attached at the end of this document – Table 2. The endangered and threatened species list is from the USFWS and dated February 2015. Species acknowledged as those of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature and KNF records are addressed in detail within this document. (see Table 1 below)

Table 1 Designation Name Habitat Catahoula RD Occurrence

E Red-cockaded woodpecker Mature southern pine 74 active clusters on the district. (Picoides borealis) forests with old trees

T Northern long-eared bat Interior old growth forests Scattered across entire district, most records from the (Myotis septentrionalis) northern part of the district.

P Louisiana pine snake Dry, sandy pinewoods. Historical record from 1955 for one location on the (Pituophis melanoleucus district. Experimental localized reintroduction in one ruthveni). area.

The project area is within the RCW habitat management area (HMA) and the 5CL sub-management area. The goal for the sub-management area is to emphasize the management of RCW habitat and restoring native, fire dependent longleaf pine communities in an extended time period. There are seven active (72-1, 72-2, 74-1, 86-1, 86-2, 86-4 and 87-1) and twenty inactive/recruitment stands within the project area. Some of the habitat within the project area is in relatively good condition, and has been burned frequently. There are also many acres that need extensive management to become suitable and reach the desired future condition. The recruitment and inactive RCW stands are needed to meet the population goal and provide continuous habitat for corridors linking to neighboring clusters.

The only known population of LPS on the district is the experimental reintroduction site which is approximately 7 miles north of the project area. The only other records are historical and limited to one location on the district (which is not within the project area). Suitable habitat exists within the project area and follows the same description as for the RCW. Most serious threats to the LPS are elimination of habitat due to lack of management (thinning and prescribed burning).

The majority of known locations of the long eared bat are under bridges, roost trees and maternity roosts on the northern third of the district. Habitat is suitable and individuals have been identified across the entire district.

VI. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ON EACH SPECIES EVALUATED

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

in open stands with little or no hardwood midstory and few or no overstory hardwoods. Hardwood encroachment is a well-known cause of cluster abandonment. Currently, RCW foraging habitat is measured in suitable acres. Foraging requirements are to provide each group of woodpeckers 120 acres of good quality habitat. Good quality foraging habitat includes some large old pines, low densities of small and medium pines, sparse or no hardwood midstory and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover. This good quality habitat must also have these characteristics: a. There are 18 or more stems/ac of pines that are > 60 years in age and > 14 inches dbh. Minimum basal area for these pines is 20 sq. ft/acre. b. Basal area of pine 10-14 inches dbh is between 0 and 40 square feet/acre. c. Basal area of pines <10 inches dbh is below 10 sq feet/acre and below 20 stems/ac d. Basal area of all pines 1- inches dbh is at least 40 sq feet/acre. e. Groundcovers of native bunchgrass and or other native fire tolerant, fire dependent herbs total 40 percent or more of ground and midstory plants and are dense enough to carry growing season fire at least once every 5 years. f. No hardwood midstory exists, or if a hardwood midstory is present it is sparce and less than 7 ft in height. g. Canopy hardwoods are absent or less than 10 percent of the number of canopy trees in longleaf forest and less than 30 percent of the number of canopy trees in loblolly and shortleaf forests. h. All of this habitat is within ½ mile of the center of the cluster, and preferably, 50 percent or more is within ¼ of the cluster center. i. Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 feet of non-foraging areas .(U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2003)

Alternative A – (No action) Without implementation of the proposed actions, areas in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 will not meet the quality conditions necessary to increase the RCW population. Indirect effects include a low RCW population growth potential because of surrounding habitat conditions, even though clusters may stay active. When stands are open and park like the birds are more likely to find recruitment stands and disperse. Reproductive success and fitness is increased for RCW groups if they have substantial amounts of foraging areas that are burned regularly and have little or no hardwood midstory. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2000) Foraging acreage would be met for the clusters, however foraging would not be of the highest quality which requires open stands and herbaceous groundcover. High quality foraging would be possible with thinner stands and frequent burning. Direct effects would be minimal since no actions would be undertaken thru this plan. Cumulative effects could eventually cause cluster sites to become inactive as midstory levels increase and force the birds from their cavities or they die without sufficient recruitment. Lack of management could make the entire area unsuitable over time if corrective actions are not taken thru a separate plan.

For analysis purposes the project area is divided into north and south areas. North includes compartments 69, 70, 71 and 73. South includes compartments 72, 74, 86 and 87.

Alternative B - (Proposed) – All active, inactive and recruitment clusters have the required 120 acres of suitable foraging with all the proposed actions.(Table 3, Fig. 2 & 3.) The proposed thinning will move all the stands closer to the description of “good quality foraging” as described above. Active RCW cluster site 87-1 requires use of stands within the orchard to meet the foraging requirements. All

recruitment clusters within the project area will benefit tremendously from more open stands. Foraging and overall RCW habitat will be improved by opening the stands and inviting movement and dispersal.

The 690 acres of restoration cuts should not impact fragmentation since they are located away from active clusters, the existing longleaf and shortleaf will be retained and placement has been strategic to minimize impacts. The clearcuts and restoration of 25 areas (690 ac) will be beneficial in the long term. The short term impacts to foraging and cluster expansion will be minimal because of the unit placement.(Fig 4 & 5).

The north area contains 10 of the proposed clearcut with reserves and 1 clearcut. The majority of the north project area is outside the 1.5 mile buffer from an active cluster site. There are three clearcut with reserves(C-71 std 21, C-70 std 29, C-70 std 33) within the 1.5 mile buffer that are less than 25 acres each and retain a range of longleaf basal area between 10 – 20.

In the south area the majority of the proposed clearcuts are within the boundaries of the Stuart seed orchard. The largest clearcut block is 61 acres in compartment 87 stand 55. It is not a clearcut of a mature stand, but instead a sanitation cut of several mixed failed young stands within the orchard and will be cut to allow planting of longleaf. There are five clearcuts outside the orchard that are within the 1 mile buffer of an active cluster. There is a substantial amount of off site loblolly and slash pine that would have long term benefits if converted to longleaf. Four of the clearcuts are less than 25 acres each and strategically located to minimize short term impacts. The proposed clearcut in 74-6 is 37 acres and is a 36 year old loblolly stand. Conversion and restoration is ideal at this time since it is only marginally suitable habitat at this point. There is one clearcut with reserves 86-3 which will maintain 20 basal area and is only 14 acres in size.

Indirect effects are positive, thinning creates and fire maintains open stands where herbaceous ground cover increases foraging quality. Restoration cuts will improve habitat in the long term and have minimal effects in the short term. None of the proposed activities would take place within the boundary of an active RCW cluster during the nesting season. During logging operations no skid trails or log sets would be allowed within the boundary of an active RCW cluster site.

Cumulative long term benefits of quality foraging and nesting habitat may result in greater reproduction. Open stands also provide for more possibilities of dispersal and expansion into recruitment sites. A larger / growing population will be self contained and not require intense management. Direct effects are limited to damage or destruction of a cavity tree or bird during logging or prescribed burning. Protective measures (contract clauses and restrictions for logging, raking and backfiring for burning) are in place to avoid such events.

Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in this project would be to targeted species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non-mobile in soils.

None of the proposed actions involving boundary delineation, road administration, helipad development, soil erosion control or recreation enhancements should have short term or long term impacts.

Alternative C – All effects would be the same as Alternative B since the use of herbicide as proposed would have no impacts on RCW.

Louisiana Pine Snake

The LPS is known to exist on the forest, however records for the Catahoula RD are historical (1955) and no current records exist outside of the reintroduction site. Habitat suitable for LPS follows the same description as ideal habitat for RCW. Herbaceous ground cover and sandy soils are key elements in their required habitat. The presence of pocket gophers (Geomys breviceps) also is an indicator of suitable LPS habitat. No specific survey was done for the LPS for this project, however suitable habitat does exist and gopher mounds are abundant in parts of the project area. Snake trapping was conducted 15 years ago in suitable habitat within compartments 85 and 86. No LPS were captured during the 6 year trapping period.

Alternatives B (Proposed) –Thinning and burning would greatly benefit the habitat for the LPS. The potential effects of the restoration cuts would be relational to the amount of area impacted. Direct effects on the unknown population could be greater with the restoration cuts because of the chopping and concentrated management activities. However, indirect and cumulative effects may be more beneficial in producing more suitable habitat over time. Keeping the canopy open and burned will therefore assure herbaceous groundcover and suitable LPS habitat. Indirect and cumulative effects would be increased acreage of suitable habitat and maintenance of existing suitable habitat into the long term. Direct effects on unknown populations could be negative, with impacts from heavy equipment during logging and road work. However, pine snakes live primarily underground with limited (seasonal and daytime) above ground movement, so unlikely to impact even if present. The magnitude of the logging activities will alert snakes and generally allow them to seek shelter. Forest Service policy requires that only registered herbicides be used, according to requirements and labeling. Applications of herbicides in this project would be to targeted species only and not within 100 feet of any stream. The herbicide is not soil active and is generally non-mobile in soils.

None of the proposed actions involving boundary delineation, road administration, helipad development, soil erosion control or recreation enhancements should have short term or long term impacts.

Alternative C – All effects would be the same as Alternative B since the use of herbicide as proposed would have no impacts on Louisiana Pine Snake.

Northern Long-Eared Bat

The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is generally associated with old-growth forests composed of trees 100 years old or older. It relies on intact interior forest habitat, with low edge-to-interior ratios.

Relevant late-successional forest features include a high percentage of old trees, uneven forest structure (resulting in multilayered vertical structure), single and multiple tree-fall gaps, standing snags, and woody debris. These late successional forest characteristics may be favored for several reasons, including the large number of partially dead or decaying trees that the species uses for breeding, summer day roosting, and foraging. ( USFWS 2011)

Although no specific survey was done for the NLEB in the project area,some limited survey efforts have been performed in and around the project area with no presence of NLEBs in the proposed project area. The proposed project area is within the NLEB range and the white-nose syndrome zone, there are no known hibernacula or maternity roosts within the project area. Although the Catahoula District has a known maternity roost tree, the known maternity roost tree location is approximately 12 miles fom the northern edge of the project area. Therefore, in accordance with the final 4 (d) rule and the 2016 BO, incidental take of NLEB from this proposed action is NOT prohibited.

VII. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Red-cockaded woodpecker

The proposed actions as currently planned are in accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Alternative B or C will benefit the RCW and its habitat and are not likely to adversely affect the RCW. If alternative A is selected, the necessary RCW habitat maintenance will need to be done under a separate decision. Alternative B or C improves the foraging quality and works toward accomplishing the “good quality” foraging required in the plan.

Northern long-eared bat

The proposed actions as currently planned are in accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. According to the Final 4(d) rule and associated 2016 Biological Opinion (BO), incidental take is not prohibited unless it cuts or destroys known occupied maternity roost trees or any other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree during the pup season (June 1-July 31). Although, there is a known maternity roost tree, the project location is approximately 12 miles from the maternity roost tree location, therefore well outside of the 150-foot radius. There has also been limited surveys performed in the project area with no presence of the species found there. In accordance with the final 4(d) rule and the 2016 BO, the planned project “may affect the NLEB but would not cause prohibited incidental take.”

Louisiana pine snake

The proposed actions as currently planned are in accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest. Alternative B or C will benefit the LPS and its habitat and are not likely to adversely affect the LPS. If alternative A is selected, the necessary LPS habitat improvement will need to be done under a separate decision. Alternative B or C improves the habitat quality and works towards accomplishing the desired future conditions described in the plan.

Concurrence from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service is required before the implementation of this project.

VIII. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND RECOMENDATIONS

1. Ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act. 2. Follow management direction for the RCW as outlined in the FEISRCW and the Kisatchie Plan FEIS, direction for LPS in the CCA, and the Biological Opinion direction for NLEB.

IX. CONSULTATION WITH OTHERS AND REFERENCES

Black Bear Conservation Committee, 1992 First Edition. Black Bear Management Handbook for Louisiana, Mississippi and east Texas.

Catahoula Ranger District Compartment Prescriptions and stand data, RCW survey and location records.

Hamel, Paul B. 1992 Land managers guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pages

Johnson, Paul and Brown, Kenneth, Field Notes From a Survey of Margaritifera hembeli on USFS Property, Catahoula Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest .

Kisatchie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1999

Naturserve, The Nature Conservancy, 1999, Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA FS under Grant No. 97-CC2-230

Stewart, J.H. 1992. Status review Louisiana pearlshell, Margaritifera hembeli , USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS

Shively, Stephen 1999. Survey for the Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli) in Grant Parish, LA. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Sept. 1989

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Technical/agency draft revised recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Candidate conservation agreement for the Lousiana pine snake between USFWS, USFS, NRCS, USDOD, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Louisiana Dept of Wildlife and Fisheries and Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

USDA Forest Service, Environmental Assessment of Interim Guidelines for the Management and Protection of RCW Habitat Within 3/4 Mile of Colony Sites, May 9, 1990. USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 1989 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont.

USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 1995 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, Wildlife Habitat Management Handbook (FSH 2609.2 Chapter 420).

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan , Jackson, Mississippi.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989. Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel Recovery Plan.

Wilson, Lawrence A. 1995. Land manager’s guide to the amphibians and reptiles of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC 360 pages.

X. SIGNATURE

/S/ Emlyn B. Smith 30 January 2018 Emlyn B. Smith / District Biologist Date

Table 2. Kisatchie National Forest Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species Compiled from the Regional Foresters January 2001 list.

Occurrence Evaluation Group Scientific Name Common Name Status Code Amphibian Plethodon kisatchie Louisiana slimy salamander Sensitive 6 Bird Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sensitive 5 Bird Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 5 Crustacean Faxonella beyeri Sabine fencing crayfish Sensitive 1 Crustacean Faxonella creaseri Ouachita fencing crayfish Sensitive 1 Crustacean Orconectes blacki Calcasieu painted crayfish Sensitive 1 Crustacean Orconectes hathawayi Teche painted crayfish Sensitive 1 Crustacean Orconectes maletae Kisatchie painted crayfish Sensitive 1 Fish Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter Sensitive 1 Fish Cycleptus elongatus Blue sucker Sensitive 1 Fish Notropis hubbsi Bluehead shiner Sensitive 1 Fish Notropis sabinae Sabine shiner Sensitive 2 Insect Leuctra szczytkoi Schoolhouse Springs leuctran stonefly Sensitive 2 Mammal Myotis septentrionalis Northern long eared bat Threatened 6 Mollusk Margaritifera hembeli Louisiana pearlshell Threatened 1 Mollusk Lampsilis satura Sandbank pocketbook Sensitive 1 Mollusk Obovaria jacksoniana Southern hickorynut Sensitive 1 Mollusk Pleurobema riddellii Louisiana pigtoe Sensitive 1 Mollusk Potamilus amphiachaenus Texas heelsplitter Sensitive 1 Mollusk Strophitus subvexus Southern creekmussel Sensitive 1 Reptile Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni Louisiana pinesnake Sensitive 6

Occurrence evaluation codes:

1= Project located out of known species range. 2= Lack of suitable habitat for species in project area. 3= Habitat present, species was searched for during field survey, but none found. 4= Species occurs in project area, but outside of activity area. 5= Field survey located species in activity area. 6= Species not seen during field survey, but possibly occurs in activity area based on habitat observed or field survey not conducted when species is recognizable.

35 18.32 31/11 35 yrs 135.55 Table 3 RCW foraging by Cluster site AC

70-3 36 10.79 31/12 Thin RCW Stand Acres Info Treatment Comment 37 15.99 31/12 Thin # 17 79.9 31/11 Thin 35 yrs 69-1 28 20.48 21/12 Thin 4 47.14 31/12 Thin 2 54.78 31/12 CC 40ba 30 22.65 31/12 LL 176.47 10 48.84 31/12 Thin AC 124.1 AC 70-4 3 17.85 31/10 Thin 69-2 33 10.11 21/12 Thin 5 29.2 31/11 7 30.05 31/12 CC 40ba 35 yrs LL 30 41.02 31/12 Thin 26 19.37 21/12 Thin 7 9.76 31/12 Thin 7 9.47 31/12 CC 40ba outside 42 17.12 31/12 Thin LL partition - 6 18.55 31/11 borrow 35 yrs 6 17.12 31/10 Thin 133.50 6 20 21/12 Thin outside AC partition - borrow 29 20.19 21/11 24 yrs

126.31 71-2 19 30.94 21/12 Thin AC 12 71.31 21/12 Thin 6 30.08 21/11 69-3 32 10.32 21/12 Thin 30yrs 14 32.26 21/12 Thin 132.33 6 23.27 31/10 Thin AC 31 4.64 31/10 Thin 71-3 17 9.6 21/12 Thin 24 18.64 CC 30ba LL 9 141.06 21/12 Thin 34 36.7 CC 30ba 150.66 LL AC

70-10 5.6 31/10 Thin 71-4 26 10 21/12 Thin 131.43 9 47.93 21/12 Thin AC 4 109.41 31/11 30yrs 70-1 39 10.49 31/12 Thin 167.34 14 7.95 31/11 AC 19 7.43 31/11 19 14.66 outside 71-5 1 47.36 31/12 Thin partitio 7 49.47 31/12 Thin n 13 52.52 31/12 Thin but 149.35 borrow AC 13 57.14 31/12 Thin 13 21.32 31/12 Thin outside partitio 72-1 24 34.03 21/12 Thin n but 24 3.65 21/12 Thin Outside borrow partition - 69-13 16.88 31/12 Thin borrow 69-31 4.63 31/10 Thin 4 18.16 21/12 Thin 140.50 6 18.01 22/11 Thin AC 20 34.94 22/12 Thin 10 7.66 21/12 Thin 74-17 7.04 21/12 Outside partition - 70-2 38 10.32 21/12 Thin borrow 10 28.56 31/10 Thin 123.49 1 48.47 21/12 Thin AC 34 16.34 31/12 Thin 25 13.54 31/11 72-2 7 48.7 22/12 Thin 30 yrs 8 63.18 22/11 Thin

20 7.97 22/12 Thin 122.87 74-7 24.81 22/12 Thin AC 144.87 AC 73-1 12 10.88 31/12 Thin 5 56.89 31/12 Thin 86-5 38 17.66 21/12 14 18.83 31/10 Thin 12 28.76 21/11 9 52.29 31/11 28 yrs 22 23.33 21/12 16 29.27 31/12 Thin 17 19.09 21/12 168.13 11 4.3 21/12 AC 13 33.12 31/11 126.26 73-2 3 16.19 31/12 AC 13 113.29 31/12 129.48 86-6 39 17.8 21/12 AC 5 14.23 21/12 9 35.94 31/13 4 26.34 22/12 74-1 21 17.52 21/10 Thin 6 14.19 31/11 16 49.79 21/11 27 years 74-17 37.3 21/12 17 8.01 21/12 Thin 145.80 18 13.95 22/12 Thin AC 72-24 14.74 21/12 Thin 72-6 16.96 22/11 Thin 86-7 40 16.58 21/12 120.97 17 48.09 21/12 AC 19 44.68 22/12 31 16.16 22/12 74-2 22 28.25 21/12 125.51 20 57.68 22/12 AC 18 26.93 21/12 7 16.22 22/12 129.08 AC 86-9 14 49.12 21/12 74-3 23 11.95 21/10 16 36.19 21/12 19 31.77 21/10 13 29.14 31/11 10 60.49 21/11 27 years 15 13.13 31/12 5 17.81 31/11 127.58 122.02 AC AC

87-1 19 27.28 21/12 86-1 32 12.73 21/12 19 8.09 21/12 outside partition - 17 58.49 21/12 borrow 24 10.19 21/11 1 13.54 21/12 16 21.15 21/12 1 7.17 21/12 outside partition - 11 9.13 21/12 borrow 13 3.5 31/11 5 51.67 31/10 Orchard 13 5 31/11 outside 7 20.06 32/10 Orchard partition - 127.81 borrow AC 120.19 AC

86-2 34 19.64 21/12 22 30.64 21/12 10 39.56 22/12 23 10.2 21/12 8 6.25 21/11 12 7.26 21/11 87-35 6.48 22/10 120.03 AC

86-4 35 22.43 21/12 17 87.36 21/12 85-35 13.08 21-12

0071 11 30.85 Clearcut w/LL reserves 15BA 0070 33 24.72 Clearcut w/LL reserves 10BA Table 4. Silhouette treatments 0070 29 14.09 Clearcut w/LL reserves 15BA Silhouette acres by treatments 0069 2 69.80 Clearcut w/LL Compt Stand ACRES Treatments reserves 40BA 0086 12 36.01 1st thin to 40 BA 0069 20 77.40 Clearcut w/LL 0086 6 33.61 1st thin to 40 BA reserves 15BA 0074 9 21.19 1st thin to 60 BA 0069 7 39.51 Clearcut w/LL 0073 15 4.19 1st thin to 60 BA reserves 45BA 0086 3 13.96 Clearcut w/LL 0073 10 27.62 1st thin to 60 BA reserves 20BA 0073 2 27.91 1st thin to 60 BA 0069 34 36.65 Clearcut w/LL 0072 3 76.39 1st thin to 60 BA reserves 10BA 0072 21 18.05 1st thin to 60 BA 0069 16 65.87 Clearcut w/LL 0069 4 11.14 1st thin to 60 BA reserves 42BA 0069 1 67.96 1st thin to 60 BA 0069 24 28.57 Clearcut w/LL 0087 4 30.85 1st thin to 60 BA reserves 24BA 0087 56 8.93 1st thin to 60 BA Total 421.2 Total 363.9 acres acres 0087 53 5.27 Free thin 0087 18 7.89 Clearcut 0087 48 6.44 Free thin 0074 6 37.03 Clearcut 0087 45 3.26 Free thin 0072 5 25.53 Clearcut 0087 49 6.47 Free thin 0072 19 15.13 Clearcut 0087 46 5.20 Free thin 0087 54 2.47 Clearcut 0087 47 5.26 Free thin 0087 15 9.70 Clearcut 0087 52 5.22 Free thin 0087 24 15.55 Clearcut 0087 50 4.43 Free thin 0087 23 9.12 Clearcut 0086 13 70.75 Free thin to 0087 44 8.76 Clearcut 40 BA (LL 0071 2 40.50 Clearcut conversion) 0071 27 2.54 Clearcut 0074 18 40.88 Free thin to 60 BA 0074 24 23.42 Clearcut 0074 3 13.91 Free thin to 60 0087 55 61.47 Clearcut BA 0087 26 8.54 Clearcut 0074 23 11.95 Free thin to 60 Total 267.7 BA acres 0074 20 63.03 Free thin to 60 BA 0071 21 19.77 Clearcut w/LL 0074 5 33.45 Free thin to 60 reserves 15BA BA

0074 7 68.18 Free thin to 60 0069 32 10.32 Free thin 60 BA BA 0069 33 10.11 Free thin 60 BA 0074 21 17.51 Free thin to 60 0069 28 20.47 Free thin 60 BA BA 0069 13 38.30 Free thin 60 BA 0074 19 31.77 Free thin 60 BA 0069 26 19.36 Free thin 60 BA 0074 12 8.75 Free thin 60 BA 0069 6 122.4 Free thin 60 BA 0074 22 28.24 Free thin 60 BA 0087 28 15.05 Free thin 60 BA 0073 12 10.87 Free thin 60 BA 0087 14 9.47 Free thin 60 BA 0073 3 16.18 Free thin 60 BA 0087 13 20.21 Free thin 60 BA 0073 5 195.7 Free thin 60 BA 0087 35 8.85 Free thin 60 BA 0073 11 20.34 Free thin 60 BA 0087 19 35.73 Free thin 60 BA 0072 23 11.81 Free thin 60 BA 0087 2 76.19 Free thin 60 BA 0072 7 49.47 Free thin 60 BA 0087 11 26.89 Free thin 60 BA 0072 10 10.20 Free thin 60 BA 0086 32 12.72 Free thin 60 BA 0072 20 123.5 Free thin 60 BA 0086 35 27.56 Free thin 60 BA 0072 6 39.88 Free thin 60 BA 0086 36 19.36 Free thin 60 BA 0072 8 73.38 Free thin 60 BA 0086 8 29.30 Free thin 60 BA 0072 24 52.41 Free thin 60 BA 0086 34 21.57 Free thin 60 BA 0072 4 18.15 Free thin 60 BA 0086 31 18.72 Free thin 60 BA 0071 19 31.58 Free thin 60 BA 0086 15 56.34 Free thin 60 BA 0071 22 19.40 Free thin 60 BA 0086 16 62.14 Free thin 60 BA 0071 7 73.34 Free thin 60 BA 0086 30 9.65 Free thin 60 BA 0071 18 9.98 Free thin 60 BA 0086 17 302.0 Free thin 60 BA 0071 17 9.60 Free thin 60 BA 0086 38 17.65 Free thin 60 BA 0071 26 10.00 Free thin 60 BA 0086 22 53.99 Free thin 60 BA 0071 12 71.30 Free thin 60 BA 0086 24 10.19 Free thin 60 BA 0071 1 47.39 Free thin 60 BA 0086 29 11.83 Free thin 60 BA 0071 13 58.67 Free thin 60 BA 0086 1 42.02 Free thin 60 BA 0071 9 220.1 Free thin 60 BA 0086 5 38.30 Free thin 60 BA 0071 5 103.5 Free thin 60 BA 0086 9 39.67 Free thin 60 BA 0070 7 10.12 Free thin 60 BA 0086 39 17.80 Free thin 60 BA 0070 3 4.38 Free thin 60 BA 0086 20 28.99 Free thin 60 BA 0070 39 10.49 Free thin 60 BA 0086 11 14.65 Free thin 60 BA 0070 4 50.32 Free thin 60 BA 0086 19 44.68 Free thin 60 BA 0070 36 10.78 Free thin 60 BA 0073 16 29.26 Free thin 60 BA 0070 13 57.14 Free thin 60 BA 0073 13 130.1 Free thin 60 BA 0070 37 15.98 Free thin 60 BA 0073 14 36.13 Free thin 60 BA 0070 38 10.31 Free thin 60 BA 0069 31 9.72 Free thin 60 BA 0070 10 38.84 Free thin 60 BA 0070 30 77.13 Free thin 60 BA 0070 34 16.99 Free thin 60 BA 0087 37 9.37 Free thin 60 BA 0069 10 48.85 Free thin 60 BA 0087 14 9.47 Free thin 60 BA 0069 14 33.93 Free thin 60 BA

0087 10 36.59 Free thin 60 BA 0086 10 39.55 Free thin 60 BA 0087 1 21.05 Free thin 60 BA (LL conversion) 0087 13 21.11 Free thin 60 BA 0086 14 49.12 Free thin 60 BA 0087 51 12.25 Free thin 60 BA (LL conversion) 0070 42 17.11 Free thin 60 BA 0086 4 26.33 Free thin 60 BA (LL conversion) 0070 1 48.87 Free thin 60 BA Total 3942. 0086 21 23.43 Free thin 60 BA acres 0072 9 11.94 Free thin 60 BA (LL conversion) 0087 38 6.46 Planting 0070 28 12.96 Free thin 60 BA

(LL conversion) 0086 23 10.19 Free thin 60 BA Total 695.4

(LL conversion)

Figure 2. North Foraging

Figure 3. South Foraging

Figure 4. South Clearing

Figure 5. North Clearing

Appendix J – Botany Report

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Southern Region Botany Specialist Report Feb. 2018

Silhouette Ecosystem Management Project

Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula Ranger

District, Grant Parish, Louisiana

Compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86, and 87

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Proposed Action ...... 5 Laws and Regulations ...... 6 Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction ...... 7 Units of Measure ...... 10 Analysis questions to be answered ...... 10 Alternatives...... 10 Alternative A – No Action ...... 10 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 10 Alternative C – Non-herbicide Action ...... 11 Mitigation Measures and Design Features ...... 11 Methodology for Analysis ...... 14 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 14 Introduction ...... 14 Assumptions ...... 14 Surveys ...... 15 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Plants ...... 26 Regional Forester Sensitive Species ...... 27 Existing Condition ...... 27 Desired future conditions ...... 27 RFSS plants with direct and indirect effects...... 27 Carolina Crownbeard ...... 28 Existing Condition ...... 28 Alternatives B and C ...... 30 Determination ...... 31 Conservation Plants ...... 31 Existing Condition ...... 32 Desired future conditions ...... 32 Conservation plants with direct and indirect effects...... 32 Oklahoma grass-pink ...... 33 Alternatives B and C ...... 34 Determination ...... 35

Roughhair panic grass ...... 35 Alternatives B and C ...... 37 Determination ...... 37 Climate Change ...... 37 Non-native Invasive Plants ...... 38 Effects Common to All Species ...... 39 Alternative A No Action ...... 39 Alternatives B and C ...... 41 Literature Cited ...... 57

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of the Kisatchie National Forest Plan direction as relates to botanical aspects of the Silhouette project ...... 7 Table 2. Mitigation Measures Required for All Action Alternatives...... 12 Table 3. Sensitive and Conservation plant species, their habitats, and determination of further consideration ...... 16 Table 4. NNIP found in the Silhouette project area...... 39 Table 5. Monitoring Requirements...... 55 Table 6. Alternative Effects on NNIP...... 55

INTRODUCTION

The Silhouette project is a planning effort designed to improve roosting and nesting red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitat, promote forest health, and improve soil and water productivity and function on approximately 8,724 acres. The project area is located in the RCW habitat management area/native community restoration area, as designated by the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised LRMP) of the Kisatchie National Forest. The project is located in Grant Parish in compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86, and 87.

The primary purpose of this proposal is to restore the native longleaf pine ecosystem, promote forest health and improve current and future Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat.

Purpose & Need

The primary purpose of this proposal is to restore the native longleaf pine ecosystem, promote forest health and improve current and future Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat. However, implementing the forest plan would be additional benefit. The longleaf pine ecosystem and RCW habitat would improve overtime by:

• clearcutting off-site pine species; • planting longleaf pine; • thinning pine stands; • prescribed burning; • providing sufficient roosting/nesting cavity trees; • removing undesirable vegetation and woody brush; • reducing non-native and invasive plant species.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service is proposing the following actions as part of the Silhouette project:

• Thinning approximately 3,942 acres of yellow pine and hardwood species to favor longleaf pine; • First thinning approximately 364 acres of loblolly plantations; • Clearcutting approximately 689 acres of offsite loblolly and slash pine species reserving longleaf pine where present. • Site preparing approximately 695 acres by use of mechanically chopping, burning, herbicide application (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; • Planting native longleaf pine on approximately 695 acres. • Releasing longleaf pine seedlings on approximately 695 acres by use of burning, herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or hand tools; • Installing approximately 160 artificial Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) cavities and predator excluders; • Maintaining and/or replacing cavity nesting structures for non-game wildlife i.e. bluebirds, martins and bats;

• Removing site-specific undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within the approximately 8,704 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr) and/or machinery. The treatment areas will be identified and assessed for the most effective method for ecosystem management of the project area; • Enhancing Stuart Lake recreation area through: treating aquatic weeds in Stuart Lake by use of herbicides (Endothall, Fluidone, Glyphosate, Imazapyr & Imazamox); deepening the shoreline of the lake; adding sand on the beach area; adding rock to day-use area & campground sites; replacing lake valve; conducting rehabilitation on dam structure & parking areas; enhancing the nature trail & replacing interpretive signs; • Modifying the boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction on approximately 381 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative boundaries; • Modifying existing “No Hunting & No Shooting” boundary on approximately 758 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center administrative areas; • Constructing a permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. in size with water & electrical hookups and permanent pole for wind sock. The construction of the helipad will enhance the prescribed burning efforts for longleaf restoration and emergency response; • Permanently opening approximately 1.2 miles of Forest Service roads to highway legal vehicles; permanently closing approximately 5 miles of Forest Service roads to motorized vehicles; constructing approximately 1 mile of temporary road for timber harvesting access; and improving approximately 51.4 miles of forest roads by maintenance and/or reconstruction; • Controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on approximately 1 acre. • Maintaining approximately 25 miles of Forest Service boundary lines

Actions connected to the proposed timber harvest include improving approximately 51.4 miles of forest roads by maintenance and/or road reconstruction; and approximately 1 mile of temporary road construction.

Laws and Regulations

Below is a partial list of federal and state laws, executive orders, and Forest direction pertaining to project-specific planning and environmental analysis for this project as they relate to rare plants and NNIP.

• Kisatchie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1999 (as amended). See table 1 below for details. • Endangered Species Act, 1973 (as amended). This legislation applies to the management and regulation of Threatened and Endangered Species. This legislation was considered but dismissed because no Threatened or Endangered Plant Species occur within the analysis area. • Resource Planning Act (RPA), 1974 (as amended). This act directs the National Forest Service to inventory, protect and address the effects to natural resources. • Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. This act designates multiple uses with equal standing in the National Forests. These include recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish. It introduces the principles of multiple use and sustained yield on the National Forests.

• National Environmental Policy Act, 1969. This act requires all federal agencies to analyze the effects of management actions and prepare Environmental Assessments or Environmental Impact Statements to address these impacts (depending on the complexity of the project). • National Forest Management Act, 1976 (as amended); 36 CFR 219. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) originated as an amendment to the Resources Planning Act (1974) to address legal challenges. It provided direction requiring an interdisciplinary and systematic approach to resource management and provided for public input on preparing and revising Forest Plans. • Forest Service Manual, FSM 2620, 2630, 2670, 2672. These manual directives address the management of Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). • Executive Order 13112 of 1999, regarding NNIP control. This executive order is one of the founding directives of the NNIP control on National Forest system lands. • Forest Service Manuals 2900 and 2150 regarding noxious weed control. • Forest Service Manual 2070 (Amendment2000-2008-1), regarding native plant policy

Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction

The Silhouette project area lies entirely within Sub-management Areas 3BL and 5CL. 3BL emphasizes restoration of native fire dependent longleaf pine communities in an intermediate time period while providing a moderate level of protection to other resources. 5CL emphasizes the management of RCW habitat and restoring native, fire dependent longleaf pine communities in an extended time period.

Specific measures related to this report as defined in the Forest plan are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the Kisatchie National Forest Plan direction as relates to botanical aspects of the Silhouette project. PLAN EMPHASIS DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS

Overall emphasis on restoration and maintenance of the composition, structure and processes that formed the major Management Area 3 Native Community Restoration landscape plant communities on those LTAS where they occurred prior to the large scale logging of the early 1900s. Emphasis would be on restoring native fire dependent longleaf pine Longleaf Pine native community communities in an intermediate time Management Area 3BL restoration period while providing a moderate level of protection to other resources. Emphasize management of Red- cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) habitat and on the restoration of Management Area 5 Native Community Restoration the historical landscape vegetation to those landtype associations on which it occurred. Provide other resources a

moderate to maximum level of protection. Emphasize the management of

RCW habitat and restoring native, Longleaf Pine native community Management Area 5CL fire dependent longleaf pine restoration communities in an extended time period. Objective 2–1: Manage to restore or maintain the structure,

composition, and processes of the four major landscape forest Forest-wide Objective Native community restoration ecosystems known to occur on the Forest, and unique or under- represented inclusional communities embedded within them. Objective 2–2: Provide for healthy populations of all existing native and desirable nonnative wildlife, Forest-wide Objective Species viability fish, and plants by managing major forest ecosystems at the scale and distribution appropriate to maintain species viability. Objective 2–3: Manage to protect, improve, and maintain habitat

conditions for all threatened, Forest-wide Objective Rare plant protection endangered, sensitive, and conservation species occurring on the Forest. Objective 2–5: Manage to protect or enhance the unique plant and

animal communities, special

habitat features, habitat linkages Forest-wide Objective Natural Community management and corridors, and aquatic ecosystems associated with streamside habitat and riparian areas. FW–003: During project planning, consider the impacts to biological

diversity parameters at stand and

Forest-wide Standards and landscape levels. Applicable aspects Biological Diversity Guidelines of composition, structure and function should be considered within each environmental analysis.

Forest-wide Standards and FW–008: Prepare site-specific Rare plant analysis Guidelines environmental analyses which

include biological evaluations (BES) or assessments (BAS) of a project’s effects on species federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed; or those identified by the Forest Service as sensitive or conservation species. FW–009: A biological evaluation of whether a project could affect any

species federally listed as

threatened, endangered, or

Forest-wide Standards and proposed, or identified by the Biological Evaluation Guidelines Forest Service as sensitive (i.e., PETS species), is done as part of site-specific forest plan implementation and project preparation. FW–010: Use integrated pest management (IPM) principles during

site-specific analysis. The IPM

Forest-wide Standards and decision-making and action process Pest Management Guidelines includes biological, economic, and environmental evaluation of pest- host systems to manage pest populations. FW–018: Cooperate with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife

and Fisheries (LDWF) and the

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program

in identification, documentation, Forest-wide Standards and Rare plant coordination protection, and management of Guidelines animal or plant species recognized by the Forest Service as sensitive or conservation species, and in the management of State Registry Natural Areas. FW–370: Schedule right-of-way Forest-wide Standards and Longleaf Scenic Byway wildflower mowing dates to promote Guidelines maintenance wildflower growth. Threatened, endangered, FW–664 to FW-700 Forest-wide Standards and sensitive, and other rare plant Guidelines species FW-701: Identify and map exotic pest plant species infestations as

they are located. Use appropriate Forest-wide Standards and Non-native Invasive Species control methods as funding allows, Guidelines including, but not limited to, prescribed fire, herbicides, manual removal, and mowing. Monitor

after control treatments and re- treat as needed to control infestations.

Units of Measure

The following are analysis questions and the indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences specific to Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), Conservation Species as identified in the LRMP, and NNIP. These analysis questions would be tracked throughout the effects analysis in order to address whether, or to what degree, the project meets the purpose and need and complies with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan direction. Specific analysis questions also respond to public concerns and issues brought up during scoping. A quantitative and/or qualitative indicator has been developed for each analysis question.

Analysis questions to be answered

How would project activities affect the presence of NNIP? Indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are: (1) qualitative evaluation of compliance with the Forest Plan, (2) qualitative evaluation on whether NNIP would have the potential to increase with mitigation, best management practices, and design features applied, (3) qualitative evaluation of the conflict between NNIP, RFSS, and Conservation plants.

• The management actions undertaken in this project are complementary and enhance the control objectives for each NNIP species present in the project area.

• Appropriate treatments to mitigate the effects of management actions on NNIP are incorporated into the project design and implementation.

• There are no measures for Threatened and Endangered plants because none occur on the Kisatchie National Forest

Alternatives Alternative A – No Action

There would be no changes in current management and the Forest Plan would continue to be implemented. Projects with previous NEPA decisions would continue to be implemented. Normal operations such road and trail maintenance would continue. Alternative A is the point of reference for assessing action alternatives B and C.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

In response to the purpose and need for action, the Forest Service proposes to conduct the following activities on approximately 8,724 acres within compartments 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 86 and 87 over a period ranging from 5 to 10 years:

Installing approximately 160 artificial Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) nesting cavities and predator excluders; Thinning approximately 3,896 acres of yellow pine and hardwood species to favor longleaf pine; Thinning approximately 288 acres of loblolly plantations; Clearcutting approximately 1,054 acres of offsite loblolly and slash pine species reserving longleaf pine where present. Site preparing approximately 1,026 acres by use of mechanically chopping, burning, herbiciding and/or hand tools; Planting native longleaf pine on approximately 1,026 acres. Releasing longleaf pine seedlings on approximately 1,026 acres by use of burning, herbicides and/or hand tools; Spot treating and/or removing undesirable vegetation including noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant (NNIP) species, midstory tree species and woody brush within the approximately 8,724 acres of the project area by use of herbicides (Triclopyr, Glyphosate & Imazapyr), machinery and/or by hand tools. These treatments will be applied to specific stands that warrant treatment, presently and in the future, for longleaf ecosystem restoration and management of the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard; Modifying the boundary of the existing “No Public Access” restriction on approximately 381 acres within the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard and Catahoula Ranger District work center administrative boundaries; Modifying existing “No Hunting” restriction on approximately 758 acres within the administrative boundaries of the Stuart Genetic Seed Orchard, Catahoula Ranger District office and work center; Permanently closing approximately 7 miles of Forest Service roads to motorized vehicles; Permanently opening approximately 2 miles of Forest Service roads to highway legal vehicles; Constructing a permanent helicopter landing pad approximately 120 ft. by 120 ft. in size with water & electrical hookups and permanent pole for wind sock. The construction of the helipad will enhance the prescribed burning efforts for longleaf restoration and emergency response; Controlling soil erosion and sedimentation on approximately 1 acre; Maintaining approximately 25 miles of Forest Service boundary lines;

Alternative C – Non-herbicide Action

Alternative C was developed to compare and contrast the environmental consequences associated with using herbicides. Treatments (and treatment locations) are the same as described for alternative B with one exception. No herbicides would be used on the five acres where longleaf pine would be planted and no herbicides would be used to treat up to 1,200 acres of NNIP.

Mitigation Measures and Design Features

The following mitigation measures and design features have been included for alternatives B and C to reduce or eliminate the impacts to RFSS plants and Conservation plant species (hereafter RFSS plants and Conservation plants will be termed SC plants) and to diminish the effects of management actions on NNIP. There are no mitigation measures and design features for threatened or endangered plants in this section

because none exist in the analysis area.

Table 2. Mitigation Measures Required for All Action Alternatives.

Mitigation Reason Mitigate negative effects from management Complies with FSM direction, minimizes 1 actions on RFSS during design and impacts to RFSS plants. implementation. Prohibit slash pile construction within Mitigates effects of disturbance and 2 populations of SC plants. burning. Construct slash piles at least 10 to 20 feet away Mitigates effects of disturbance and 3 from known populations of RFSS. burning. Prohibit temporary road construction or 4 Eliminates direct loss of plants. reconstruction within populations of SC plants. Prohibit construction, reconstruction or log 5 Mitigates effects of disturbance. landings in identified populations of SC plants. Promotes healthy native plant Manage prescribed burns to promote native 6 communities and reduces the risk of NNIP species and to hinder weed species germination. invasions. Survey treatment area and evaluate weeds present before implementation. Avoid or remove 7 sources of weed seed and propagules to prevent Reduces NNIP Infestations. new weed Infestations and the spread of existing weeds. Place slash piles on previously used locations Reduces loss of native seed bank, limits such as old piling sites, old log deck sites, or extent of severe disturbances and reduces 8 other disturbed sites to avoid severe disturbance severely disturbed sites that are more to additional locations where possible. prone to invasion by NNIP. Treat weed Infestations within treatment units 9 Forest Plan Direction before implementing treatments. Monitor slash pile sites after burning and control Controls weeds, reduces risk of invasion 10 NNIP. and reduces risk to native species by reducing weed competition. Mitigates effects of management actions on existing and potential NNIP Infestations Prevent spread of potential and existing NNIP by

vehicles used in management activities by Forest Plan Direction washing vehicles and equipment prior to 11 In complementary to Timber Sale Contract entering the project area and when moving from Clause CT WO-C/CT 6.36 one area to another.

Is complementary to Watershed Best Management Practices Manage prescribed fires as an aid to control of Mitigates effects of management actions 12 existing weed Infestations and to prevent the on existing and potential NNIP Infestations spread of existing weeds. Forest Plan Direction.

Incorporate weed prevention and control into Addresses NNIP during project planning 13 project layout, design, alternative evaluation and and implementation project decisions. Required by the Forest Plan.

Review Timber Sale contract clauses for vehicle Complementary to vehicle cleaning clause 14 cleaning and incorporate appropriate clauses. above. Provides opportunities to obtain Monitor the effects of treatment on SC plants knowledge on local species that are often 15 after treatments are completed. poorly understood. Allows for adaptive management in future treatments.

Methodology for Analysis

Sources for this analysis include survey records and data. These include:

• Threatened, Endangered, SC plants and NNIP data on file in NRM TESP/NNIP database, which is the national database of record for these data. • Various surveys, documents and files on file at the Kisatchie National Forest • The current Forest Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest (1999) • GIS data layers for the Kisatchie National Forest • LSU on-line herbarium • NLU on-line herbarium • Louisiana Natural Heritage Program data and reports. • Various floras and manuals were used for plant identification and autecological analysis. These are Ajilvsgi 1979; Allen et al. 2002; Allen et al. 2004; Correll and Johnston 1979; Cronquist 1980; Diggs et al. 1999; Diggs et al. 2006; Flora of North America Editorial Committee 1993, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003; Gandhi and Thomas 1989; Godfrey and Wooten 1979; Godfrey and Wooten 1980; Larke and Smith 1994; Radford, Ahles, and Bell 1968; Steyermark 1963; Theiret 1980; Thomas and Allen 1993, 1996, 1998; USDA, NRCS 2012; Weakley 2010; and Yatskievych 1999, 2006, 2013.

These data were used to identify and assess the effects to RFSS plants and NNIP within the project area for the alternatives in this project.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section details the affected environment and environmental consequences for the SC plants and NNIP within the project area. It establishes the baseline against which the decision maker and the public can compare the effects of all action alternatives.

This section also describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of implementing each alternative on SC plants and NNIP in the project area. It presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of the alternatives presented in Alternatives section.

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Introduction

The following sections discuss the management effects of the alternatives on botanical resources, including SC plants and NNIP. These topics are separated into sections below. The Kisatchie National Forest has no federally-listed plant species.

Assumptions

The environmental effects disclosed in this document are based on the following assumptions:

• All relevant laws, regulations, manual guidance and Forest Service policy relating to management of the resources discussed within are followed during analysis and implementation. • Management will follow the guidance of the Kisatchie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1999). This report was prepared using the guidance of that plan. Review may be needed later as updated and revised plans become available. • Silviculture and prescribed burning treatments will be implemented as written and addressed in the Silviculture Specialist’s Report and the 10-year Prescribed Fire EA, and not substantially modified without review of the effects of such actions. • Management actions for activities related to roads and transportation will be implemented as addressed in their respective reports and not substantially modified without review of the effects of such actions. • The mitigations and Best Management Practices addressed in this document are included in analysis and project implementation. See Table 2 above for these features.

Surveys

Several botanical field surveys have been conducted within the proposed project area in the past. Shannan Sharp, past Zone Botanist for the Catahoula and Winn Ranger Districts, conducted a number of surveys within the project area.

David Moore, Forest Botanist, performed surveys in the latter half of 2012 and early summer 2013. This work involved surveys for NNIP.

Chris Reid, a botanist working for the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, resumed project surveys in May and June, 2012. He found no TE plants, SC plants, or rare habitats. He did find an abundance of NNIP however.

Finally, Shannan Sharp, David Moore (Forest Botanist), and Sheila French (present Zone Botanist) reviewed Kisatchie National Forest GIS Arcmap records of TES plants and rare plant habitats within or near the proposed project area.

One occurrence of a sensitive plant was found within the propose project area in 2004. Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard) was found in Compartment 73.

Consultation History

No consultation with other agencies occurred with regard to plant surveys because no threatened or endangered plants are known to occur on the Kisatchie National Forest and the project is occurring exclusively on Forest Service land.

Plant Species Considered and Evaluated

A. General Considerations

There are 83 Sensitive and Conservation plant species on the Kisatchie National Forest (Table 3). 80 of these species were excluded from further analysis. An important consideration for determining which plant species to consider further is their habitat requirements. For example, plants without the proper habitat in the project area do not need to be considered further. Plants that are outside the known range of a particular species do not need to be considered further.

Also, different authors have used different terms to describe the same habitats, which can cause confusion. To make the terminology more uniform, the habitat terms used below are taken from the habitat types recognized by the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, in particular the terms used in their surveys of the Kisatchie National Forest, such as Martin and Smith (1991).

Table 3. Sensitive and Conservation plant species, their habitats, and determination of further consideration.

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

Agrimonia incisa Torr. & A. Pine flatwoods, Western upland 1 Incised agrimony S No Gray longleaf pine forest, Sandy woodland

Mixed hardwood/loblolly forest, small 2 Amsonia ludoviciana Vail Louisiana bluestar S No stream forest

Andropodon liebmannii 3 Mohr’s bluestem C Western upland longleaf pine forest No Hack.1 Narrow-leaved Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous 4 Asclepias stenophylla Gray C No milkweed Prairie Black-stemmed 5 Asplenium resiliens L. C Limestone outcrops No spleenwort

6 Asplenium trichomanes L. Maidenhair spleenwort C Limestone outcrops No

Astragalus crassicarpus Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous 7 Nutt. var. trichocalyx Ground-plum C No Prairie (Nutt.) Barneby

8 Burmannia biflora L. Northern burmannia C Forested Seep, Bayhead Swamp No

Calopogon barbatus (Walt.) high-quality Western hillside seepage 9 Bearded grass-pink C No Ames bog

Calopogon oklahomensis high-quality Western hillside seepage 10 Oklahoma grasspink C Yes D.H. Goldman bog Camassia scilloides (Raf.) 11 Wild hyacinth C Calcareous Forest No Cory

12 Carex decomposita Muhl. Epiphytic sedge S/C Bald cypress Swamp, Bayhead Swamp No

Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous 13 Carex meadii Dewey Mead’s sedge C No Prairie, Coastal Prairie

Carex microdonta Torr. & Cook Mountain/ Jackson Calcareous 14 Small-toothed sedge C No Hook Prairie, Coastal Prairie

1Andropogon liebmannii is now referred to as Andropogon mohri (Hack.) Hack. ex Vasey according to the USDA Plants databa18se at http://plants.usda.gov

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

15 Carex stricta Lam. Tussock sedge C Small stream forest No

Cook Mountain/ Jackson calcareous 16 Ceanothus herbaceous Raf. Prairie redroot C No prairie Cheilanthes alabamensis 17 Alabama lip-fern C Limestone Outcrop No (Buckl.) Kunze Cheilanthes lanosa (Michx.) Sandstone outcrops in Western 18 Hairy lip-fern C No D. C. Eaton Upland Longleaf Forest

Cyperus grayioides Mohlenbrock's 19 S Sandy woodland No Mohlenbr. Umbrella-sedge

Cypripedium kentuckiense Bottomland forest, Hardwood slope 20 Southern Lady's slipper S No C.F. Reed forest, Mixed hardwood/loblolly forest

Hardwood Slope Forest, Mixed 21 Dodecatheon meadia L. Shooting star C Hardwood-Loblolly Forest, Calcareous No Forest

Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex T. Wedge-leaved Whitlow Western xeric sandhill, Calcareous 22 C No & G. grass Prairie, Cheniers

Echinacea purpurea (L.) 23 Purple coneflower C Calcareous prairie, Calcareous forest No Moench

Long-leaved wild 24 Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. C Western xeric sandhills No buckwheat

Euphorbia discoidalis 25 Summer Spurge S Sandy woodland No Chapm.

Mixed Harwood-Loblolly Forest, 26 Geranium maculatum L. Wild geranium C No Hardwood Slope Forest

Hedyotis purpurea L. var. Cook Mountain/ Jackson calcareous 27 Purple bluet C No calycosa Gray prairies

Cook Mountain/ Jackson calcareous Heliotropium tenellum 28 Slender heliotrope C prairie, beech ridges with shelly-sand No (Nutt.) Torr.2 substrate

Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly Forest, Hexalectis spicata (Walt.) 29 Crested coral-root C Calcareous Forest, Hardwood Slope No Barnh. Forest

Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) 30 June grass C Calcareous Prairie No Schult.

high-quality Western hillside seepage Lachnocaulon digynum 31 Pineland bogbutton S bog, pine flatwoods No Koern. Bayhead swamp

2 This taxon is incorrectly referred to as Lithospermum tenellum (Nutt.) Torr. in the Environmental Impact Statement to the 1999 Forest Land Management and Resource plan for the Kisatchie National Forest.

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

Jackson calcareous prairie, Western 32 Liatris tenuis Shinners Slender gay feather S upland longleaf pine forest, Sandy No woodland

33 Lyonia mariana (L.) D. Don Staggerbush C Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly No

Marshallia trinervia (Walter) Broadleaf Barbara's 34 S Small stream forest No Trel. buttons

35 Mayaca aubletii Michx. Bog moss C Bayhead swamp No

Shortleaf Pine-Oak-Hickory Forest, 36 Monotropa hypopithys L. American pinesap C No Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly Forest

37 Orobanche uniflora L. Broomrape C Western upland longleaf pine forest No

Palhinhaea cernua (L.) Wet depressions and ditches in 38 Nodding clubmoss C No Vasconcellos & Franco3 pinelands

39 Panicum flexile (Gatt.) Scrib. Wiry witch grass C Calcareous prairie No

Panicum rigidulum Nees var. Comb’s redtop panic 40 combsii (Scribn. & Ball) Lelong C Western upland longleaf pine forest No grass

Panicum strigosum Muhl. 41 var. leucoblepharis (Trin.) Roughhair panic grass C Pine flatwoods, savannahs, and bogs Yes Lelong4

Largeleaf Grass of high-quality Western hillside seepage 42 Parnassia grandifolia DC C No Parnassus bog

Paronychia drummondii T. 43 Drummond’s nailwort C Western xeric sandhill No & G. Pellaea atropurpurea (L.) 44 Purple cliff-brake fern C Limestone rock outcrop No Link

Penstemon murrayanus 45 Cupleaf beardtongue C Western xeric sandhill No Hook.

Phacelia strictiflora (Engelm. 46 Robbin’s phacelia C Western xeric sandhill No & Gray) Gray

Platanthera blephariglottis 47 White-fringed orchid C Eastern Longleaf Flatwoods Savannah No (Willd.) Lindl.

Platanthera integra (Nutt.) high-quality Western hillside seepage 48 Yellow fringeless orchid S No A. Gray ex Beck bog, Pine flatwoods

3 This taxon is referred to as Lycopodiella cernua (L.) Pic. Serm. var. cernua according to the Plants Database (USDA NRCS5 2011), at: http://plants.usda.gov/.

4 This taxon is now known as Dichanthelium strigosum (Muhl. ex Ell.) Freckmann ssp. leucoblepharis (Trin.) Lelong according to Allen, Newman, and Winters (2004).

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

49 Polanisia erosa (Nutt.) Iltis Clammy weed C Western xeric sandhill No

Polygonella americana 50 Southern jointweed C Western xeric sandhill No (Fisch. & Mey.) Small

Polygonella polygama 51 October jointweed C Western xeric sandhill No (Vent.) Engelm. & Gray

Bottomland forest, Small stream Prenanthes barbata (Torr. & 52 Barbed rattlesnakeroot S forest, Hardwood slope forest, Mixed No A. Gray) Milstead hardwood-loblolly pine forest

Psilocarya scirpoides (Vahl) Margins of lakes and ponds, wet 53 Shortbeak baldsedge C No Wood5 ditches Awl-shaped SC 54 Psoralea subulata Bush6 C Western upland longleaf pine forest No plantsurf-pea

Pteroglossaspis ecristata high-quality Western hillside seepage 55 (Fernald) Rolfe (=Eulophia Giant Orchid S No bog. ecristata)

Rhynchospora macra (C.B. high-quality Western hillside seepage 56 Large beakrush S No Clarke ex Britton) Small bog, Pine flatwoods

Rhynchospora miliacea Bald Cypress Swamps, Blackgum 57 Millet beakrush C No (Lam.) Gray Swamps, Bayheads, Forested seeps

Rudbeckia scabrifolia L.E. high-quality Western hillside seepage 58 Sabine coneflower S No Brown bog, Bayhead swamp

Bottomland forest, Small stream forest, Schisandra glabra (E.P. 59 Bay starvine S Hardwood slope forest, Mixed No Bicknell) Rehder hardwood/loblolly forest

Schoenolirion wrightii 60 Texas sunnybell S Sandstone glade No Sherman

Selaginella arenicola ssp. Western xeric sandhill, 61 Riddell’s spikemoss C No riddellii (Van Eselt.) R. Tyron Sandstone Glade

Transition zone from upland longleaf 62 Silene subciliata B.L. Rob. Scarlet Catchfly S forest, or from sandhill, to small No stream forest or bayhead swamp

Smilacina racemosa (L.) Moist deciduous woods, shady woods 63 False Solomon’s seal C No Desf. in moist rich soil

5 This taxon is now known as Rhynchospora scirpoides (Torr.) Gray according to the Plants Database (USDA NRCS 2011), at: http://plants.usda.gov/.

6 This taxon is now referred to as Pediomelum hypogaeum (Nutt ex Torr & Gray) Rydb.var. subulatum (Bush) J. Grimes according to the Plants Database (USDA NRCS 2011), at: http://plants.usda.gov/.

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

64 Spartina pectinata Link Prairie cordgrass C Wet saline prairie No

Pine flatwoods, Jackson calcareous Giant spiral ladies’- 65 Spiranthes longilabris Lindl. S prairie, Western upland longleaf pine No tresses forest

Spiranthes magnicamporum Great Plains ladies’- 66 C Calcareous prairie No Sheviak tresses

67 Sporobolus ozarkanus Fern.7 Ozark dropseed C Prairies & disturbed sites No

Taenidia integerrima (L.) 68 Yellow pimpernel C Calcareous Forest No Drude Calyciphilic flame 69 Talinum calycinum Engelm.8 C Glades No flower Small-flowered flame 70 Talinum parviflorum Nutt.9 C Sandstone glade, Saline Prairie No flower

Tetragonotheca ludoviciana Western xeric sandhill, Western 71 Louisiana squarehead C No (T. & G.) Gray upland longleaf pine forest

Shortleaf pine/ oak-hickory forest, Tridens carolinianus (Steud.) 72 Carolina fluffgrass S Mixed hardwood/loblolly forest, No Henr. Western upland longleaf pine forest

No good habitat description known – 73 Triosteum perfoliatum L. Feverwort C No dry or open woods

Bald cypress Swamp, Bottomland Triphora trianthophora (Sw.) 74 Nodding pogonia C Forest, Small Stream Forest, No Rydb. Hardwood Slope Forest

75 Uvularia sessilifolia L. Sessile-leaved bellwort C Bayhead Swamp, Forested Seep No

76 Verbesina walteri Shinners Carolina crownbeard S Small stream forest Yes

Xanthorhiza simplicissima 77 Yellowroot C Small stream Forest No Marsh.

Drummond's high-quality Western hillside seepage 78 Xyris drummondii Malme S No yelloweyed grass bog, pine flatwoods

Xyris louisianica Bridges & Louisiana yellow-eyed high-quality Western hillside seepage 79 S No Orzell grass bog, Pine flatwoods

Harper's yelloweyed high-quality Western hillside seepage 80 Xyris scabrifolia Harper S No grass bog, pine flatwoods

7 This taxon is now known as Sporpbulus vaginiflorus (Torr.) Wood var. orzarkanus (Fern.) Shinners, according to Allen, Newman, and Winters (2004).

8 This taxon is now known as Phemeranthus calycinus (Engelm.) Kiger according to the Plants Database (USDA NRCS 2011), at: http://plants.usda.gov/.

9 This taxon is now known as Phemeranthus parviflorus (Nutt.) Kiger according to the Plants Database (USDA NRCS 2011), at: http://plants.usda.gov/.

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

Pineland yellow-eyed Western Hillside Bog, Eastern Longleaf 81 Xyris stricta Chapm. C No grass Flatwoods Savannah

Zigadenus densus (Desr.) 82 Black snakeroot C Western Hillside Bog No Fern.

Zornia bracteata (Walt.) Western xeric sandhill, Eastern Xeric 83 Viperina C No Gmel. Longleaf Pine.

Why some species were not retained for further analysis.

80 Sensitive or Conservation plant species were excluded from further analysis. The reasons for their exclusions are given below.

1. Agrimonia incisa Torr. & A. Gray is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

2. Amsonia ludoviciana Vail is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

3. Andropodon liebmannii Hack is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

4. Asclepias stenophylla Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur within the project area.

5. Asplenium resiliens L. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, limestone outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

6. Asplenium trichomanes L. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, limestone outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

7. Astragalus crassicarpus Nutt. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

8. Burmannia biflora L. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality forested seeps and bayhead swamps, do not occur in the project area.

9. Calopogon barbatus (Walt.) Ames is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, does not occur in the project area

10. Camassia scilloides (Raf.) Cory Wild is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Shortleaf Pine Oak-Hickory Forest on calcareous, clay soils, does not occur in the project area

11. Carex decomposita Muhl. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high- quality bayhead swamp, does not occur in the project area

12. Carex meadii Dewey is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, Cook Mountain/Jackson calcareous prairie and coastal prairie, do not occur in the project area

13. Carex microdonta Torr. & Hook is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, calcareous prairie and coastal prairie, do not occur in the project area

14. Carex stricta Lam. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

15. Ceanothus herbaceus Raf. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

16. Cheilanthes alabamensis (Buckl.) Kunze is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, limestone rock outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

17. Cheilanthes lanosa (Michx.) D.C. Eaton is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandstone outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

18. Cyperus grayioides Mohlenbr. is excluded from further consideration because its potential habitat, sandy woodlands, does not occur in the project area

19. Cypripedium kentuckiense C.F. Reed is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality bottomland forest, hardwood slope forest, and mixed hardwood/loblolly forest, do not occur in the project area

20. Dodecatheon meadia L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

21. Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex T.&G. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

22. Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

23. Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

24. Euphorbia discoidalis Chapm. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandy woodlands, does not occur in the project area.

25. Geranium maculatum L.is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Shortleaf Pine Oak-Hickory Forest on calcareous, clay soils, does not occur in the project area

26. Hedyotis purpurea L. var. calycosa Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

27. Heliotropium tenellum (Nutt.) Torr. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, calcareous substrates, does not occur in the project area..

28. Hexalectis spicata (Walt.) Barnh. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

29. Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) Schult is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

30. Lachnocaulon digynum Koern. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high- quality Western hillside seepage bog and pine flatwoods, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, and bayhead swamp, do not occur in the project area.

31. Liatris tenuis Shinners is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, Jackson calcareous prairie, Western upland longleaf pine forest, and sandy woodlands, do not occur in the project area.

32. Lyonia mariana (L.) D. Don is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

33. Marshallia trinervia (Walter) Trel. is excluded from further consideration because the project

area is outside the known range of this species.

34. Mayaca aubletii Michx. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

35. Monotropa hypopithys L. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high- quality shortleaf pine-oak-hickory forest and mixed hardwood-loblolly forest, do not occur in the project area and the species was not found in previous or current field surveys.

36. Orobanche uniflora L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

37. Palhinhaea cernua (L.) Vasconcellos is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, hillside seepage bogs, does not occur in the project area.

38. Panicum flexile (Gatt.) Scrib. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area

39. Panicum rigidulum Nees var. combsii (Scribn. & Ball) Lelong is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

40. Parnassia grandifolia DC is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, does not occur in the project area

41. Paronychia drummondii T. & G. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

42. Pellaea atropurpurea (L.) Link is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, limestone outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

43. Penstemon murrayanus Hook. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

44. Phacelia strictiflora (Engelm. & Gray) Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

45. Platanthera blephartiglottis (Willd.) Lindl. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Eastern longleaf flatwoods savannah, does not occur in the project area.

46. Platanthera integra (Nutt.) A. Gray ex Beck is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

47. Polanisia erosa (Nutt.) Iltis is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

48. Polygonella americana (Fisch. & Mey.) Small is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

49. Polygonella polygama (Vent.) Engelm. & Gray is excluded from further consideration because its

habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

50. Prenanthes barbata (Torr. & A.Gray) Milstead is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

51. Psilocarya scirpoides (Vahl) Wood is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

52. Psoralea subulata (Bush) Gray is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

53. Pteroglossaspis ecristata (Fernald) Rolfe is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, does not occur in the project area.

54. Rhynchospora macra (C.B. Clarke ex Britton) Small is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, and Pine flatwoods, do not occur in the project area.

55. Rhynchospora miliacea (Lam.) Gray is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

56. Rudbeckia scabrifolia L.E. Brown is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog and pine flatwoods, do not occur in the project area.

57. Schisandra glabra (E.P. Bicknell) Rehder is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the range for this species.

58. Schoenolirion wrightii Sherman is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandstone glade, does not occur in the project area.

59. Selaginella arenicola ssp. riddellii (Van Eselt.) R. Tyron is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, Western xeric sandhills and sandstone glades, do not occur in the project area.

60. Silene subciliata B.L. Rob. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, transition zone from upland longleaf forest, or from sandhill, to small stream forest or bayhead swamp, do not occur in the project area.

61. Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

62. Spartina pectinata Link is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, wet saline prairie, does not occur in the project area.

63. Spiranthes longilabris Lindl. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

64. Spiranthes magnicamporum Sheviak is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

65. Sporobolus ozarkanus Fern. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

66. Taenidia integerrima (L.) Drude is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous forest, does not occur in the project area.

67. Talinum calycinum Engelm. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, sandstone glades and salines, do not occur in the project area.

68. Talinum parviflorum Nutt. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, sandstone glades and salines, do not occur in the project area.

69. Tetragonotheca ludoviciana (T.&G.) Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

70. Tridens carolinianus (Steud.) Henr. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

71. Triosteum perfoliatum L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

72. Triphora trianthophora (Sw.) Rydb. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, bald cypress swamp and hardwood slope forest, do not occur in the project area.

73. Uvularia sessilifolia L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

74. Xanthorhiza simplicissima Marsh. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

75. Xyris drummondii Malme is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high- quality Western hillside seepage bog and pine flatwoods, do not occur in the project area.

76. Xyris louisianica Bridges & Orzell is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog and pine flatwoods, do not occur in the project area.

77. Xyris scabrifolia Harper is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog and pine flatwoods, do not occur in the project area.

78. Xyris stricta Chapm. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, Western hillside bog and Eastern longleaf flatwoods savannah, do not occur in the project area

79. Zigadenus densus (Desr.) Fern. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high- quality Western hillside seepage bog, does not occur in the project area.

80. Zornia bracteata (Walt.) Gmel is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, Western xeric sandhills on Sparta sands and eastern xeric longleaf pine, do not occur in the project area

Evaluated Species Survey Information

Three species were retained for further consideration. These species are Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma Grasspink), Panicum strigosum var. leucoblepharis (roughhair Panic Grass), and Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard). In the sections below the effects of the proposed project on these three species will be evaluated.

General Considerations

References for location and habitat data include Martin and Smith (1991), Larke and Smith (1994), and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information on SC plants and NNIP occurrences and habitats maintained by the Kisatchie National Forest.

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Plants

No TE (federally listed Threatened or Endangered) plants are known to occur on the Forest. However, it is possible that one federally threatened plant, earth fruit (Geocarpon minimum), could occur on the Forest. Earth fruit has a very narrow habitat specificity. Across its range it is found in saline prairies and sandstone glades (Flora of North America Editorial Committee 2000; Keith and Singhurst 2004; LNHP; NatureServe 2012; and Pittman 1993). Suitable habitat for earth fruit is present in glades and barrens found on the Kisatchie Ranger District, as well as in a saline prairie on the Winn Ranger District.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

RFSS are identified on the USFS Region 8 Intranet, at http://fsweb.r8.fs.fed.us/nr/fwr/PETS_FSWeb/ref/fs/080701_SC plants_fsweb.xls

The Kisatchie National Forest (National Forest) lists 24 RFSS plants as occurring, or likely to occur, on the forest (Table 2). All 24 RFSS plants were considered in the initial evaluation of this project.

RFSS plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. RFSS plants that were eliminated from further discussion, and their reason for elimination, are shown in Table 2. One RFSS plant was retained for further discussion. This plant is Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard).

Existing Condition

The dominant natural community in the project area is Upland Longleaf Pine Forest. Other natural

communities found during past field surveys and in surveys for this project are Mixed Hardwood— Loblolly Pine Forest, Baygall and Bayhead Swamps, and Shortleaf-Pine—Oak-Hickory Forest. Small Stream Riparian Forest surrounds most of the stream corridors. There a small site with Bottomland Hardwood Forest in Compartment 104. Numerous loblolly and longleaf pine plantations are also present.

NNIP Infestations are common throughout most of the project area.

Desired future conditions

Desired future conditions for RFSS and Conservation plants with habitat or locations within the planning area include:

• Maintain or increase the populations within the planning area. Additionally, suitable habitat for sensitive plant species should be maintained or enhanced. • Follow Forest Plan Direction for the Kisatchie National Forest at it applies to SC plants.

RFSS plants with direct and indirect effects.

The indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are: • A qualitative evaluation of whether populations are maintained or increased per FSM 2670.5 • A qualitative evaluation of whether potential habitat is maintained or enhanced • An evaluation of whether impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats are effectively minimized • An evaluation on habitat and species resiliency to natural disturbances including fire and climate change.

This analysis is based on the following assumptions. See additional assumptions above.

Carolina Crownbeard Existing Condition Carolina crownbeard (Verbesina walteri) is a perennial herb that flowers from August to September and bears fruit in the fall (Cronquist 1980). This plant grows in riparian areas, floodplain forests, wet woodlands, mesic slopes, and wet pastures (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). Based on habitat descriptions, this plant could also grow in Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Martin and Smith 1993). On the KNF, this species has been found in open, riparian areas, often near roads at culverts, bridges or ditches where there are stream crossings.

Carolina crownbeard has a moderate range and is widely scattered throughout most of it. It is found in South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. This plant is not ranked as rare in Louisiana and has been recorded in twenty-one parishes (Reid 2006; Thomas and Allen 1996). In central and southern Louisiana, this species can form huge stands. There are nineteen occurrences on or

within the boundaries of the Forest—fourteen on the Catahoula RD, three on the Kisatchie RD, and one each on the Calcasieu and Winn RD’s.

Carolina crownbeard has been recorded within the project area at one site. It may be present in other areas, as well.

Alternative A No Action

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plants. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced and stands would remain overstocked. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Carolina crownbeard. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this analysis is the project area. The time limit is from the year 2005 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented occurrence of Carolina crownbeard on the Kisatchie National Forest.

Alternatives B and C

The analysis of all action alternatives are combined in this discussion. The effects of management actions on these species are expected to be similar for all alternatives. Localized treatments may vary between alternatives.

Direct and Indirect Effects

If Alternative B is implemented, Carolina crownbeard could be affected. There could be adverse direct effects. Thinning activities and herbicide use for site prep and invasive plant treatment could damage or destroy plants, if present. There could be adverse indirect effects Extensive canopy thinning would change the habitat from closed canopy Mixed Hardwood—Loblolly Pine Forest and Shortleaf Pine—Oak- Hickory Forest to more open canopy longleaf forest, reducing suitable habitat for this plant. Thinning would also allow increased ORV traffic throughout the project area. Any plants present could be damaged or destroyed by being repeatedly run over.

If Alternative C is implemented, Carolina crownbeard might be affected. Effects would be very similar to those of Alternative B, the proposed action alternative. There would be fewer direct and indirect effects with the elimination of herbicide use for noxious weed control, site prep and release.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2003, when Carolina crownbeard was first found on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Carolina crownbeard and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

The drought in 2010 and 2011 probably affected populations of Carolina crownbeard, but no

quantitative information was taken regarding this event. Increased shade resulting from a lack of logging probably had a more negative effect on this species.

Activities such as vehicle travel on established roads and road maintenance occur in some areas near the populations but do not directly affect plants.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in the habitat of Carolina crownbeard. Activities include ATV riding, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and dispersed camping.

Determination

It is my determination that the Silhouette project may impact individuals of Verbesina walteri (Carolina crownbeard) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Conservation Plants

Conservation plants are identified in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1999). Generally speaking, the RFSS list includes species rare throughout their range, while conservation species occur more commonly outside Louisiana but are rare within the State. In a few cases, these conservation species occur at only one or a few sites in Louisiana or on the Forest. Species are listed and delisted as additional information becomes available, so periodic revisions to the list are necessary. An individual species’ status, distribution, and subsequent designation is based upon occurrence records, information and knowledge of the Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the state Natural Heritage Program, and The Nature Conservancy.

timber production, regeneration by clearcutting, seed-tree, or shelterwood, salvage of single or double trees, mechanical site preparation, log decks or landings, and extraction of common variety minerals - Forest Wide standards FW-510 and FW-511 on page 2-43 of the Forest Plan.

The Kisatchie National Forest (National Forest) lists 83 Conservation plants as occurring, or likely to occur, on the forest (Table 2). All 83 Conservation plants were considered in the initial evaluation of this project.

Conservation plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. Conservation plants that were eliminated from further discussion, and their reason for elimination, are shown in Table 2. Two Conservation plants were retained for further discussion. These plants are Calopogon oklahomensis (Oklahoma Grasspink) and Panicum strigosum var. leucoblepharis (roughhair Panic Grass),

Existing Condition

The project area is typical for the Catahoula Ranger District, with its abundance of upland pine woodlands. Several sites have xeric sands with its characteristic flora, and at least one site supports an unusual calcareous flora as shown by the presence of compass plant (Silphium laciniatum), Symphyotrichum oolentangiense (sky-blue aster) and littlehead rush (Scleria oligantha). There are also numerous firelines, range fences, user-created trails, and utility rights-of-way in the project area. Much of the project areas also contains private lands.

The dominant natural community in the proposed project area is Upland Longleaf Pine Forest. Other natural communities found during past field surveys and in surveys for this project are Mixed Hardwood— Loblolly Pine Forest, Baygall and Bayhead Swamps, and Shortleaf-Pine—Oak-Hickory Forest. Small Stream Riparian Forest surrounds most of the stream corridors. Numerous loblolly and longleaf pine plantations are also present.

NNIP Infestations are scattered throughout most of the project area but are not common and vary in frequency and percent cover between species.

Desired future conditions

Desired future conditions for conservation plants with habitat or locations within the planning area include:

• Maintain or increase the populations within the planning area. Additionally, suitable habitat for conservation plant species should be maintained or enhanced. • Follow Forest Plan Direction for the Kisatchie National Forest at it applies to conservation plant species.

Conservation plants with direct and indirect effects.

The indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are:

• A qualitative evaluation of whether populations are maintained or increased per FSM 2670.5 • A qualitative evaluation of whether potential habitat is maintained or enhanced • An evaluation of whether impacts to sensitive plants and their habitats are effectively minimized • An evaluation on habitat and species resiliency to natural disturbances including fire and climate change.

This analysis is based on the following assumptions. See additional assumptions above.

• The mitigation measures and design features identified in this document will be incorporated into project design and implementation • All treatments will occur as analyzed in the various specialists’ reports • Fire effects to individual species vary depending on several factors including life cycle, time of burning and several biotic and abiotic factors (see Pike et al., 2010). As a result, the responses of the plant species discussed in this report may vary in any given area or time. The effect of fire on these species can be mitigated through the burning prescription.

Oklahoma grass-pink Existing condition Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) is a newly described species (Goldman 1995). It was collected at the Stuart Forest Nursery, Catahoula Ranger District, in 1935 by A.D. McKellar, and subsequently identified at that time as Calopogon pulchellus, only to be later vetted multiple times as C. tuberosus until publication of Goldman (1995). This population was re-discovered by Shannan Sharp in 2010, and it occurs within the boundaries of the Silhouette project area. McKellar described the area of collection as fine sandy loam in a pine grassland.

In eastern Texas and western Louisiana, herbarium label data suggest that C. oklahomensis blooms from March to early May, whereas C. tuberosus blooms from May to June (Goldman 1995).

Alternative A No Action

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Oklahoma grass-pink (Calopogon oklahomensis).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plant. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced, stands would remain overstocked, and its preferred habitat – bogs and open seeps – would continue their loss due to woody encroachment. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Oklahoma grass-pink. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this analysis is the project area. The time limit is from the year 2005 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented re-occurrence of Oklahoma grass-pink on the Kisatchie National Forest.

If the “no action” alternative is selected, a trend toward a more closed-canopy forest dominated by

loblolly pine would continue. The effects of the no action would also result in a reduction in opportunities for cooperation with external partners for such items as survey and monitoring.

Alternatives B and C

Direct and Indirect Effects

If Alternative B is implemented, Oklahoma grass-pink could be affected. There could be adverse direct effects. Thinning activities and herbicide use for site prep and invasive plant treatment could damage or destroy plants, if present.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2010, when Oklahoma grass-pink was rediscovered on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Oklahoma grass-pink and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

Activities such as mowing occur in the area where Oklahoma grass-pink was rediscovered, but this action probably helps Oklahoma grass-pink by reducing competition from woody species.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Several utility corridors are present in the project area, although no plants have yet been found along these rights-of-way. Construction, expansion and maintenance of these corridors might result in loss of individuals along the corridor routes. The presence of these corridors also provides dispersal vectors for NNIP along the utility corridor and into adjacent forested areas.

Determination

It is my determination that the Silhouette project may impact individuals of Calopogon oklahomensis

(Oklahoma grass-pink) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Roughhair panic grass Existing condition Roughhair panic grass (Dichanthelium strigosum ssp. leucoblepharis) is a perennial grass that grows in low, moist, sandy pinelands and bogs (Freckmann and LeLong). The species (but not necessarily the variety) has been found in Sabine, St. Helena, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa and Vernon parishes (Allen, Newman and Winters, 2004). In addition, there is one report from the 1950s of the species being found on the Evangeline Unit of the Calcasieu RD. Its range extends from North Carolina along the coastal plain to Florida and westward to eastern Texas and into Mexico.

There is a documented occurrence for Roughhair panic grass in or near the Silhouette project area. O.G. Langdon collected a voucher on May 5th, 1948 on the “Kisatche NF, Catahoula district, Stag Rd., with open longleaf pine, bluestems, other panicums and cutover muhly”

Alternative A No Action

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Roughhair panic grass.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, none of the management actions including tree removal, noxious weed control, or actions related to road reconstruction, or decommissioning would occur. There would be no direct effects from management actions to this SC plant. As a result, tree density and canopy would not be reduced, stands would remain overstocked, and its preferred habitat – bogs and open seeps – would continue their loss due to woody encroachment. Noxious weeds would continue to proliferate and negatively impact populations of Roughhair panic grass. Finally, numerous studies (Frank and Platt 1999; Gilliam and Christensen 1986; Glitzenstein et al. 1995; Grace and Platt 1995; and Noel et al. 1998) point to a relationship between increased shade and decline in the native herbaceous layer characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

vegetation and therefore, a loss of understory services as outlined in the Timber and Wildlife specialists’ reports.

Cumulative Effects

Alternatives B and C

Direct and Indirect Effects

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the Silhouette project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2010, when Roughhair panic grass was discovered on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions may have affected the abundance and Oklahoma grass-pink and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Determination

It is my determination that the Silhouette project may impact individuals of Roughhair panic grass (Dichanthelium strigosum ssp. leucoblepharis) but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

Climate Change

Climate change could affect the distribution of vegetation in general by affecting biotic and abiotic factors and by increasing the extent and severity of disturbances (USDA Forest Service 2010). Rare and sensitive species may be especially vulnerable because they often need specific habitat components such as specialized soil types that are not widely available. This could negatively affect their abilities to migrate to suitable areas as environmental conditions change.

Water availability may decrease in some areas while temperatures generally increase.

Future plant distributions in general may be governed by several factors including human influences, abilities of plants to disperse, and the presence of suitable habitat components including such factors as suitable soil types (McKenney et al. 2007).

Large changes in ecosystem structure and species composition of plant communities are expected due to increasing temperatures and altered precipitation cycles (USDA Forest Service 2010). Species have responded to climate change throughout their evolutionary history, but not at rates seen in recent climate change (Root et al., 2003). Phenology shifts in vegetation communities in large regions have been noted. These include shifts in the beginning, ending and length of growing seasons in temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. The results have been earlier emergence and blooming of flowering

plants, extended end of season and longer growing seasons.

Changes in growing season may affect climate by affecting surface radiation, temperature, hydrology and carbon cycling (Jeong et al. 2011). Trophic mismatches have been documented for several species (Parmesan, 2006) leading to disruption on symbiotic relationships and plant/animal interactions. In a review of many studies on climate change, Root et al. (2003) determined that “the balance of evidence for these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact to global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations”. Climate change coupled with other factors such as habitat loss could lead to extirpations and increased risks of extinction. Species generally respond to rapid climate change at differential rates. These differential movements may lead to loss of connectedness and loss of communities (Root et al. 2003).

While the actions of this project will not mitigate widespread climate change, actions will provide more resiliency to our local vegetative communities and help to restore natural fire regimes and reduce the risk of habitat loss due to uncontrolled wildfire.

Non-native Invasive Plants

This analysis is based on the following assumptions.

NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest are managed using the best available science. There are 11 NNIP found in the Silhouette project area (Table 4). Within the context of the analysis, prevention means minimizing introduction of a weed species into the project area and is usually combined with eradication to allow for elimination of spot populations as they arise. Eradication means attempting to totally eliminate a species from the forests. Control means preventing seed production throughout a target patch and reducing the area covered by a species, whereas contain means to prevent the species from expanding beyond the perimeter of existing patches.

Table 4. NNIP found in the Silhouette project area. Common name Scientific name habit

1 Alligatorweed Alternanthera philoxeroides aquatic

2 Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense shrub

3 Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera tree

4 Chinese wisteria Wisteria sinensis vine

5 Golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea bamboo

6 Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum vine

7 Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica vine

8 Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense grass

9 sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata forb

10 silktree Albizia julibrissin tree

11 Tungoil tree Paspalum urvillei grass

Desired conditions for NNIP

The analysis question to be answered is: How would project activities affect the presence of NNIP?

Indicators used to evaluate environmental consequences are: (1) qualitative evaluation of compliance with the Forest Plans per the direction in the “Final environmental impact statement, revised land and resource management plan, Kisatchie National Forest”, (2) qualitative evaluation on whether noxious weeds and non-native invasive species would have the potential to increase with mitigation, best management practices, and design features applied, (3) qualitative evaluation of the conflict between NNIP and the SC plants, • The management actions undertaken in this project are complementary and enhance the control objectives for each NNIP species • Appropriate treatments to mitigate the effects of management actions on NNIP are incorporated into the project design and implementation.

Locations for NNIP within the project area are shown on maps in Appendix B.

Effects Common to All Species Alternative A No Action The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) requires that a "No Action" alternative be analyzed. This alternative represents the existing condition against which the other alternatives are compared.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to NNIP from management actions associated with the Silhouette project because none would occur.

Mitigation measures, treatments and surveys that may have been part of the Silhouette project for NNIP would not occur. As a result, weed Infestations that might have been detected and treated would go 39

unnoticed and continue to expand unless detected by other surveys or independent observations. Treatments that would have been part of the mitigating actions of Silhouette management would not be done. As a result, weed Infestations within the treatment units of Silhouette would not be done unless the locations are included in another project area or are treated by a cooperating agency.

For example, treatments along highways or roadways by various agencies would continue in coordination other agencies but would not expand outside of highway right of ways. The continued treatment of NNIP in recently analyzed or future projects not included in the Silhouette analysis where weed treatments are included as part of the project would continue as would surveys for other projects that are not part of the Initiative. It is not anticipated that these areas would cover as much area as that being analyzed under Silhouette.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the project area for the Silhouette project. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2003. Past management activities and disturbances have contributed to the establishment and distribution of NNIP in the project area. Past activities such as military use, grazing, vegetation treatments, recreation uses, infrastructure development and maintenance, road maintenance and travel along roadways (including paved roads and highways) affected the abundance and distribution of NNIP. However, without Information on known distribution of NNIP species, the past effects of management actions are unclear

The Kisatchie National Forest has treated certain Infestations with herbicides. Additionally, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and various public utilities have used herbicide to treat NNIP and woody brush along roadways and rights-of-way under their jurisdiction. Collectively, these treatments have reduced Infestations in some areas and reduced the risk of noxious weeds spreading into new areas. Department of Defense lands adjacent to the Kisatchie National Forest (Fort Polk, Peason Ridge, and Camp Beauregard) have probably treated NNIP, but the areas and acreages treated are unknown.

non-native species are established, they can change community composition and ecosystem processes including the fire/fuel cycle (Collins et al., 2004).

Reducing the road mileage in the treatment areas, through decommissioning, would help reduce the risk of present and future dispersal of NNIP along roadways (Rooney 2005). This reduction in risk would move toward the desired condition of managing and treating NNIP since the density of NNIP tends to be greater

along roadways as opposed to interior areas where disturbances tend to be less (Fowler et al., 2008 and Birdsall et al. 2012).

Cumulative effects Past actions The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the Silhouette project area boundary. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2000. Prior to 20004, occurrences and distribution of NNIP on the forests were largely unknown. Beginning in 2000, the Kisatchie National Forest began surveying and documenting NNIP occurrences on the Forest. These actions were largely due to an increasing awareness of NNIP and their potential effects on native ecosystems. Location data were submitted to the Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) threatened, endangered and sensitive plants (NRIS/TESP) database, which is the Forest Service database of record for non-native invasive species and rare plants. These surveys helped document the occurrences and areal extent of NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest

Ongoing and foreseeable actions

Implementation continues on numerous projects that have been analyzed in the past. These projects will continue to provide sources of effects similar to the direct and indirect effects described above including mitigations for NNIP control.

NNIP surveys and control measures will continue in other jurisdictions within or adjacent to the project boundary including survey and control along Parish and state highways, and utility rights-of-way.

Disturbance is a major factor in noxious weed invasions. Climate change is expected to be a source of

widespread disturbances. Higher temperatures would occur and precipitation cycles would be modified from current patterns over large areas. The warmer climate conditions may affect ecosystems by altering biotic and abiotic factors and increase the extent and severity of disturbances for some species (Bradley et al. 2010, Hellmann et al. 2008, Middleton 2006). Larger and more frequent fires are expected (Marlon et al. 2009).

Silktree

Description and Threat

Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) is a small, deciduous tree that was introduced to the United States from Asia as an ornamental in the eighteenth century. It flowers from May to July. Its flowers have numerous, bright pink filaments that look like pom-poms. Abundant seeds are produced in beanlike pods from June to February. This tree prefers open conditions at dry to wet sites, but can persist in shade (Miller et al. 2010).

Silktree has become widespread in the United States. It is found throughout the southeast, but is also found in most of the eastern, Midwestern, and southwestern states (USDA, NRCS 2012). This species reproduces by forming colonies from root sprouts, but it can also spread its seeds along waterways or through animal dispersal. Seeds can remain viable for year (Miller et al. 2010). On the Catahoula Ranger District, silktree is common at scattered locations, usually along roads and right- of-ways (personal observations). Few studies have been done on fire effects to silktree. However, existing evidence suggests that this tree is not suppressed by fire and that seed germination and resprouting increase after burning (Meyer 2009).

Existing Condition

Silktree was found infrequently in the project area, and infestations are small and widely scattered.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, silktree would continue to spread slowly throughout the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, silktree would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this tree will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, silktree would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Chinese and Japanese Privet Description and Threat Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese privet (L. japonicum), are shrubs that were introduced from Asia. Chinese privet is still widely sold in nurseries, especially in the southern United States (Miller et al. 2010, and Urbatsch 2000). Chinese privet is semi-evergreen and produces numerous flowers from April to June and abundant fruit from July to March (Miller et al. 2010), while Japanese privet is evergreen and flowers from June to July (Diggs et al., 1999) and produces fruit from September to November (Radford et al. 1968). Privet colonizes disturbed habitats and tolerates a wide variety of conditions. It prefers mesic soils with abundant sunshine, but can grow in shade. Privet is found in fields, along fences, at forest edges, along streams and bayous, and in bottomland forests (Miller et al. 2010, and Urbatsch 2000).

Both Japanese and Chinese privet are widespread throughout the southeastern United States. Chinese privet also occurs in Missouri and in states along the Atlantic coast as far north Massachusetts (USDA, NRCS 2012). These shrubs spread through seed dispersal by birds and other animals, and can also colonize by root sprouts. Privet can form dense thickets that crowd out native vegetation. They are particularly destructive to riparian forests (Miller et al. 2010, and Urbatsch 2000).

Once established, privet is very difficult to control. In order to eradicate existing plants, the entire plant, including the roots, must be killed or it will resprout. The use of prescribed fires to control this plant has been ineffective. Fires kill large stems, but plants resprout vigorously afterwards.

Even if plants are destroyed, this species produces large seed banks that can recolonize sites. It is much easier to control privet at early stages of infestation. Mechanical removal and herbicide treatment can effectively eliminate this species in small areas (Munger 2003).

Existing Condition

Many Chinese privet infestations were found in the project area. Some of these infestations are very large. A few infestations of Japanese privet were also found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative 1 is implemented, Chinese and Japanese privet would not be affected. It will continue its spread throughout the project area. This species has already displaced native vegetation in much of the project area.

If Alternative 2 is implemented, Chinese and Japanese privet would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this shrub will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative 3 is implemented, Chinese and Japanese privet would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Japanese Honeysuckle Description and Threat Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is a semi-evergreen, perennial, woody vine. It was introduced from Japan in the early nineteenth century as an ornamental, and is still planted in wildlife food plots and also for erosion control. This vine blooms from April to August and produces fruit from June to March. Japanese honeysuckle occurs in a wide variety of forest types and is shade tolerant (Miller et al. 2010). However, it becomes established most easily in disturbed areas with sufficient light and moisture (Munger 2002a).

Japanese honeysuckle is widespread throughout most of the continental United States and Hawaii, except in the northwest and in some northern states of the Midwest (USDA, NRCS 2012). Plants persist through woody rootstocks, spreading by rooting at nodes and through seed dispersal by birds and small mammals. Seeds do not remain viable for very long, and plants are not easily established. Plants can mature and reproduce in as early as two years, and they fruit prolifically. This plant is difficult to eradicate once established (Miller et al. 2010, and Munger 2002a).

Fire suppression appears to have contributed to the spread of Japanese honeysuckle. Plant communities, in which fires occur frequently and repeatedly, such as Upland Longleaf Pine Forest, have been observed to have fewer and smaller infestations of this species. Japanese honeysuckle can resprout and proliferate after fire, but repeated burning appears to severely limit its regrowth. Additionally, this species seems less likely to establish itself in areas having abundant grasses (Munger 2002a).

Existing Condition

Scattered infestations of Japanese honeysuckle were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Japanese honeysuckle would continue its slow spread throughout the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, Japanese honeysuckle would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this vine will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, Japanese honeysuckle would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Japanese Climbing Fern Description and Threat Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) is a perennial vine originating from Asia and tropical Australia. It was introduced to the United States in the 1930’s and is still planted as an ornamental (Miller et al. 2010.). This plant produces abundant spores from June to September (Weakley 2010). It is found most often in disturbed, open, mesic areas such as roadside ditches and areas near bridges. This fern also occurs at forest road edges and swamp margins, and can invade open woodlands and riparian forests (Miller et al. 2010).

In the Unites States, Japanese climbing fern ranges from North Carolina south to Florida, then west to Texas (USDA, NRCS 2012). Plants spread rapidly by tiny wind-borne spores. Vines persist and can spread by rhizomes. This species can invade open timber stands and plantations. Plants can grow very rapidly once established (Lott et al. 2003), and vines can eventually form thick mats of vegetation that smother trees and shrubs (Miller et al. 2010). Japanese climbing fern is already widespread on the Catahoula Ranger District, especially in the southern part of the District (personal observations).

Existing Condition

Scattered infestations of Japanese climbing fern were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Japanese climbing fern will continue its rapid spread throughout the project area. This species has already displaced native vegetation at some sites in the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, Japanese climbing fern would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this vine will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread. 47

If Alternative C is implemented, Japanese climbing fern will affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Vasey Grass

Description and Threat Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei) is a perennial grass native to South America (FNA Vol. 25, 2003). It blooms and sets seed from April to November (Allen et al. 2004). Vasey grass grows in a variety of open, disturbed habitats, usually with moist soils such as ditches, roadsides, fields, pond and stream margins, wet savannas, and flatwoods (Godfrey & Wooten 1979, and PIER 2011).

Vasey grass is found primarily in the southeastern continental United States, as well as in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS 2012). It propagates by seed. In Hawaii this plant grows in dense stands that displace native vegetation (PIER 2011).

Existing Condition

Scattered infestations of Vasey grass were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Vasey grass will continue to spread slowly throughout the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, Vasey grass would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this grass will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread. 48

If Alternative C is implemented, Vasey grass would be affected. Effects will be very similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Chamber Bitter Description and Threat Chamber bitter (Phyllanthus urinaria) is an annual forb originating from tropical eastern Asia. It was first recorded in the United States in 1944. It flowers throughout the growing season (Diggs et al. 2006). It is weedy and invades nurseries and greenhouses (Neal 2000), gardens, fields, ditches, wet clearings, floodplain forests, and other waste places (Godfrey and Wooten 1981)

Chamber bitter has spread throughout the southeastern Unites States, as well as in Illinois and Puerto Rico (USDA, NRCS 2012). It is considered an invasive species in many of the Pacific Islands (PIER 2004). This plant colonizes disturbed sites, produces abundant seeds, and spreads aggressively. It does not appear to have spread into stands from disturbed areas, although some Infestations have apparently persisted even when they become shaded (personal observations).

Existing Condition

Six Infestations of chamber bitter were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, chamber bitter will continue to spread along roads and disturbed right- of-ways in the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, chamber bitter would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this herb will be likely to invade. However, 49

herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, chamber bitter would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Johnsongrass

Description and Threat

Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a warm-season, perennial grass (FNA Vol. 25 2003, and Howard 2004). It is native to the Mediterranean region of Europe, Asia Minor, and Africa. It was introduced to the United States as a forage crop in South Carolina in the 1830’s, becoming established in Alabama by the 1840’s (Howard 2004, and ISSG 2005). In Louisiana, this grass blooms and fruits from April to November (Allen et al. 2004), setting seed from May to March (Miller et al. 2010). Johnsongrass can survive in a wide variety of habitats, but is best established in areas that are warm, moist, and disturbed. It is most likely to invade agricultural lands or old pastures in areas such as ditches, canals, and washes. However, it can invade natural areas such as floodplains, prairies, and savannas (Howard 2004, ISSG 2005, and Newman1993). On the Kisatchie National Forest, this plant usually is found along roadsides (personal observations).

Johnsongrass has escaped cultivation across most of the United States and is most invasive in the southeast, California, New Mexico, and Hawaii. It also has been found in 53 countries worldwide. Plants spread through seed dispersal by planting, animals, wind, water, and agricultural equipment. Colonies of plants form extensive systems of underground rhizomes which make Infestations difficult to eradicate. This grass can self-pollinate and is a prolific seed-producer, so seed banks can also make it hard to control (Howard 2004, ISSG 2005, and Newman 1993). It can out-compete native herbs and small trees, eventually excluding native vegetation (Miller et al. 2010)

Fires top kills Johnsongrass, but its rhizomes usually survive fire. It appears to be affected by the timing of fires. In Georgia, a late winter prescribed burn increased the proliferation of Johnsongrass. In Texas, a natural mid-spring fire increased growth of little bluestem and reduced growth of Johnsongrass (Howard 2004, and Newman 1993). Johnsongrass does not tolerate hot and dry conditions, and drought can destroy plants. It is also generally not tolerant of prolonged cold temperatures, although a few ecotypes can survive colder weather (Newman 1993)

Existing Condition

Several infestations of Johnsongrass were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Johnsongrass will continue to spread slowly, especially along disturbed sites such as roadsides. It may eventually spread into timber stands but spread will be slow.

If Alternative B is implemented, Johnsongrass would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this tree will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, Johnsongrass would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Chinese Tallow Description and Threat Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera) is a small, deciduous tree that was introduced to the United States in the late eighteenth century from Asia. The USDA actively promoted the planting of this species to establish a local soap industry in Gulf Coast states in the early twentieth century. Chinese tallow is still sold and planted as an ornamental. Plants typically flower from April to June and produce abundant fruit from August to December (Meyer 2005, and Miller et al. 2010). Chinese tallow tends to invade wet, open sites such as ditches, stream banks, and river banks (Miller et al. 2010). It can grow in both fresh water and saline conditions and tolerates flooding. Once established, it will also tolerate arid conditions (USGS NWRC 2000). It grows rapidly in full sun, but can persist and spread under shade (Bogler 2000). It appears to be limited in its spread by long-term cold weather, although it will tolerate hard frosts that do not last long (Bogler 2000, Meyer 2005)

Chinese tallow has naturalized throughout most of the southeastern United States and is reported to be invading California (Bogler 2000, and USGS NWRC 2000). It is widespread in Louisiana, having been found in 58 parishes (Allen et al. 2002). It spreads through seed dispersal by birds and by water, as well as through prolific root sprouting (Bogler 2000, Meyer 2005, and Miller et al. 2010). Chinese tallow grows and reproduces rapidly, outcompeting and shading out native, riparian trees. This species can alter the soil chemistry of sites it invades. It drastically alters ecosystems that it invades, often converting vegetation to essentially one species. This tree can come to dominate bottomland forests. It can also invade marshes and wet prairies, changing them from ecosystems dominated by herbs to woody plant ecosystems (Bogler 2000, Meyer 2005, and USGS NWRC 2000)

Chinese tallow is very difficult to control. It is listed as a noxious weed in 45 states including Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida (USGS NWRC 2000). In early stages of invasion when plants are small, mechanical removal and prescribed fire can be used effectively to remove it. However, larger, more mature Infestations of this species become resistant to burning, and prescribed fire becomes a less effective tool for control. Trees may be top killed, but can resprout rapidly and prolifically. Seed banks also allow this species to re-establish itself. Herbicide treatments combined with other methods seems to be fairly effective, but removal of extensive stands can be costly and labor intensive (Bogler 2000, USGS NWRC 2000).

Existing Condition

Chinese tallow was found in all eight of the project area compartments.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Chinese tallow will continue to displace native vegetation in parts of the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, Chinese tallow would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this grass will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, Chinese tallow would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Brazilian Vervain Description and Threat Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) is a perennial herb that has spread into the United States from South America (Godfrey and Wooten 1981). It blooms and fruits from May to October (Diggs et al. 1999). This plant usually grows in disturbed, open sites such as old fields, waste places, fields, roadsides, ditches, as well as in coastal prairies (Correll and Johnston 1970, Godfrey and Wooten 1981, Radford et al. 1968). Brazilian vervain is common along roadsides, ditches, and fields in the Kisatchie National Forest

Brazilian vervain grows throughout most of the southeastern states of the United States, as well as in Missouri, California, Oregon, and Hawaii (USDA, NRCS 2012). This species has been found in every Louisiana parish (Thomas and Allen 1998), and although it is a common invader of southwestern Louisiana prairies, it disappears over time (Allen and Thames 1998)

Existing Condition

Occasional infestations of Brazilian vervain were found in the project area.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Brazilian vervain would probably continue to invade prescribed burned sites and other disturbed areas, and then eventually die out.

If Alternative B is implemented, Brazilian vervain would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this forb will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, Brazilian vervain would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Chinese Wisteria Description and Threat Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis) is a perennial woody vine that was introduced to the United States from China in 1816 as an ornamental (Stone 2009). Dense clusters of lavender flowers bloom from February to April before the leaves emerge (Allen et al. 2002). Seeds are produced in flattened legumes from July to November (Miller et al. 2010). This vine can grow at wet to dry sites, growing best in full sun but tolerating shade (Miller et al. 2010, Stone 2009).

Chinese wisteria is found throughout most states in the eastern half of the continental United States, as well as in Hawaii (USDA, NRCS 2012). It has been recorded in 35 Louisiana parishes (Allen et al. 2002). This vine spreads aggressively from cultivation, primarily by runners and by rooting at the nodes. Seeds can disperse along waterways, but animals do not generally spread the seeds because of their large size. Wisteria can form dense, high climbing Infestations that cover shrubs and trees (Allen et al. 2002; Miller et al. 2010). The vines may eventually topple trees and will invade the gaps created. Wisteria also resprouts vigorously after its vines have been damaged (Stone 2009).

Infestations of Chinese wisteria become increasingly difficult to control as they become larger. Small Infestations can be effectively controlled by hand pulling or mechanically removal. Care must be taken to remove all parts of the plant because of resprouting. Larger Infestations often require repeated applications of herbicide to eradicate. Fire does not appear to be an effective way of controlling this vine because it will resprout vigorously (Stone 2009)

Existing Conditions

A single infestation of Chinese wisteria was found in Compartment 86.

Desired Condition

See the desired condition above for NNIP

Direct and Indirect Effects

See the general discussion above.

Cumulative Effects

Refer to general discussion for cumulative effects, including past actions and ongoing and foreseeable actions.

Effects Analysis Summary

If Alternative A is implemented, Chinese wisteria will continue to spread slowly throughout the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, Chinese wisteria would be affected. Most of the actions associated with this alternative will create widespread disturbed habitat that this vine will be likely to invade. However, herbicide treatments should be effective in controlling its spread.

If Alternative C is implemented, Chinese wisteria would be affected. Effects will be similar to those described in Alternative A, but populations would likely increase throughout the project area due to disturbances associated with the proposed action, and the lack of herbicide for its control.

Monitoring Requirements

Table 5. Monitoring Requirements. Requirement Timing Purpose Assures compliance with the Review and apply the mitigation mitigations and design features measures and design features in included in this document so the Implementation this document assumptions on which this analysis is based are included in the treatment initiation. Provides opportunities to obtain Monitor the effects of treatment on knowledge on local species that are TESC plants after treatments are Post-treatment often poorly understood. Allows for completed. adaptive management in future treatments.

Monitor sites such as slash piles Post-treatment Mitigates the effects of NNIP. and treat NNIP if needed Monitor NNIP treatments for Allows for adaptive management in Post-treatment effectiveness weed management.

SUMMARY

Table 6 is a summary of the likely impacts to NNIP by the proposed Silhouette project.

Table 6. Alternative Effects on NNIP.

Common Name Alternative A Alternatives B Alternative C

herbicide treatments 1 silktree continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 2 King Ranch bluestem continued spread continued spread should halt spread

herbicide treatments 3 Japanese lespedeza continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 4 Japanese privet continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 5 Chinese privet continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 6 Japanese honeysuckle continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 7 Japanese climbing fern continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 8 chinaberry continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 9 Vasey grass continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 10 chamber bitter continued spread continued spread should halt spread

Common Name Alternative A Alternatives B Alternative C

herbicide treatments 11 kudzu continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 12 Scarlet firethorn continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 13 callery pear continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 14 McCartney rose continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 15 Johnsongrass continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 16 Chinese tallow continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 17 Brazilian vervain continued spread continued spread should halt spread herbicide treatments 18 Chinese wisteria continued spread continued spread should halt spread

Prepared by:

David Moore Date: February 2, 2018 David Moore (Forest botanist) Kisatchie National Forest

Literature Cited

Ajilvsgi, Geyata. 1979. Wildflowers of the Big Thicket, East Texas and Louisiana. Texas A&M University Press, College Station and London, Texas. 360 pp.

Allen, Charles M., and S. Thames. 2007. Observation of Vegetation Change on Cajun Prairie, a Coastal Prairie Flora in Southwestern Louisiana. Journal of Botanical Research of the Institute of Texas. 1(2): 1141-1147.

Allen, Charles M., D.A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2002. Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of Louisiana. Allen’s Native Ventures, LLC, Pitkin, Louisiana. 333 pages.

Allen, Charles M., D.A. Newman, and H. Winters. 2004. Grasses of Louisiana, 2nd edition. Allen’s Native Ventures, Pitkin, Louisiana. 320 pp.

Batcher, Michael S. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Melia azederach. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/meliazed.html Accessed December 19, 2009.

Birdsall, J.L., W. McCaughey, and J.B. Runyon. 2012. Roads Impact the Distribution of Noxious Weeds More Than Restoration Treatments in a Lodgepole Pine Forest in Montana, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology Vol. 20, No. 4. July 2012; pp. 517–523

Bogler, David J. 2000. Element stewardship abstract for Sapium sebiferum. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington,VA. Available at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sapiseb.html Accessed July 15, 2009.

Bradley, B. A., D. M. Blumenthal, D. S. Wilcove, and L. H. Ziska. 2010. Predicting plant invasions in an era of global change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:310-318.

Collins, Brandon M., Jason J. Moghaddas, and SC plantsott L. Stevens. 2007. Initial changes in forest structure and understory plant communities following fuel reduction activities in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Management and Ecology. Pages 102-111.

Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B.C., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson, J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J., Peters, M. and Schultze-Kraft, R. 2005. Tropical Forages: an interactive selection tool, at http://www.tropicalforages.info], CSIRO, DPI&F (Qld), CIAT and ILRI, Brisbane, Australia. Accessed December 19, 2006.

Correll, D.S., and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas. First Printing. 1881 pp.

Cronquist, Arthur. 1980. Vascular flora of the Southeastern United States, Volume 1: Asteraceae. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Diggs, George M., Barney L. Lipscomb, and Robert J. O’Kennon. 1999. Shinners & Mahler’s Illustrated Flora of North Central Texas. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. 1626 pp.

Diggs, George M., Barney L. Lipscomb, Monique D. Reed, and Robert J. O’Kennon. 2006. Illustrated Flora of East Texas: Volume I: Introduction, pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and monocotyledons. Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, Texas. 1594 pp.

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 1993. Flora of North America North of Mexico: Pteridophytes and Gymnosperms, Vol. 2. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 1997. Volume 3, Magnoliophyta: Caryophillidae Part 1. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2000. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 22, Magnoliophyta: Alismatidae, Arecidae, Commelinidae (in part) and Zingiberidae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2002. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 26: Magnoliophyta: Lilidae, Liliales and Orchidales. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 23: Cyperaceae. Oxford University Press, New York, New York. Accessed through: Flora of North America Online (http://www.eFloras.org).

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, editors (FNA). 2003. Flora of North America north of Mexico, Vol. 25, Magnoliophyta: Commelinidae (in part): Poaceae, part 2. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

Fowler, J. F., C. Hull Sieg, B. G. Dickson, and V. Saab. 2008. Exotic plant species diversity: influence of roads and prescribed fire in Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Rangeland Ecology and Management 61:284–293.

Frank, S.G. and W.J. Platt. 1999. Effects of long-term fire exclusion on tree species composition and stand structure in an old-growth Pinus palustris (Longleaf pine) forest. Plant Ecology 140: 15-26.

Freckmann, R. W. and M. G. LeLong. 2003. Dichanthelium. In: Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of Mexico. 20+ vols. New York and Oxford. Vol. 25, pp. 447.

Gandhi, Kancheepuram N., and R. Dale Thomas, with collaboration from Stephan L. Hatch. 1989. Asteraceae of Louisiana. Sida Botanical Miscellany No. 4. Botanical Research Institute of Texas. 202 pp.

Gilliam, F. S. & Christensen, N. L. 1986. Herb-layer response to burning in pine flatwoods of lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 113: 42-45.

Glitzenstein, J. S., Platt, W. J. and Streng, D. R. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat on tree dynamics in north Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecol. Monog. 65: 441-476.

Godfrey, Robert K., and Jean W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia. 712 pp.

Godfrey, Robert K., and Jean W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. The University of Georgia Press. Athens, Georgia. 933 pp.

Goldman, Douglas H., 1995. A new species of Calopogon from the midwestern United States. Lindleyana 10(1): 37-42

Grace, S. L. & Platt, W. J. 1995. Effects of adult tree density and fire on the demography of pregrass stage juvenile longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.). J. Ecol. 83: 75-86.

Gucker, Corey L. 2010. Kummerowia stipulacea, K. striata. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Hellmann J. J., J. E. Byers, B. G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes. 2008. Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation Biology 22:534-543.

Howard, Janet L. 2004. Sorghum halepense. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Hyatt, Philip E., and David C. Moore. 1999. History of the Kisatchie National Forest TESC plants plant species list: viability analysis, overview and justifications for specific species.

Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG). 2005. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species, ISSG Global Invasive Species Database. Available at http://www.issg.org/database). Accessed January 2012.

Jeong, Su-Jung, Chang-Hoi Ho, Hyeon-Ju Gim, and Molly E. Brown. 2011. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982-2008. Global Change Biology 17:2385-2399.

Judd, Walter S., C.S. Campbell, E.A. Kellogg, and P.F. Stevens. 1999. Plant systematics: a phylogenetic approach. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Keith, Eric L., and Jason R. Singhurst. 2004. Geocarpon minimum (Caryophyllaceae), new to Texas. SIDA 21(2): 1165-1169.

Larke, Julia O., and Latimore M. Smith. 1994. Rare Plants of Pine-Hardwood Forests in Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program. Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Lott, Michael S., J. C. Violin, R. W. Pemburton, and D. F. Austin. 2003. The reproductive biology of the invasive ferns Lygodium microphyllum and L. japonicum (Schizaeaceae): implications for invasive potential. American Journal of Botany 90: 1144-1152.

Louisiana Department of and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program. 2009. Rare plant tracking list. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Available at http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/pdfs/experience/naturalheritage/2009%20Rare%20Plant%20Tracking%20 List.pdf . Accessed July 19, 2013.

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program. Rare plant fact sheets. Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Available at http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/experience/naturalheritage/rareplants/rareplantfactsheets/. Accessed July 19, 2013.

MacRoberts, Barbara R., M.H. MacRoberts, and L.S. Jackson. 2004. Observations on Parnassia grandifolia DC (Saxifragaceae) in the west Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 86 (2): 98-103.

MacRoberts, Barbara R., M.H. MacRoberts, L.M. Stacey, and D.C. Moore. 1997. The Status of Parnassia (Saxifragaceae) in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Phytologia 83(1): 53-57.

Martin, David L., and L.M. Smith. 1993. A survey and description of the natural plant communities of the Kisatchie National Forest, Catahoula and Evangeline districts. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 274 pp.

McKenney, Daniel W., John H. Pedlar, Keven Lawrence, Kathy Campbell, and Michael F. Hutchison. 2007. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on the Distribution of North American Trees. BioScience 57(11):939-948.

Meyer, Rachelle. 2009. Albizia julibrissin. In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Meyer, Rachelle. 2005. Triadica sebifera. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Middleton, B. A. 2006. Invasive species and climate change: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report: 2006-1153. 5 pp.

Miller, James H., E.B. Chambliss, and N.J. Lowenstein. 2010. A field guide for the identification of invasive plants in southern forests. Forest Service Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-119. Asheville, North Carolina.

Missouri Botanical Garden (MOBOT) website. 2004. Pyracantha coccinea species account from the Kemper Center for Home Gardening. Available at http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Plant.asp?code=E940#lbl_culture. Accessed July 19, 2013.

Munger, Gregory T. 2002a. Lonicera japonica. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed October 14, 2013.

Munger, Gregory T. 2002b. Pueraria montana var. lobata. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed February 22, 2013.

Munger, Gregory T. 2003. Ligustrum spp. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed October 14, 2013.

Neal, Joe. 2000. New Weeds in North Carolina Nurseries: Identification, Spread and Management. 2000 Nursery Short Course. North Carolina University and North Carolina Association of Nurserymen. Raleigh, North Carolina. Available at http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/nursery/pdf/short_course/2000/2000.pdf . Accessed October 19, 2012.

Newman, Dara. 1993. Element Stewardship Abstract for Sorghum halepense. The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, Virginia. Available from ISI, The Global Invasive Species Initiative web page at http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/documnts/sorghal.html, Accessed January 19, 2012.

Noel, J. M, Platt, W. J. & Moser, E. B. 1998. Characteristics of old and second growth stands of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) in the Gulf coastal region of the U.S.A. Cons. Biol. 12: 533-548.

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2004. Phyllanthus urinaria report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/phyllanthus_urinaria.htm. Accessed October 19, 2012.

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2006. Melia azedarach report. Available at http://www.hear.org/pier/species/melia_azedarach.htm. Accessed December 19, 2012.

Pacific Islands at Risk Project (PIER). 2011. Paspalum urvillei report. Available at http://www.hear.org/Pier/species/paspalum urvillei.htm. Accessed August 22, 2011.

Parmesan, Camille. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. Annual Review of Ecology, and Evolution and Systematics 37:637-669.

Pike, David A., Matthew L. Brooks, and Carla D’ Antonio. 2010. Fire as a Restoration Tool: A Decision Framework for Predicting the Control or Enhancement of Plants Using Fire. Restoration Ecology 18:274- 284.

Pittman, A.B. 1993. Geocarpon minimum Mackenzie Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, Mississippi. Available at http://www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/recovery_plan/930726.pdf

Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.

Reid, Christopher. 2006. Rare plant Species of Louisiana-February 2006. Accessed from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries website, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program site, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Rice, Peter M. 2005. Fire as tool for controlling nonnative invasive plants. Available at www.weedcenter.org/management/tools.htm#burning. Bozeman, MT: Center for Invasive Plant Management.

Rooney, T.P. 2005. Distribution of ecologically-invasive plants along off-road vehicle trails in the Chequamegon National Forest, Wisconsin. Michigan Botanist 44: 169-173.

Root, Terry L, Jeff T. Price, Kimberly R. Hall, Stephen H. Schneider, Cynthia Rosenzweigk and J. Alan Pounds. 2003. Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants. Nature. Vol. 421. Pages 57-60.

Steyermark, Julian A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Stone, Katharine R. 2009. Wisteria floribunda, Wisteria sinensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2011, June 17].

Swearingen, J. 2006. WeedUS: Database of Plants Invading Natural Areas in the United States. Available at http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/list/WeedUS.xls

TexasNNIP.org. 2011. Available at http://www.texasNNIP.org/NNIP [Accessed 12/18/06 & 8/22/2011]

Thieret, John W. 1980. Louisiana Ferns and Fern Allies. Lafayette Natural History Museum (published in conjunction with the University of Southwestern Louisiana), Lafayette, Louisiana.

Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1993. Atlas of the Vascular Flora of Louisiana. Volume I: Ferns & Fern Allies, Conifers and Monocotyledons. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA, by Moran Colographic Printing. 218 pp.

Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1996. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana. Volume II: Dicotyledons Acanthaceae – Euphorbiaceae. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA by Bourque Printing Inc. 213 pp.

Thomas, R. Dale, and Charles M. Allen. 1998. Atlas of the vascular flora of Louisiana. Volume III: Dicotyledons Fabaceae – Zygophyllaceae. Published in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy, Louisiana Field Office. Printed in Baton Rouge, LA by Bourque Printing Inc. 248 pp.

U.S. Geological Survey/ National Wetlands Research Center (USGS NWRS). 2000. Chinese Tallow: Invading the Southeast Coastal Plain. USGSFS-154-00. Lafayette, Louisiana. Accessed at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov.

Urbatsch, Lowell. 2000. USDA NRCS Plant Guide, exotic weed species, Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense. Available from the USDA NRCS plants Database at http://plants.usda.gov. (Accessed July 8, 2005)

USDA Forest Service Southern Regional Task Force. 2008. In: Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems [online]. Available at http://www.invasive.org/south/taskforce.html. Accessed February, 2011.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Revised Land and Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. Southwestern Region. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest Planning, A Guide for Addressing Climate Change in Forest Plan Revisions for Southwestern National Forests and National Grasslands.

USDA, NRCS. 2012. The plants Database (http://plants.usda.gov). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.

Vincent, Michael A. 2005. On the spread and current distribution of Pyrus calleryana in the United States. Castanea 70(1): 20-31.

Waggy, Melissa A. 2009. Melia azedarach In: Fire Effects Information System [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis [2009, November 16].

Weakley, Alan S. 2010. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. (Working Draft of March 8, 2010). University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Yatskievych, G. 1999. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume I, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 991 pp.

Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume II, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 1181 pp.

Yatskievych, G. 2013. Steyermark’s Flora of Missouri, Volume III, revised ed. Missouri Botanical Garden Press. St. Louis, MO. 1382 pp.

Appendix K – SHPO Concurrence

Appendix L – USFWS Concurrence