Environmental Assessment United States Horseshoe Loop Department of Agriculture

Forest Service Caney Ranger District, Corney Unit Southern Region Kisatchie National Forest April 2017 Claiborne Parish, Louisiana

Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, American sign language, etc.) should contact the responsible agency or USDA’s target center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the federal relay service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA program discrimination complaint form, ad-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Printed on recycled paper April 2017.

Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... v CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 1 1.3 Project Location ...... 3 1.4 Decision to be Made ...... 3 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 5 1.6 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ...... 6 1.7 Monitoring ...... 6 1.8 Public Involvement ...... 7 1.8.1 Scoping ...... 7 1.8.2 Issues ...... 7 1.8.3 Resource Areas Considered in Detail ...... 8 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ...... 10 2.1 Alternatives Considered But Not Addressed in Detail ...... 10 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 10 2.2.1 Alternative A: No Action ...... 10 2.2.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 10 2.2.3 Alternative C ...... 15 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives and Proposal Objectives ...... 16 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 18 3.1 Measure of Environmental Effects ...... 18 3.1.1 Cumulative Impact Scenario ...... 19 3.2 Soils...... 20 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 20 3.2.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 24 3.2.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 24 3.2.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 27 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects...... 27 3.3 Water Resources (including wetlands and floodplains)...... 28 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 28 3.3.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 28 3.3.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 29 3.3.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 32 3.3.5 Cumulative Effects...... 33 3.4 Air Quality ...... 36

i Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 36 3.4.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 36 3.4.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 37 3.4.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 39 3.4.5 Cumulative Effects...... 39 3.5 Vegetation (including special status species) ...... 40 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 40 3.5.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 45 3.5.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 46 3.5.4 Impact of Alternative C ...... 51 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects...... 52 3.6 Wildlife (including special status species) ...... 52 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 52 3.6.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 62 3.6.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 66 3.6.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 72 3.6.5 Cumulative Effects...... 72 3.7 Public Health and Safety ...... 73 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 73 3.7.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 73 3.7.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 74 3.7.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 76 3.7.5 Cumulative Effects...... 76 3.8 Recreation ...... 76 3.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 76 3.8.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 80 3.8.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 81 3.8.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 82 3.8.5 Cumulative Effects...... 82 3.9 Socioeconomics ...... 83 3.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 83 3.9.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 87 3.9.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 87 3.9.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 89 3.9.5 Cumulative Effects...... 89 3.10 Transportation ...... 90 3.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 90 3.10.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 92

ii Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.10.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 92 3.10.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 93 3.10.5 Cumulative Effects...... 93 3.11 Heritage Resources ...... 94 3.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 94 3.11.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 94 3.11.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 95 3.11.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 95 3.11.5 Cumulative Effects...... 95 3.12 Climate Change ...... 96 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 96 3.12.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action ...... 97 3.12.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action ...... 98 3.12.4 Impacts of Alternative C ...... 99 3.12.5 Cumulative Effects...... 99 CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 100 4.1 List of Preparers ...... 100 4.2 Individuals, Organizations and Tribes Consulted ...... 100 CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED ...... 105 CHAPTER 6: ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ...... 109 6.1 Acronyms ...... 109 6.2 Glossary ...... 110 APPENDIX A: SCOPING LEGAL NOTICE ...... A-1 APPENDIX B: COMPARTMENT OPERATIONS MAPS ...... B-1 APPENDIX C: BOTANY REPORT ...... C-1 APPENDIX D: FAUNA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION...... D-1

FIGURES Figure 1-1. Vicinity map of the Horseshoe Loop Project Area in the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest ...... 4 Figure 2-1. Proposed Treatments on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District ...... 11 Figure 2-2. Uneven-aged Management on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District ...... 12 Figure 3-1. Soil Series Map ...... 23 Figure 3-2. Subwatersheds within Proposed Horseshoe Loop Treatment Areas ...... 29 Figure 3-3. Corney Unit Scenic Integrity Objectives Ratings ...... 80

iii Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment TABLES Table ES-1. Activities Proposed Under Alternative B ...... vi Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences ...... vi Table 1-1. Desired Future Conditions for the Project Area ...... 2 Table 1-2. Number of Approximate Acres, by Compartment, Not Meeting Desired Conditions ..3 Table 2-1. Activities Proposed Under Alternative B ...... 10 Table 2-2. Stands by Proposed Treatment Under Alternative B ...... 14 Table 2-3. Methods Each Alternative Uses to Ensure Objectives are Achieved ...... 16 Table 2-4. Comparison of Alternatives by Action ...... 17 Table 3-1. Impact Intensities...... 19 Table 3-2. Soil Types and Associated Characteristics - Properties ...... 21 Table 3-3. Soil Types and Associated Characteristics - Suitability ...... 22 Table 3-4. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Corney Bayou- Ledbetter Creek Subwatershed ...... 34 Table 3-5. Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield ...... 35 Table 3-6. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Lower Corney Lake- Barber Creek Subwatershed ...... 35 Table 3-7. Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield ...... 35 Table 3-8. Sensitive and Conservation Plants Retained for Further Consideration ...... 43 Table 3-9. NNIP Possibly Occurring Within the Project Area ...... 45 Table 3-10. PETS Species Addressed in Detail for the Horseshoe Loop Project Area ...... 54 Table 3-11. Conservation Species Possibly Located in the Project Area ...... 55 Table 3-12. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species for the Caney Ranger District ...... 58 Table 3-13. Aquatic Management Indicator Species for the Caney Ranger District ...... 61 Table 3-14. ROS Classifications and Objectives...... 77 Table 3-15. Timber Targets and Volume Sold in Caney Ranger District ...... 83 Table 3-16. Acres/Estimated Costs of Thinning Projects in the Caney Ranger District ...... 84 Table 3-17. Wildland Fire Suppression Costs ...... 86 Table 3-18. Roads in the Horseshoe Loop Project Area Needed to Accomplish Project Activities...... 91 Table 4-1. Individuals, Organizations, and Tribes Consulted ...... 100

iv Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest (Forest Plan) guides the coordination of multiple uses of the Forest while promoting sustained yields of services and products. Such uses include outdoor recreation, clean waters, fish and wildlife, timber and minerals. Forest Plan goals and objectives provide guidelines for projects and are designed to move the Forest towards the desired future conditions described in the Forest Plan.

The purpose of the project discussed in this environmental assessment (EA) is to implement management activities within the Horseshoe Loop project area needed to move toward achieving the Forest Plan desired future conditions for management areas 2AS and 3BS. 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 Corney Unit’s administrative boundary contains approximately 8,800 acres of National Forest System lands and approximately 6,643 acres of private land for a total land area of approximately 15,443 acres. The proposed Horseshoe Loop project would take place on approximately 2,800 acres of stands in Compartments 1-4 and 6-10 plus 1300 acres of Corney Lake. The Forest Service is proposing to harvest timber in stands in the project area in order to meet the goals of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the KNF.

To address the purpose and need, this EA considered and analyzed three alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. Two alternatives meet the purpose and need. The alternatives are described below.

Alternative A: No Action – Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities would be implemented, and the current conditions would be maintained. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document. This alternative is required by NEPA and serves as a benchmark for other alternatives in order to analyze the effects on the environment from implementation of management activities. This alternative does not meet the desired future conditions in the Forest Plan as listed in Section 1.2.

Alternative B: Proposed Action – This alternative is designed to initiate the first phase of a long-term goal to achieve the desired future conditions of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems by using comprehensive integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource loss or damage due to insects, diseases, or wildfire on the project area within the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest. Specifically, this alternative addresses the goals of restoring shortleaf pine to its native range. Activities proposed as part of this alternative are presented in Table ES-1.

Executive Summary v Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table ES-1. Activities Proposed Under Alternative B Proposed Activities Treatment Area Intermediate Thinning 1,918 acres First Thinning 118 acres Clearcut Harvest 222 acres Group Selection 542 acres Mechanical/Chemical Site Preparation 222 acres Site Preparation Burning 222 acres Tree Planting 222 acres Wildlife Openings 40 acres NNIP* Treatments with Herbicide 10 acres Herbicide Treatment on Corney Lake 1,300 acres Road Maintenance and Reconstruction 20 miles *NNIP = Nonnative Invasive Plants

Alternative C: This alternative considers the all the proposed activities in Alternative B but does not include the herbicide application on Corney Lake.

Table ES-2 summarizes the analysis and impacts to resources presented in Chapter 3.0. This table also provides a comparison of the environmental impacts associated with each alternative analyzed in the EA.

Table ES-2. Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences

Resource Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Soils No direct effects on Timber management Same as Alternative B, soils. Soil productivity would have negligible except that there would could be affected if effects and could be a decrease of 1,300 wildfires were to prevent adverse effects acres treated under this occur with a high to soil productivity by alternative; therefore, severity. Continued decreasing the chances there would be fewer usage of roads could of having wildfires with direct and indirect effects further increase higher severity. to soil productivity than compaction, rutting, Herbicide use and site under Alternative B. rill, and sheet erosion. 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. Water Resources No direct impacts to Negligible effects to Same as Alternative B, water quality. If water quality and except that the wildfires were to quantity from timber proliferation of American

Executive Summary vi Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Resource Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C occur with high management and site lotus could degrade water severity, water quality preparation. The effects quality parameters. There and quantity could be of herbicide use to water would be a decrease of affected. Water quality quality would be 1,300 acres treated under could be affected by minimal with the use of this alternative as not applying travel Streamside Habitat compared to Alternative restricts, improving Protection Zones, lowest B; therefore, there would degraded roads, and effective application be even fewer direct and improving stream rates, and direct indirect effects to water crossings. application. Road resources overall. maintenance and closures would improve water quality. Air Quality No direct impacts to Direct, short-term, Same as Alternative B, air quality. If intense minor, adverse impacts except that there would wildfire were to occur, locally from timber be a decrease of 1,300 it would have direct, harvest, road acres treated under this short-term, moderate, maintenance, herbicide alternative, thus there adverse impacts on application, and would only be the regional air quality. prescribed burn potential for spray drift activities. On a larger and volatilization of scale, effects to air herbicides from quality would generally application on 307 acres be minor, short-term, under Alternative C (vs. and adverse as emission from application on and smoke pollutants 1,607 acres in Alternative are released to the B). atmosphere and travel beyond project area boundaries. Vegetation No direct impacts. Minor to moderate, Same effects as Minor to moderate, direct, indirect short- Alternative B, except that indirect, long-term term adverse effect on minor, direct, long-term adverse impacts due to local vegetation, adverse effects on wildfire threat to including the Regional aquatic vegetation on existing plant Forester Sensitive Corney Lake would communities, reduced Species and occur from continued stand health, conservation species non-native aquatic decreased species from removal and vegetation growth. richness, increased damage during expansion of NNIP activities. Minor to and increased moderate, direct, short- susceptibility to and long-term, adverse Southern Pine Beetle effects from disturbed outbreaks. habitat. Minor to moderate, long-term, beneficial effects to vegetation from reduction in high fuel

Executive Summary vii Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Resource Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C loads which would reduce the threat of intense wildfire to the existing plant communities, and the reduced risk of disease and insect outbreaks. T&E Wildlife No effect. Likely to adversely Same effects as affect the Northern Alternative B. long-eared bat; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) dated January 5, 2016. Sensitive and Indirect, long-term, The proposed action Same effects as Conservation Species adverse minor to may impact sensitive Alternative B, but there moderate effects on species individuals, but would be a decrease of wildlife species locally is not likely to cause a 1,300 acres treated under and district-wide due trend toward federal this alternative and to reduced wildlife listing or a loss of impacts would be diversity caused by viability. Negligible to reduced. diminishing forest minor, direct, short- structural diversity, term, adverse effects and wildlife habitat during proposed that may be destroyed activities. Minor to by wildfire. Some moderate, long-term, minor, beneficial beneficial effects from effects may occur for increased diversity and late-successional stand health. wildlife species. Terrestrial No effect on some No effect on some Same effects as Management Indicator species. Indirect species. Short-term, Alternative B, but there Species effects would increase adverse effects during would be a decrease of the time required for proposed activities. 1,300 acres treated under the project area to Long-term, beneficial this alternative, with a develop the effects from increased decrease in impacts. components necessary diversity and stand to provide suitable health. habitat for some species. Aquatic MIS No effect. No effect. Minor, direct, long- term adverse effects on aquatic animal species in Corney Lake would occur from continued non-native aquatic

Executive Summary viii Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Resource Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C vegetation growth. Public Health and Negligible to minor, Negligible to minor, Same as Alternative B, Safety short- and long- term direct, short-term except that proliferation adverse effects from adverse effects during of undesirable plant mosquito breeding on proposed activities. species would provide Corney Lake. Long- Minor to moderate, additional mosquito term, adverse minor to long-term, beneficial breeding areas which can moderate effects effects locally from have long-term adverse region-wide associated improved roads and effects on public health. with the increased region-wide from potential for wildfire, reduced wildfire risk. and locally due to deteriorating roads. Recreation Short- and long-term, Minor, direct, short- Same as Alternative B, direct, adverse, minor term adverse effects except that long- term impacts on recreation from timber harvest and adverse effects would locally as the forest site preparation burning occur from the continued understory may activities. Minor to growth of American become dense and moderate, long-term Lotus in Corney Lake, possibly limit access beneficial effects from restricting boat to recreational opening the forest navigation. activities. Minor to canopy, moving towards moderate, long- term, desired conditions, and adverse effects if controlling American intense wildfires occur lotus in Corney Lake. and damage recreational facilities and natural resources. Socioeconomics No direct impacts. Minor, short- and long- Same as Alternative B, Without proposed term beneficial effects except that there would thinnings, wildland from sale of forest be a decrease of 1,300 fire suppression and products and associated acres treated under this SPB control costs logging jobs and post- alternative; therefore, could potentially harvesting contracting there would be even increase in the future. activities. Minor, long- fewer direct and indirect The lack of thinning term, beneficial effects effects to would create dense from herbicide treatment socioeconomics. vegetation conditions of Corney Lake which not conducive to the would improve both majority of non- consumptive (i.e. consumptive uses, fishing) and thus causing adverse nonconsumptive (i.e. socioeconomic boating) uses by impacts. minimizing American lotus infestations. Transportation No direct impacts. In Negligible to minor, Same as Alternative B, the case of an intense short-term adverse except that there would wildfire, impacts impacts due to road be a decrease of 1,300 would be adverse, maintenance, site acres treated under this

Executive Summary ix Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Resource Area Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C minor to moderate, preparation burning, and alternative; therefore, and short-term smoke that can cause there would be even depending on the hazardous road fewer direct and indirect frequency and severity conditions. Minor to effects to transportation. of wildfires. moderate, long-term beneficial effects from improved roads and better access. Heritage Resources No direct impacts. If any additional or Same as Alternative B, previously unknown except that there would archaeological resource be a decrease of 1,300 sites are discovered acres treated under this during proposed project alternative; therefore, activities, all work at there would be even that location would fewer direct and indirect cease until an evaluation effects to heritage can be made. Therefore, resources. no impacts would be expected. Climate Change Although it would Although it would Same as Alternative B, contribute adversely in contribute beneficially except that there would the case of intense by reducing the be a decrease of 1,300 wildfire, it is not probability of intense acres treated under this expected that wildfire, it is not alternative; therefore, Alternative A would expected that Alterative there would be even substantially alter the B would substantially fewer direct and indirect effects of climate alter the effects of effects to climate change. change in the project climate change in the area. project area. Overall, the impacts of Alternative B on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would be negligible

Executive Summary x Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Caney Ranger District (or District) of the Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) is proposing to restore native shortleaf pine/oak-hickory (SOH) communities by applying commercial thinning treatments (first thinning and intermediate thinning), clearcut harvest, group selection harvests, wildlife habitat openings, herbicide site prep spraying, site preparation burning, herbicide applications for control of non-native invasive plants (NNIP), tree planting, herbicide release of planted stands and wildlife openings, and road maintenance within the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District. For the purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA), these compartments will be referred to as the Horseshoe Loop project area or the project area.

This EA has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code (USC) 4321 et seq.), which requires an environmental analysis for major Federal Actions having the potential to impact the quality of the environment; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508, which implement the requirements of NEPA; Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 10-Environmental Analysis); Project-Level Predecisional Administrative Review process 36 CFR, Part 218; and the directions given in the Kisatchie National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USFS, 1999a). This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of the project is to implement management activities within the project area needed to move toward achieving the Forest Plan desired future conditions for management areas 2AS and 3BS. 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 alternatives were developed. This EA is tiered to the management directions stated within certain governing documents described in this section, which are incorporated by reference.

The revised Forest Plan (USFS, 1999a) and its accompanying Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USFS, 1999b) were developed to direct the management of the KNF by defining goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines. For the purpose of this EA, the Revised Forest Plan goals, desired future conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, will be referred to as “desired conditions.”

The Proposed Action meets the standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan to manage National Forest lands on an ecosystem basis for wildlife habitat, unique and native plant and animal communities, healthy growing forests for plant and animal species, water quality, recreation, enjoyment of the public, and soil conservation for this generation and all generations in the future. In order to achieve the desired condition, the proposed actions follow the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan, pages 2-1 thorough 2-7.

Purpose and Need 1 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment The existing conditions within the project area do not currently meet the desired conditions outlined within the Forest Plan. Table 1-1 provides a summary list of objectives as they relate to proposed treatments. Some of the desired conditions have been reworded or combined to summarize the more general goals and objectives of the Forest Plan.

Table 1-1. Desired Future Conditions for the Project Area Desired Conditions/Objectives 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 (Forest Plan, page 2-3). Objective 1-4: Provide a level of wildfire protection, which emphasizes cost effective wildfire prevention and suppression while minimizing loss of resources (Forest Plan, page 2-3). Objective 1-5: Manage for productive and healthy forest ecosystems by utilizing comprehensive integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource losses or damage due to insects and diseases (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Objective 2-1: Manage to restore or maintain the structure, composition, and processes of the four major landscape forest ecosystems known to occur on the Forest, and unique or under-represented inclusional communities embedded within them (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Objective 2-2: Provide for healthy populations of all existing native and desirable nonnative wildlife, fish, and plants by managing major forest ecosystems at the scale and distribution appropriate to maintain species viability (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Objective 2-4: Develop or maintain old-growth forest attributes, for their contribution to biological and visual diversity, habitats for plant and animal species, and maintenance of a natural gene pool, within designated patches (Forest Plan, page 2-4). Objective 2-7: Provide quality habitat for game populations (Forest Plan, page 2-5). Objective 3-1: Provide for long-term sustainable production of commodities for economies, local community stability, and people (Forest Plan, page 2-5). Objective 3-2: Offer for competitive bid an average of 9.69 million cubic feet of timber sale volume on an annual basis for the first decade of the plan (Forest Plan, page 2-5). 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) (Forest Plan, page 2-5). Objective 5-2: Provide protection for heritage resource sites, which preserves the integrity of scientific data that they contain, for the benefit of the public and scientific communities (Forest Plan, page 2-6). Objective 6-1: Manage the Forest to achieve a mixture of desired future conditions using even-aged, two-aged, and uneven-aged silvicultural systems and regeneration methods; and a variety of manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, and herbicide vegetation management treatments (Forest Plan, page 2-6). Objective 7-1: Monitor and document the annual progress towards accomplishment of Forest goals, objectives, and desired future conditions (Forest Plan, page 2-6). Source: USFS, 1999b

According to established forest management guidelines, stands within the Horseshoe Loop project area are considered overstocked and in need of timber harvest operations. All stands are within Sub Management Areas (SMA) 2AS and 3BS. Existing roads will be utilized for timber harvest operations.

Purpose and Need 2 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Table 1-2 summarizes the specific management areas by goal, compartment, and approximate acres not meeting desired conditions.

Table 1-2. Number of Approximate Acres, by Compartment, Not Meeting Desired Conditions Management Management Compartment Area Goals Number Acres 2AS Shortleaf 1, 2, 3, 4 1,337 Restoration 3BS Native 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1,463 Community Restoration TOTAL 2,800 acres

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The Corney Unit’s administrative boundary contains approximately 8,800 acres of National Forest System lands and approximately 6,643 acres of private land for a total land area of approximately 15,443 acres. The proposed Horseshoe Loop project would take place on approximately 2,800 acres of stands in Compartments 1-4 and 6-10 plus 1300 acres of Corney Lake. The Forest Service is proposing to harvest timber in stands in the project area in order to meet the goals of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan for the KNF. A vicinity map showing the location of proposed treatments is presented in Figure 1-1.

1.4 DECISION TO BE MADE Based on the analysis and description of the purpose and need for the Proposed Action documented in this environmental analysis, the District Ranger, the responsible official, will make the following decisions: • If the Proposed Action should be implemented at this time; or if an alternative to the Proposed Action should be implemented at this time; and • What mitigation and monitoring activities are necessary to protect the ecosystem and to achieve other resource goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. Should a decision be made to select all or part of an action alternative, those activities would be implemented in the next ten-year period. The District Ranger would also decide what management requirements and monitoring would be necessary to protect other resources and to achieve other resource goals, objectives, and desired future conditions.

NEPA and the CEQ regulations that implement NEPA mandate that agencies consider environmental issues. The decision to be made would be based on the environmental and non- environmental issues evaluated in this document.

Purpose and Need 3 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Figure 1-1. Vicinity map of the Horseshoe Loop Project Area in the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest

Purpose and Need 4 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 1.5 PROPOSED ACTION The Caney Ranger District is proposing the following treatments in the project area: • Intermediate Thinning of approximately 1,918 acres of pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands to a residual stand density of 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine/oak-hickory as leave species. • Regenerate 222 acres back to native shortleaf pine through the use of the clearcut harvest method. After harvest, this acreage would be prepared for planting by mechanical treatment and/or herbicide application of glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr followed by site-prep burning. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Herbicide release using imazapyr and metsulfuron methyl would occur when herbaceous and woody competition poses a threat to the survival of the shortleaf pines. • First thinning of approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations. These stands would be thinned back to approximately 60 ft2 basal area per acre. • Group selection harvest of 542 acres for the purpose of uneven-aged management. Small openings approximately 2-3 acres in size would be created within the 542 acres. These opening would create approximately 75 acres for uneven-age management to establish shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees. They would be site prepared, planted, and herbicide released in the same fashion as the 222 acres of clearcut harvest areas. The remaining 467 acres would be thinned to approximately 70ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine and oak/hickory as leave species. • Conduct road maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 20 miles of existing roads in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety. • Treat approximately 10 acres of NNIP with herbicide, such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Chinese tallow tree (Triadica sebifera), kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). • Wildlife opening installation totaling 40 acres in stands where timber harvest operations were performed. These openings would be placed on log landings or remote locations upon the completion of harvest operations. They would vary in size up to 4 acres for the largest opening. They would be placed in flat areas with less than 6% slope to decrease the chance of erosion. These openings would increase the edge effect desired by a variety of wildlife species. They would be maintained for herbaceous or early successional openings by planting native species that are beneficial to wildlife that are home to the project area. Future maintenance would involve bush hogging and herbicide application of glyphosate, imazapyr and triclopyr to control woody competition that may encroach on the openings. • Apply herbicide on Corney Lake (1,300 acres) to treat undesirable native and non-native vegetation. Currently, large colonies of American lotus (Nelumbo lutea) restrict small boat navigation and fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes. The Proposed Action is designed to initiate the first phase of a long-term plan to achieve the desired future conditions of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems by using comprehensive

Purpose and Need 5 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource loss or damage due to insects, diseases, or wildfire within the project area.

1.6 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Management requirements are included as part of the Proposed Action and other action alternatives. Included in the Proposed Action and action alternatives are applicable standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan, management requirements of the Record of Decision (ROD) and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (FEIS), and guidance found in the following regional documents, as amended by the Kisatchie’s Revised Forest Plan: the Record of Decision (Vegetation Management [VM]-ROD) and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VM-FEIS), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle (SPB), Southern Region (SPB-FEIS). They are incorporated here by reference: • Forest Plan: pages 2-7 through 2-74 (Forestwide Standards and Guidelines). • ROD: page R-7 (Rationale for the Decision, Issue #1: Timber Supply and Issue #2: Biological Diversity), page R-13 (Issue #11: Silviculture), and page R-14 (Issue # 13: Forest Health), 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-ROD: pages A-1 through A-14 (Management Requirements and Mitigation Measures). • 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). • SPB-FEIS: Volume I, pages 2-24 through 2-28 (Mitigation and Specific Mitigating Measures). • State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): Louisiana Division of Archaeology, pages 1 through 18 (Investigation and Report Standards). • Botany report and fauna Biological Evaluation (BE) for Horseshoe Loop, Caney Ranger District, KNF, January 2016 (Appendices A and B). Mitigation measures are defined as actions taken to avoid, minimize, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for adverse effects of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. The Forest Plan management requirements and standards and guidelines are incorporated into the design of the proposal and alternatives as mitigation measures. These include the Forest-wide standards and guidelines for all management areas on the Caney Ranger District.

1.7 MONITORING Monitoring of the project actions would occur to ensure that various aspects of the project adhere to the standards of the Forest Plan and the applicable State Best Management Practices (BMP), and conform to project-specific mitigation measures set forth in this document. Monitoring would also occur to verify the accuracy of the predicted effects this assessment discloses. Specific monitoring responsibilities and activities include:

Purpose and Need 6 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment • The Timber Management Assistant (TMA)/Silviculturist and District Biologist would review the project prior to implementation to ensure that the locations of any access routes or sale boundaries, and the silvicultural prescriptions are carried out as described by this assessment. • The Timber Sale Contract team, primarily the Timber Sale Administrator, would ensure that actual operation of the timber sale follows measures described in this assessment. • The District TMA/Silviculturist/Forester/Technicians would survey the stands one year and three years following tree planting to determine that regeneration areas have adequate stocking. A significant part of certifying regeneration would be to monitor for the presence of any non-native invasive species in these areas. • The District TMA/Silviculturist would monitor all road locations, landings and bladed skid roads for at least three years following sale closure to ensure sites are stable and adequately re-vegetated and will monitor control needs of non-native invasive species. • The District Biologist would continue to monitor Corney Lake for the presence of any undesirable species that pose a threat to the condition of the lake. Further herbicide applications may be needed if populations of undesirable species continue to grow and prosper.

1.8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1.8.1 Scoping The scoping process was the first step to identify issues leading to the proposed actions. Scoping is defined by the NEPA of 1969 (40 CFR 1501.7) as “an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the Proposed Action.” The issues are used to develop alternative management actions (including mitigation measures) and evaluate environmental consequences of such actions.

The KNF interdisciplinary team met in November, 2015 to discuss issues and concerns for the proposed treatments. The proposal first appeared on the Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions on December 21, 2015. A scoping notice of the proposal was provided to the public with a two week public comment period starting on December 9, 2015 with a Legal Notice published in the Minden Press Herald and The Guardian Journal. A copy of the legal notice is included in Appendix A.

1.8.2 Issues Issues are those items identified during scoping that resulted in the development of alternatives to the Proposed Action. No responses were received from the public scoping effort. Opportunities are those items that may be considered as additions to the existing proposal. Issues that resulted in proposing activities as an alternative to the Proposed Action are addressed in Chapter 2, Alternatives. The concerns identified are also addressed in Chapter 3. Opportunities have been incorporated into the descriptions of the alternatives in Chapter 2.

The following issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through internal scoping:

1. Concerns over SPB infestations in overstocked stands of loblolly pine.

Purpose and Need 7 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 2. Need for restoration of the SOH forest type. 3. Danger from wildfire or escaped fire in stands with heavy brush. 4. Use of herbicides.

1.8.3 Resource Areas Considered in Detail The following resource areas were considered and analyzed in detain in this EA: Soils Timber harvesting can increase total watershed yields, storm peak flows, erosion, and sedimentation without runoff management practices in place to protect soil loss. Soil productivity could be adversely impacted through compaction, erosion, and nutrient leaching and/or displacement when harvesting activities occur. Therefore, impacts to soils are analyzed in this EA.

Water Resources (including wetlands and floodplains) Forest Service policies require protection of water resources consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act. Timber harvesting, prescribed burning for site preparation, and herbicide applications can adversely impact water quality (i.e., sediment delivery and turbidity). Therefore, impacts to water resources are analyzed in this EA.

Air Quality The Federal 1970 Clean Air Act stipulates that Federal agencies have an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality of our national forests from adverse air pollution impacts. Site prep burning would generate smoke and particulate matter, which can impact air quality within the KNF and surrounding region. Additionally, emissions from heavy equipment can occur during timber harvesting operations. Therefore, air quality impacts are analyzed in this EA.

Vegetation (including special status species) Timber harvesting and site prep prescribed burn activities can disturb or destroy native vegetation communities and rare plant species, as well as facilitate introduction of non-native plants. Plant communities can also benefit from improved habitat condition. Some plant species thrive in disturbance sites and or are early successional species. Additionally, herbicide applications can harm native plants. Vegetation communities can also benefit from proposed treatments. Therefore, impacts to vegetation are analyzed in this EA.

Wildlife (including special status species) Resident and rare populations of reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, fish, and invertebrates can be disturbed or displaced by timber harvesting treatments, prescribed burning, and herbicide applications. They can also benefit from improved habitat conditions. Therefore, impacts to wildlife are analyzed in this EA.

Public Health and Safety Harvesting trees in the project areas would increase the likelihood of travelers and local residents encountering heavy equipment and/or logging trucks on local roads during relatively short

Purpose and Need 8 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment periods. Increased project-generated traffic using roads and highways could be hazardous to drivers, as well as smoke from site prep burning. Therefore, impacts to human health and safety are analyzed in this EA.

Recreation The Forest Service strives to provide for public enjoyment of the scenery, wildlife and natural and historic resources of national forests. Timber harvesting and prescribed fire can result in the temporary closure of certain areas and/or result in visual impacts that may affect recreation opportunities. Therefore, impacts to recreation are analyzed in this EA.

Socioeconomic Resources Timber harvesting could affect the economics of local communities. Economic benefits could come from both consumptive and non-consumptive use. Benefits could also occur from the processing of the material from sales and jobs generated by the timber program in the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts to socioeconomic resources are analyzed in this EA.

Transportation Smoke from site prep prescribed burns could create hazardous situations on roads resulting in temporary road closures. There may also be temporary road closures during road maintenance activities. Improved roads would provide better access. Therefore, transportation is addressed as an impact topic in this EA.

Heritage Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, provides the framework for Federal review and protection of cultural resources and ensures that they are considered during Federal project planning and execution. Heritage resources can be affected by timber harvesting and prescribed burning activities. Therefore, heritage resources are addressed as an impact topic in this EA.

Climate Change A growing body of scientific research, published in peer reviewed journals and synthesized by groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, depicts a global climate that is changing. Research also shows that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contribute to this changing climate. Emissions of greenhouse gases could occur during project activities. Therefore, climate change is addressed as an impact topic in this EA.

Purpose and Need 9 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Horseshoe Loop project. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between the alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. The information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADDRESSED IN DETAIL For this EA to consider alternatives to the proposed action, the alternatives must meet the purpose and need as stated in Section 1.2. No public comments were received during the EA scoping period; however, the interdisciplinary team considered two action alternatives to the proposed action and both of those alternatives will be carried forward for analysis.

2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 2.2.1 Alternative A: No Action Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance (see Section 3.1.1 for a list of past, present and future projects. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

This alternative is required by NEPA and serves as a benchmark for other alternatives in order to analyze the effects on the environment from implementation of management activities. This alternative does not meet the desired future conditions in the Forest plan as listed in Section 1.2.

2.2.2 Alternative B: Proposed Action This alternative is designed to initiate the first phase of a long-term goal to achieve the desired future conditions of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems by using comprehensive integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource loss or damage due to insects, diseases, or wildfire on the Horseshoe Loop project area within the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest. Specifically, this alternative addresses the goals of restoring shortleaf pine to its native range. Activities proposed as part of this alternative are presented in Table 2-1. The locations of some of the proposed treatments are presented in Figure 2-1. Uneven-age management in the project area is shown in Figure 2-2. Individual stand treatments are shown in Table 2-2. Maps of operations in each compartment are included in Appendix B.

Table 2-1. Activities Proposed Under Alternative B Proposed Activities Treatment Area Intermediate Thinning 1,918 acres First Thinning 118 acres Clearcut Harvest 222 acres

Alternatives 10 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Proposed Activities Treatment Area Group Selection 542 acres Mechanical/Chemical Site Preparation 222 acres Site Preparation Burning 222 acres Tree Planting 222 acres Wildlife Openings 40 acres NNIP Treatments with Herbicide 10 acres Herbicide Treatment on Corney Lake 1,300 acres Road Maintenance and Reconstruction 20 miles

Figure 2-1. Proposed Treatments on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District

Alternatives 11 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Figure 2-2. Uneven-aged Management on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District

Intermediate thinnings are proposed for approximately 1,918 acres of loblolly pine stands ranging in age from 48 to113 years located in the project area. The stands have exceeded the desired stocking density for the SMAs (Forest Plan, pg. 3-19) and would benefit from an intermediate thinning at this time. The current BA/acre (basal area per acre) ranges from a low of 86 BA/acre to a high of 165 BA/acre. The primary management emphasis in the project area is restoration of native Shortleaf Pine/Oak-Hickory (SOH) communities in an intermediate time frame while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources. These stands should be managed for a relatively open canopy with variable tree densities having an average combined, pine and hardwood, basal area of 70 ft2/acre.

First thinnings are proposed for approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations in the project area. These stands are located in Compartments 2, 8, and 10. They are densely stocked with total basal areas far exceeding 100 ft2/acre. Because stand densities greater than the optimum desired conditions stress pines and impede radial growth, pine stands become more susceptible to SPB infestation. The proposed thinning treatments are needed to increase growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual trees within the project area. Thinning treatments to a BA of 60 ft2/acre would reduce the susceptibility to SPB infestations by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and improve stand health and growth by reducing

Alternatives 12 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment competition. This would also enhance recreational access and visibility within the project area, reduce forest fuels, and improve wildlife habitat. Species associated with the desired forest type would be favored during thinning treatments, promoting native community restoration.

Clearcut harvests are proposed for approximately 222 acres of various stands of loblolly pine forest type stand across the district for regeneration back to native shortleaf pine. These stands currently consist of off-site loblolly pine that has passed the rotation length set by the Forest Plan at 70 years of age. After harvest, these sites would be prepared for planting by first chopping to control woody debris if needed, then applying the herbicides to control resprouting, followed by a site prep burn. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Follow-up treatments would include release of the shortleaf pine seedlings from competition using herbicides.

Group selection harvests are proposed for 542 acres to create openings (small clearcuts of approximately 2-3 acres in size each) on approximately 75 acres used for uneven age management to establish shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees. The remaining acres in these areas would be thinned to approximately 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine and oak/hickory as leave species.

Wildlife opening installation is proposed totaling 40 acres in stands where timber harvest operations were performed. These openings would be placed on log landings or remote locations upon the completion of harvest operations. They would vary in size up to 4 acres for the largest opening. They would be placed in flat areas with less than 6% slope to decrease the chance of erosion. These openings would increase the edge effect desired by a variety of wildlife species. They would be maintained for herbaceous or early successional openings by planting native species that are beneficial to wildlife in the project area. Future maintenance would involve bush hogging and herbicide application to control woody competition that may encroach on the openings.

Herbicide treatments would be applied on approximately 10 acres of NNIP such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese tallow tree, kudzu, and Chinese privet. Herbicides would be applied to Corney Lake (1,300 acres) through spot surface treatment to control a current American lotus infestation plus treat any native or non-native undesirable species that may appear in the future. The herbicides that would be used for these treatments are imazapyr, triclopyr, glyphosate, and diquat along with a non-ionic surfactant if needed.

Road maintenance is proposed for approximately 20 miles of existing roads throughout the project area in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety. After harvest, erosion control activities would be implemented to stabilize exposed soil on skid trails, landings, and temporary roads used during harvesting activities.

Alternatives 13 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 2-2. Stands by Proposed Treatment Under Alternative B Total Stand Compartment Stand SMA Acres Age BA/Acre Treatment 1 2 2AS 52.8 75 123.0 Group Selection 1 7 2AS 28.3 71 175.0 Intermediate Thin 2 9 2AS 52.8 63 105.0 Intermediate Thin 2 10 2AS 28.3 33 165.0 First Thin 2 11 2AS 196.0 90 130.0 Group Selection 2 12 2AS 20.5 93 134.0 Group Selection 2 13 2AS 62.7 76 134.0 Intermediate Thin 2 14 2AS 27.7 121 99.0 Intermediate Thin 2 15 2AS 48.2 84 136.0 Intermediate Thin 2 19 2AS 27.0 90 132.0 Group Selection 2 21 2AS 61.0 94 110.0 Intermediate Thin 3 2 2AS 71.6 85 125.0 Intermediate Thin 3 4 2AS 126.8 73 128.0 Group Selection 3 8 2AS 38.9 75 130.0 Intermediate Thin 3 11 2AS 31.6 75 140.0 Intermediate Thin 3 12 2AS 6.7 85 140.0 Intermediate Thin 3 16 2AS 23.2 79 130.0 Intermediate Thin 3 17 2AS 16.3 88 140.0 Intermediate Thin 3 18 2AS 22.8 85 133.0 Intermediate Thin 3 20 2AS 27.5 75 122.0 Intermediate Thin 3 21 2AS 42.8 76 135.0 Intermediate Thin 3 22 2AS 40.6 71 125.0 Group Selection 4 3 2AS 125.4 84 108.0 Intermediate Thin 4 5 2AS 13.4 84 130.0 Intermediate Thin 4 7 2AS 45.7 108 128.0 Intermediate Thin 4 8 2AS 78.1 81 118.0 Group Selection 4 9 2AS 13.8 78 85.0 Intermediate Thin 4 15 2AS 6.2 88 70.0 Intermediate Thin 6 2 3BS 20.2 85 100.0 Intermediate Thin 6 6 3BS 13.7 22 140.0 Intermediate Thin 6 16 3BS 27.4 56 130.0 Intermediate Thin 7 4 3BS 44.9 74 124.0 Intermediate Thin 7 6 3BS 11.1 71 140.0 Clearcut 7 8 3BS 24.5 72 120.0 Intermediate Thin 7 10 3BS 40.1 38 85.0 Intermediate Thin 7 12 3BS 53.4 29 72.0 Intermediate Thin

Alternatives 14 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Total Stand Compartment Stand SMA Acres Age BA/Acre Treatment 7 20 3BS 25.8 21 107.0 Clearcut 8 1 3BS 56.6 79 151.0 Clearcut 8 5 3BS 37.7 35 208.0 Intermediate Thin 8 6 3BS 28.4 22 140.0 First Thin 8 15 3BS 23.0 31 210.0 Intermediate Thin 9 2 3BS 62.9 31 70.0 Intermediate Thin 9 3 3BS 26.1 25 70.0 Intermediate Thin 9 4 3BS 275.4 88 123.0 Intermediate Thin 9 5 3BS 21.3 88 126 Intermediate Thin 9 6 3BS 46.6 76 120.0 Intermediate Thin 9 7 3BS 72.1 79 117.0 Clearcut 9 8 3BS 26.0 25 50.0 Intermediate Thin 10 1 3BS 37.8 32 152.0 Intermediate Thin 10 2 3BS 117.0 76 151.0 Intermediate Thin 10 3 3BS 24.0 31 110.0 First Thin 10 4 3BS 10.0 22 20.0 First Thin 10 5 3BS 14.7 45 126.0 Intermediate Thin 10 6 3BS 171.8 86 91.0 Intermediate Thin 10 7 3BS 18.7 29 155.0 First Thin 10 8 3BS 8.4 45 180.0 First Thin 10 9 3BS 56.7 76 103.0 Clearcut 10 12 3BS 20.3 22 40.0 Intermediate Thin 10 13 3BS 16.3 45 150.0 Intermediate Thin 2,800.2

The Southern Pine Beetle Hazard Rating System for the Kisatchie National Forest was also used to determine hazard ratings for the stands proposed for thinning. This is a newly developed system adapted from National Forest Risk Rating that depicts SPB hazard ratings based on several parameters. Claiborne Parish is classified as having a High hazard rating (USFS, 2012a). Loblolly pine forest type stands classified with High hazard ratings for SPB infestation are those with a total pine basal area greater than 120 ft2/acre (USFS, 2014a).

2.2.3 Alternative C This alternative considers implementation of all of the vegetation management activities, wildlife openings, road maintenance activities, and NNIP treatments as described in Alternative B; however, herbicide application on Corney Lake is not included under this alternative.

Alternatives 15 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSAL OBJECTIVES Table 2-3 summarizes how well each alternative meets the project objectives. A quantitative comparison of the environmental effects of the alternatives is contained in Chapter 3.

Table 2-4 provides an overview of the differences between the three alternatives considered in this EA.

Table 2-3. Methods Each Alternative Uses to Ensure Objectives are Achieved Alternative A: Alternative B: Objective No Action Proposed Action Alternative C Promote forest This alternative would The successful The successful health not promote long-term implementation of implementation of forest health. this alternative would this alternative would Allowing trees to reduce tree density reduce tree density continue to grow in a and help protect and help protect high-density against infestation by against infestation by environment could the SPB. This the SPB. This encourage infestation alternative would alternative would by the SPB. Thick tree promote forest health promote forest health stands reduce light and allow greater and allow greater penetration to the sunlight penetration sunlight penetration forest floor which to the forest floor, to the forest floor, discourages the thus promoting the thus promoting the growth of many growth of understory growth of understory understory species. species. species Restore and This alternative Thinning existing Thinning existing maintain natural would not help planted loblolly pine planted loblolly pine resources and their move the targeted and focusing and focusing processes forest stands toward management on the management on the the desired habitat restoration of a restoration of a state. naturally functioning naturally functioning pine ecosystem pine ecosystem would enhance would enhance natural resource natural resource processes. processes Native Community This alternative This alternative This alternative Restoration would not move the would increase the would increase the forest toward the number of acres in number of acres in desired future native shortleaf pine, native shortleaf pine, condition of oak/hickory which is oak/hickory which is restoring the in accordance with in accordance with shortleaf pine, the Forest Plan. the Forest Plan. oak/hickory community.

Alternatives 16 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Alternative A: Alternative B: Objective No Action Proposed Action Alternative C Corney Lake This alternative This alternative This alternative Herbicide would allow the would reduce the would not reduce the application infestation of amount of American amount of American American lotus to lotus on the lake lotus on the lake continue to overtake surface which would surface which would the lake surface, lead to better boat lead to poorer boat thus restricting boat navigation and navigation and navigation and decrease the amount increase the amount providing additional of mosquito breeding of mosquito breeding mosquito breeding area. This alternative area. This alternative areas. would also lead to would also decrease control of any future the ability to control infestations of native any future or non-native infestations of native undesirable species. or non-native undesirable species.

Table 2-4. Comparison of Alternatives by Action Proposed Alternative A: Alternative B: Activities No Action Proposed Action Alternative C Project Area 4,100 acres 4,100 acres 4,100 acres Harvests: Intermediate Thin 0 acres 1,918 acres 1,918 acres First Thin 0 acres 118 acres 118 acres Clearcut 0 acres 222 acres 222 acres Group Selection 0 acres 542 acres 542 acres High Forest 357 acres 0 acres 0 acres Health Hazard Medium Forest 937 acres 0 acres 0 acres Health Hazard 0-10 year age class 0 acres; 0% 297 acres; 11% 297 acres; 11% Road Maintenance 0 miles 20 miles 20 miles Corney Lake 0 acres 1,300 acres 0 acres Herbicide Treatments

Alternatives 17 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Programmatic environmental impact statements were prepared during development of the Forest Plan, as part of an examination of vegetation management activities in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. These documents, the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the Kisatchie National Forests (FEIS), and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont (VM FEIS) present analyses of general effects expected from practices such as those described for alternatives considered in this document. Discussions of effects in this chapter are tiered to these documents to avoid repetition.

This chapter describes the affected environment and analyzes the effects of each alternative. The methodology used to analyze the effects on the affected environment is discussed. An environmental impact or consequence is defined as a modification or change in the existing environment brought about by the action taken. Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative and can be temporary (short-term) or permanent (long-term). Effects can also vary in degree, ranging from only a slightly discernable change to a drastic change in the environment. This EA focuses on resources and issues of concern identified during the internal and external scoping process (see Section 1.8). Some resource areas that were identified as having a very low level of concern were eliminated early in the scoping process and are not discussed in detail (See Section 3.2). Those resource areas that were identified as potentially having a medium to high level of concern are discussed in detail in this chapter (See Section 3.3).

3.1 MEASURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Effects can be positive or negative depending on the resource and desired future condition. Effects can be direct, indirect or cumulative. Direct effects occur at the same time and place as the actions that cause them. Indirect effects occur at a later time or a different place than the actions that cause them. Their causes may not be obvious and may stem from effects on other environmental elements.

Potential impacts are described in terms of type (beneficial or adverse), context, duration, and intensity. The following general definitions were used to evaluate the context, intensity, duration, and the cumulative nature of impacts associated with project alternatives.

Direct vs. Indirect Effects Direct effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) at the same time and in the same location as the action. Indirect effects are impacts caused by the alternative(s) that occur later in time or farther in distance than the action, but that are still reasonably foreseeable. An indirect impact could also occur because of a change to another resource or impact topic.

Duration of Impact Impacts are also expressed in terms of duration. Temporary impacts would occur only during the time that project activities are being conducted. In the interim between these activities, resource conditions would return to pre-activity conditions. Short-term impacts would extend beyond the

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 18 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment time of project activities, but would not last more than one year. Long-term impacts would likely last more than one year and can potentially continue indefinitely, in which case they could also be described as permanent.

Context Context is the setting within which an impact is analyzed, such as local, district-wide, forest- wide, or regional. The CEQ requires that impact analyses include discussions of context. Localized impacts are those that affect the resource area only on the project site or its immediate surroundings and would not extend district or forest-wide or into the region.

Intensity of Impact Impact intensity is the degree to which a resource would be beneficially or adversely affected by an action. Impact intensities are quantified as negligible, minor, moderate, or major as defined in Table 3-1. Significant effects would occur only where the level of impact would be major.

Table 3-1. Impact Intensities Negligible Minor Moderate Major Minimal impact on Change in a resource Noticeable change in Substantial impact or the resource would would occur, but no a resource would change in a resource occur; any change substantial resource occur and this change area would occur that that might occur impact would result; would alter the is easily defined and would be barely the change in the condition or highly noticeable and perceptible and not resource would be appearance of the that measurably alters be easily measurable. detectable but would resource, but the the condition or not alter the condition integrity of the appearance of the or appearance of the resource would resource; the integrity resource. remain intact. of the resource may not remain intact.

3.1.1 Cumulative Impact Scenario CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.7) require the assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision- making process for Federal projects. A cumulative impact is an impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal), organization, or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time.

Cumulative impacts are considered for all alternatives and are presented at the end of each resource topic discussion. To determine potential cumulative impacts, projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site were identified. Potential projects identified as cumulative actions included any planning or development activity that was currently being implemented or that would be implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future.

These cumulative actions are evaluated in the cumulative impact analysis in conjunction with the impacts of each alternative to determine if they would have any additive effects on the resource

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 19 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment topics considered. Because some of these cumulative actions are in the early planning stages, the evaluation of cumulative effects was based on a general description of the project. Past, present, and future projects and actions in the vicinity of the project area considered for the cumulative effects analysis include: • Prescribed burning under the current Caney District-Wide Prescribed Burn EA that was signed in 2012. This covers prescribed burning on the district through 2017. • Periodic wildland fire (on the District, on the Forest, and outside of the Forest). • Visitor use, including hiking, hunting, boating, biking, camping, horseback riding, motorized use, and wildlife viewing. • Infrastructure development, construction, and urbanization. • Vehicular use on and off road. • Timber harvest operations that fall under the Ternary Forest Health EA which is a first thinning project that will be completed on the Corney Unit of the District in the summer of 2016. There are also 68 acres in the Corney Unit that are designated for first thinning operations covered in the Caney Shortleaf Restoration Project. • Spread and management of invasive species. • Habitat management and restoration. • Herbicide use. 3.2 SOILS 3.2.1 Affected Environment Soils are a fundamental component of the Forest environment. They are generally considered nonrenewable resources because of the length of time required for their formation. The diverse soils on the Forest were produced by the interaction of climate, living organisms, geologic parent material, relief, and landscape position.

In the National Hierarchy of Ecological Units, the Caney Ranger District is located within the South Central Arkansas Subsection (USFS, 1999b). This subsection consists of the rolling hills of northwestern Louisiana, portions of east Texas, and Southern Arkansas. The predominant forest canopy is a mixture of shortleaf and loblolly pines, upland oaks, and hickories.

The Horseshoe Loop project area is composed of one Landtype Association (LTA): the North Louisiana Clayey Hills LTA. An LTA is an ecological unit ranging in size from about 25,000 acres to as much as 500,000 acres and is typically uniform in land-surface form, sub-surface geology, soil patterns, and historical vegetation. Soils in this LTA are described as follows (USFS, 1999b):

North Louisiana Clayey Hills This LTA is a combination of the Cook Mountain and Cockfield surface formations in north Louisiana. Both are members of the Eocene aged Claiborne group, deposited during the Tertiary Period. The Cook Mountain formation is bedded marine sediments, mostly greenish-gray clays

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 20 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment commonly containing ironstone concretions. The Cockfield formation is mainly non-marine sediment composed of brown clays, silts, and sands.

The land-surface form over the majority of this LTA is characterized as rolling, with well- defined ridgetops and side slopes having an average slope gradient of 1 to12 percent. The local relief generally ranges from 60 to 100 feet per square mile. The entire area is generally dissected by relatively well-developed intermittent and perennial stream channels.

This LTA contains soils which formed in clayey and loamy sediments. They are mostly well to moderately drained clays with some areas of loams. Permeability of subsoils is generally slow to very slow. Available water is high to moderate, but these soils are low in plant nutrients. The major soils are Sacul, Darley, Wolfpen, Eastwood, and Guyton (Table 3). About 10 percent of this LTA is composed of frequently flooded alluvial soils on floodplains. The erosion hazard is severe on most side slope soils. Compaction hazard is also severe on some of these soils.

A site specific soil analysis was used during project planning to identify the properties, suitability, and management limitations of each soil type, presented in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. A mosaic of 13 soil series occur in the project area, totaling 2800 acres (Figure 3-1). The project area is mostly ridgetop and upland flats. Guyton soils are the only soils that are very poorly drained and encompass 918 acres (33%). Eighty-one percent of the soils, 2,266 acres, occur on slopes of 0 - 5 percent.

The Darley-Sacul and the Eastwood soils covering 474 acres of the project area are the only soils that have a severe erosion potential. There are 2,326 acres (83%) of soils with an erosion potential of slight to moderate. Guyton is the only soil series that has a rutting hazard of severe; it encompasses 918 acres (33%) of the project area. Angie, Bowie, Eastwood, Guyton, Mahan, and Sacul soils have a compaction rating of severe, covering approximately 1,960 acres (70%) of the project area.

Table 3-2. Soil Types and Associated Characteristics - Properties % Soil Series Texture Landform Drainage Slope Acres Angie (AG) Very fine Ridgetop Moderately well 1-3 17 sandy loam drained Bowie (BW) Fine sandy loam Ridgetop Moderately well 1-5 58 drained Cahaba (DB) Fine sandy loam Stream terraces Well drained 1-5 1 Darley (DR) Loam Ridgetop/Uplands Well drained 1-12 52 Darley-Sacul Loam Ridgetop/Uplands Well drained 12-30 78 (DY) Eastwood Loam Ridgetop Moderately well 5-12 396 (ED) drained Flo (FO) Loamy fine sand Ridgetop Slightly 5-12 8 excessively drained Guyton (GY) Silt Alluvial floodplain Poorly drained 0-1 918

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 21 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment % Soil Series Texture Landform Drainage Slope Acres Harleston Fine sandy loam Stream terraces Moderately well 1-3 122 (HA) drained Mahan (MC) Fine sandy loam Uplands Well drained 1-5 34 McLaurin Loamy fine sand Convex Ridgetops Well drained 1-3 119 (MR) Sacul (SA) Fine sandy loam Uplands Moderately well 1-3 537 drained Wolfpen Loamy sand Upland ridgetops Well drained 1-3 460 (WP)

Table 3-3. Soil Types and Associated Characteristics - Suitability Soil Erosion Rutting Compaction Soil Series Symbol Hazard Hazard Hazard Preferred Species Acres Angie AG Slight Moderate Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 17 Oak-Hickory Bowie BW Slight Moderate Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 58 Oak-Hickory Cahaba CB Slight Slight Slight Shortleaf Pine/ 1 Oak-Hickory Darley DR Slight- Slight Moderate Shortleaf Pine/ 52 Moderate Oak-Hickory Darley- DY Severe Slight Moderate Shortleaf Pine/ 78 Sacul Oak-Hickory Eastwood ED Severe Moderate Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 396 Oak-Hickory Flo FO Moderate Slight Slight Shortleaf Pine/ 8 Oak-Hickory Guyton GY Slight Severe Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 918 Oak-Hickory Harleston HA Slight Moderate Slight Shortleaf Pine/ 122 Oak-Hickory Mahan MC Slight Moderate Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 34 Oak-Hickory McLaurin MR Slight Slight Slight Shortleaf Pine/ 119 Oak-Hickory Sacul SA Slight- Moderate Severe Shortleaf Pine/ 537 Moderate Oak-Hickory Wolfpen WP Slight Slight Slight Shortleaf Pine/ 460 Oak-Hickory

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 22 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-1. Soil Series Map

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 23 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

3.2.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action There would be no direct effects on soils because there are no ground disturbing activities included in this alternative. 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 and disease. Fire hazard increases progressively as hazardous fuels such as litter accumulates, flammable understory shrubs increase in size, and needle drape develops (USFS, 1989a 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 (USFS, 1989a p. IV-80). Soil productivity could be affected if wildfires were to occur with a high severity.

Soil productivity could continue to be affected by not closing the 11 miles of roads. Continued usage of these roads could further increase compaction, rutting, rill, and sheet erosion.

3.2.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Timber Management Activities Timber management activities would occur on approximately 2,800 acres and may directly affect soil productivity through soil erosion, rutting, compaction, and nutrient leaching. 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 one to two growing seasons after the timber harvest (B. Bell, personal communication, 7 March 2014).

There is low potential for erosion and rutting as 80% of the soils in the project area have an erosion potential of slight and only 2.6% of the soils have a rutting hazard of severe (Table 3-3). Potential erosion decreases with greater ground cover provided by vegetation, litter, rock, and fine roots (USFS, 1989a p. IV-82). 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 (USFS, 1999b p 4-13). The effects of erosion and rutting to soil productivity would be negligible.

There is potential for compaction as most of the soils have a compaction rating of moderate to severe (Table 3-3). 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 (USFS, 1989a p. IV-87-88). Results from the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study indicated that improvements in soil properties suggest that the sites in the study are recovering well from the experimental compaction (Scott et al., 2004 p. 338). 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 p. 338). Soil compaction would occur, but studies suggest that these sites are recovering well. Soil compaction would be

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 24 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment minimized by allowing management activities to occur only during dry conditions and by adhering to BMPs # 34, 35, and 36. Effects from compaction would be negligible.

Indirectly, nutrient losses (leaching) from mechanical methods could occur. Results from the North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Study indicated that removing tree tops reduced soil productivity (Scott et al., 2004 p. 338). Nitrogen budgets show that timber harvest followed by piling produces neutral nitrogen budgets (USFS, 1989a p. IV-90). These techniques are more invasive then the stem-only harvest and slash retention method that would be used for this project. 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 is of utmost importance. BMPs are being monitored for implementation and effectiveness. Monitoring reports for timber management practices (similar to those proposed for Camp Livingston) on the Catahoula and Kisatchie District indicate that BMPs are effectively being used. Overall, the effects to long term (greater than two years post treatment) soil productivity would be negligible.

Herbicide Use Herbicides would be used for site preparation, release, invasive species treatments, and the treatment of Corney Lake. The herbicides proposed for use are imazapyr, glyphosate, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr. These herbicides have no known effect on soil physical and chemical properties. Herbicides may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (USFS, 1989a p. IV 90).

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 (USFS, 1989a p. IV 90). 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 pounds per 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 (USFS, 1989a p. IV 91).

The effects of herbicide use on soil productivity would be minimized with the use of lowest effective application rates and direct application. With the applications of design features and BMPs, the effects to soil productivity from herbicides would be negligible.

Site Preparation Site preparations consist of using mechanical chopping, herbicides, and site prep burning. These burns would occur on a small scale; only 222 acres are being proposed for treatment.

Prescribed fire has favorable (indirect) effects including temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity. Adverse effects are caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (USFS, 1989a p. IV-80).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 25 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Mechanical chopping rarely increases bulk density or decreases aeration porosity (USFS, 1989a p. IV-88). The risk of exceeding threshold bulk density or aeration porosity is minimal. Chopping would expose little soil and cause minor erosion (USFS, 1989a p. IV-80). Indirectly, nutrient losses (leaching) from mechanical methods could occur. Potential nitrogen losses may be three pounds per acre. Losses of other, less mobile nutrients are negligible (USFS, 1989a p. IV-90).

The effects of herbicide use on soils would be the same as discussed above under Herbicide Use.

Site preparation 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 pounds per acre of nitrogen is released as gas from slash, litter, and duff. Effects on other soil nutrients are favorable (USFS, 1989a p. IV-81). Light burns cause no erosion because they expose almost no soil (USFS, 1989a p. IV- 82). Losses of nitrogen may be one pound per acre for light burns and nitrogen budgets are positive, allowing for long-term buildup. The risk to soil productivity is minimal on all soils (USFS, 1989a p. IV-84).

Site preparation 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. These management requirements are designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from prescribed burning. The effects from site preparation to soil productivity would be negligible.

Road Management Activities Alternatives B and C include 20 miles of road maintenance activities. For example, these roads would be improved with new erosion control structures, have improved crushed aggregate surfacing placed in critical areas, and be seeded with native herbaceous species to avoid runoff and erosion. These roads would not be decommissioned; however, the roads that are currently Level 1(closed) would be closed again upon completion of all timber harvest and reforestation activities. 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 leaf 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 p. 337). 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.

Overall, 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.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 26 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.2.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish. The direct and indirect effects from using herbicide in Corney Lake in Alternative B would pose a minimum overall risk to soil productivity. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to soil productivity.

3.2.5 Cumulative Effects Ongoing and foreseeable activities in Alternative A could affect soil productivity. Those activities include the continuation of prescribed burning on approximately 500 acres across the project with five to seven year return intervals and timber management on approximately 230 acres over one to three years.

Prescribed fire (underburning) has favorable (indirect) effects including temporarily enhanced nutrient availability and phosphorus cycling and reduced soil acidity. Adverse effects are caused by soil heating, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (USFS, 1989a p. IV-80).

Soil heating has little effect on litter-duff biota which can fully recover between burns. Loss of organic matter is about five percent. Nitrogen loss may be 100-150 pounds per acre for dormant season burns and 400-450 pounds per acre for growing season burns (USFS, 1989a p. IV-81). Soil erosion is generally negligible. Nutrient leaching is not significant because nutrients are retained through uptake by unburned plants (USFS, 1989a p. IV-81).

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.

The effects to long-term soil productivity as a consequence of those actions being proposed in Alternative B relate to the cumulative effects on physical, chemical, and biological qualities of the soil. All proposed, committed, and foreseeable activities are considered when analyzing cumulative 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. Ongoing and foreseeable activities that could directly affect soil productivity include the continuation of prescribed burning on approximately 500 acres in each compartment in five to seven year increments. Due to the span between normal entries into treated areas and the use of resource protection measures, cumulative effects of vegetation treatments and prescribed fire on long term soil productivity would be negligible.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 27 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.3 WATER RESOURCES (INCLUDING WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS) 3.3.1 Affected Environment The Caney Ranger District is located in the Western Coastal Plains Subsection in the North Louisiana Clayey Hills LTA. This LTA contains soils which formed in clayey and loamy sediments. They are mostly well-to moderately drained clays with some areas of loams (USFS, 1999b p. 3-159). The soils and subsoils are typically loamy. Permeability of subsoils is slow to very slow. Poor subsoil permeability results in significant precipitation runoff. Available water is high to moderate, but these soils are low in plant nutrients. Streams in this LTA are generally slow-flowing. Channel bottoms are hard clay covered with silt and frequently have deep holes. These streams tend to dry up from July through October, and pools form in holes. The water is often turbid and moderate in pH and specific conductance (USFS, 1999b p. 3-160).

The Horseshoe Loop project area lies within the Corney Bayou-Field Branch, Corney Bayou- Ledbetter Creek, Corney Lake-Barber Creek, Corney Lake-Sugar Creek, Green Creek, and Lower Corney Lake 6th HUC watersheds (Figure 3-2). Clear Creek is the only named creek that occurs within the project area. There are 22 miles of ephemeral, 23 miles of intermittent, 19 miles of perennial streams, and one water body (Corney Lake, 1300 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 RAPZs. No water body impairments are found within the watersheds (DEQ Louisiana, 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.

3.3.2 Impacts of 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, 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, not improving degraded roads, and not improving stream crossing. Roads are the most common source of Forest erosion and sedimentation (USFS, 1999b p 4-12). Continued usage of these roads could further increase compaction, rutting, rill and sheet erosion, therefore, affecting water quality.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 28 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-2. Subwatersheds within Proposed Horseshoe Loop Treatment Areas 3.3.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action 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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 29 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 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 (USFS 1989a p. IV-92).

The protection of water quality can be accomplished through proper planning and implementation of resource protection measures. Streamside Habitat Protection Zones (SHPZ) are one of the most important tools used as they serve 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 (USFS, 1999b p. 4-15). SHPZs of at least 50 feet are established along all streams, and management activities are limited within these areas.

Timber Management Activities Timber management activities would occur on approximately 2,800 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 (USFS, 1999b p 4-13). Stream concentrations of some nutrients may be increased. Many of the aquatic systems are nutrient poor, so small increases in nutrients could be beneficial (USFS, 1989a p. IV-98).

Increased stormflow volumes and peaks in small (1-12 acre) watershed can increase. Shearing and chopping retains soil infiltration capacity and cause small increases by reducing water use by vegetation. Typical increases in stormflow volumes and peaks are 40 percent and they last one year (USFS, 1989a 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 (USFS, 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 streamflow 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 (USFS, 1999b p 4-14). Effects to water quantity would be minimal and short term.

Mechanical methods can increase sediment loads from both surface and channel erosion in small (1-12 acre) watersheds (USFS, 1989a p. IV-98). Channel sediment tends to increase in proportion to peak flow, with first-year increases of about 40 percent for shearing and chopping (USFS, 1989a 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.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 30 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Herbicide Use Herbicides would be used for site preparation, herbicide release, invasive species treatment, and to treat Corney Lake. The herbicides proposed to be used are imazapyr, glyphosate, triclopyr, metsulfuron methyl, and diquat.

Herbicides may affect stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment yields (USFS, 1989a 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 (USFS, 1989a 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 glysophate and triclopyr are fairly soluble (USFS, 1989b p. C-4, 5). Imazapyr is practically non-toxic to aquatic organisms, and it is degraded by micro- organisms, photodecomposes, and does not bioaccumulate (USFS, 1989b p. C-15). Glyphosate is low in toxicity to aquatic organisms and it is degraded by microbial breakdown in the soil (USFS, 1989b p. C-13). Tryclopyr is low in toxicity to fish and is metabolized by bacteria and photodegrades rapidly (USFS, 1989b p. C-16, 15). None of these herbicides are prone to volatilization losses (USFS, 1989b p. C-4, 5).

The majority of herbicide use in intensive forestry would involve low-toxicity chemicals applied infrequently (USFS, 1989b 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 are minimal, and long term water quality is not adversely affected. At current registered herbicide application rates, some short duration, low level pulses of herbicide residues could enter unconfined surface aquifers. 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 (USFS, 1989b p. C-20).

The effects of herbicide use on water quality would be minimized with the use of SHPZs, lowest effective application rates, and direct application. The effects of herbicide use to water quality would be minimal.

Site Preparation Site preparations consist of using hand tools, mechanical chopping, herbicides, and prescribed fire (slash burns). Slash burns are usually light to moderate in severity. These burns occur on a small scale. Only 100 acres are being proposed

Prescribed fire may increase stream nutrients, stormflows, and sediment loads (USFS, 1989a p. IV-99). Slash burns may produce minor increases in concentrations of some nitrogen compounds and cations (USFS, 1989a 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 (USFS, 1989b p. B-15). Moderate slash burns cause minor erosion, because

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 31 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment they expose soil on less than 20 percent of the area and recovery usually takes one year (USFS, 1989a p. IV-82).

Prescribed 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 BMPs. These management requirements are designed to minimized erosion and sedimentation resulting from prescribed burning.

The effects from site preparation to water quality and quantity would be negligible.

Road Maintenance and Road Closures There are approximately 40 miles of roads in the project area. Alternatives B and C would improve 22 miles of open roads, including culvert replacement and road resurfacing. These improvements would channel water run-off from rain events and stabilize the affected road beds (Robertson, unpublished report, 2014). 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 (two months to one 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 streambanks and substrate. Short term effects would coincide with the duration of culvert replacement and would take 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.

An additional five miles of closed roads would be improved in the short term (up to 10 years or the life of the project) and then reclosed upon completion of their intended use. This action is needed to improve soil and water condition and reduce public health and safety risks. The closed roads would not be decommissioned. Closing and or limiting access to roads would reduce resource damage and decrease soil disturbance and erosion; therefore, resulting in beneficial long term effects.

Overall water quality would be improved.

3.3.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish. Although there would be no impacts on water quality in Corney Lake under Alternative C as no herbicides would be used in the lake, the proliferation of American lotus could degrade water quality parameters.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 32 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment The direct and indirect effects from using herbicide in Corney Lake in Alternative B would pose a minimum overall risk to water resources in the project area. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to water resources overall.

3.3.5 Cumulative Effects Alternative A Ongoing and foreseeable activities in Alternative A could affect water quality and quantity. Past, present, and expected activities in the Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek (8,813 acres) and Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek (6,566 acres) sub-watersheds were used in a sedimentation yield model for evaluating cumulative effects. Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek Watershed The threshold of 1,650 percent over the undisturbed Pre-European baseline would not be exceeded in this watershed. Corney Bayou is considered an impaired stream according to the latest EPA Assessment. The suspected causes of the impairment are dissolved oxygen from unknown sources and low pH from naturally occurring organic acids. The use that is affected from the suspected causes is fishing. Cumulatively, there would be no significant cumulative effect to water quality because the effects would occur over an extended time period and the percent increase in sediment yield would not exceed the threshold limit. Lower Corney Lake_Barber Creek The threshold would not be exceeded in this subwatershed with either Alternative B or C. Corney Lake is listed as an impaired waterbody according to the latest EPA Assessment. The suspected causes of impairment are mercury in fish tissue due to atmospheric deposition and dissolved oxygen levels from natural sources. Cumulatively, there would be no significant cumulative effect to water quality because the effects would occur over an extended time period and the percent increase in sediment yield would not exceed the threshold limit.

Alternatives B and C A sedimentation model, Cumulative Effects Analysis for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Use (USFS, 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 (USFS, 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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 33 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 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 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 2018. In addition to past land use, activities that have or would occur are predicted for the years 2016-2018.

Tables 3-4 and 3-5 display the acres/miles of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek (8,813 acres) and Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek (6,566 acres) subwatersheds.

Tables 3-6 and 3-7 display the percent increase in sediment yield above current and undisturbed baselines for the same subwatersheds. Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek Subwatershed Table 3-4 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek (8,813 acres). Vegetation and road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this watershed. Table 3-5 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and undisturbed baseline.

Table 3-4. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek Subwatershed Committed Predicted Alternative Alternative Alternative Activities on Activities Activity A B C Forest Service on Private Thinning (ac) 0 225 225 225 200 Regeneration 0 56 56 56 100 (ac) Midstory work 0 0 0 0 (ac) Prescribe burn 0 200 200 200 0 (ac) Pre-haul 0 2 2 2 1 maintenance (miles) Total Acres 0 481 481 481 0 Total Miles 0 2 2 2 0

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 34 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 3-5. Corney Bayou-Ledbetter Creek Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield Increase above Increase above Undisturbed Current Baseline Pre-European Baseline Alternative A 103 407 Alternative B & C 119 446

No alternative (A, B, or C) would exceed the threshold of 1,650 percent (Pre-European). 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 16 percent increase (29 tons/year) 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 three to five years. Corney Bayou is the only known stream impairment in this watershed. There would be no significant cumulative effect to water quality because the effects would occur over an extended time period and the threshold would not be exceeded.

Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek Subwatershed Table 3-6 displays the acres of proposed, committed, and predicted activities in the Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek subwatershed (6,566 acres). Vegetation and road-related activities are predicted to occur on private lands in this watershed. Table 3-7 displays the differences between the alternatives for the subwatershed by percent above current and undisturbed baseline.

Table 3-6. Proposed, committed and predicted future activities within Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek Subwatershed Committed Activities on Predicated Alternative Alternative Alternative Forest Activities Activity A B C Service on Private Thinning (ac) 0 200 200 200 275 Regeneration (ac) 0 0 0 0 100 Midstory work (ac) 0 0 0 0 0 Prescribe burn (ac) 0 200 200 200 0 Pre-haul 0 2 2 2 1 maintenance (miles) Total Acres 0 400 400 400 0 Total Miles 0 2 2 2 0

Table 3-7. Lower Corney Lake-Barber Creek Subwatershed Estimated Percent Increase in Sediment Yield Increase above Current Increase above Undisturbed Baseline Pre-European Baseline Alternative A 124 639 Alternative B & C 133 666

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 35 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Alternatives B and C would result in a 9 percent increase (14 tons/year) 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 three to five years. Corney Bayou is the only known stream impairment in 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.

3.4 AIR QUALITY 3.4.1 Affected Environment The state of Louisiana is currently designated as in 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NAAQS are defined in the Clean Air Act as amounts of pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health or welfare may result (Sandberg et al., 2002).

Air quality within the Horseshoe Loop project area (and the 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 the summer and fall may cause natural and human-caused pollutants to build up (VM-FEIS, Volume I, III-15).

Review of the most recent (2014) forest plan monitoring and evaluation report indicates all areas of the Forest are in attainment of the NAAQS, including those for ozone. Forest plan standards and guidelines were implemented and smoke management was rated as “full compliance” for all burns reviewed. The Forest follows the Louisiana Voluntary Smoke Management (LVSM) guidelines and coordinates with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ).

The effects for the alternatives assume the application of all design features and mitigation measures from the 2013 Caney District-wide Prescribed Fire Environmental Analysis. Key timing assumptions include: • Site preparation-related burning would occur approximately one year following mechanical treatment. • Site preparation actions are likely to be finalized within five years. • Site preparation prescribed burning of a stand is typically conducted in a one-day time frame. • Follow-up prescribed burning for brownspot is typically incorporated into the compartment wide burn that is conducted on a two to five year rotation, but it may be implemented on an individual stand, if needed.

3.4.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, air quality would be subject to the influences and processes already taking place. Changes in air quality would occur in response to storms, fire, and natural processes. There would be no additional input to criteria pollutants because proposed project actions would not occur under this alternative. However, the No Action alternative would

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 36 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment continue to put air quality at risk due to the potential impacts of catastrophic wildfire. Without timber harvest and prescribed fire activities, the buildup of hazardous fuels would increase over time and could result in intense wildfires. Severe burns can result in adverse impacts on the regional air quality.

Impacts on air quality from intense wildfire would be similar to those described under the Proposed Action for prescribed burning, but greater impacts could be expected as large quantities of smoke carrying pollutants, primarily in the form of particulate matter, would be released to the atmosphere. Indirect adverse effects from these emissions would include impaired visibility along roadways, reductions in recreational values at scenic vistas, and potential health effects to residents and visitors.

The increased risk of intense wildland fire from existing heavy fuel loads, which could result under the No Action alternative, could eventually lead to large acreages burned, large amounts of smoke production, and greater impacts on air quality. This type of wildfire would have direct, short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on regional air quality.

3.4.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Timber Harvest and Road Maintenance The Proposed Action requires the use of heavy equipment to cut and remove timber and for road maintenance activities. Such equipment would introduce combustion by-products from the engines and particulate matter, including dust generation, during operation. These effects to air quality would be brief and use of this equipment would be localized to the targeted project areas; however, the particle and dust emissions could travel district-wide and beyond. Mitigation would include assurance that mechanized equipment is in good operating condition so that exhaust emissions are kept to a minimum.

Site Preparation Prescribed Burning Smoke and the chemicals produced by prescribed burning have a variety of effects on air quality. The primary products of combustion of organic materials include carbon dioxide, water vapor, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and trace minerals. About 90 percent of smoke particles from prescribed fires are PM10 and PM2.5.

The Clean Air Act mandates that federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect air quality related values including visibility, plants, animals, soils, water quality, cultural resources, and public health from adverse pollution impacts. During prescribed burning, high concentrations of carbon monoxide, other gases, and particulate matter can be released affecting air quality. Air quality standards for allowable emissions are based on health effects to humans. These standards are intended to protect sensitive members of the population with adequate safety margins. Effects to humans from smoke are usually limited to firefighters working on a prescribed fire. The Forest would manage smoke in compliance with federal, state, and local requirements so as to minimize its effects on visitors, firefighters, adjoining lands and neighbors, natural and cultural resources, and roads. The greatest threat to air quality would be smoke impacts on sensitive receptors (e.g. residences, visitors).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 37 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment In addition to health effects, wildfire smoke could affect visibility. Fire management activities in the Forest which result in the discharge of air pollutants are subject to, and must comply with, all applicable federal, state, interstate, and local air pollution control requirements. Smoke mitigation measures for prescribed fires would be employed to minimize impacts to visibility and air quality within the Forest and surrounding areas.

Smoke events associated with prescribed burns could be short-lived, on the order of a few hours to a few days for any given burn. Ignition design and timing can minimize smoke production and avoid periods where inversions are likely so that burning would not generate much smoke. The Forest would coordinate with the appropriate state officials to ensure all applicable smoke management practices are implemented and to alert adjoining land owners that a prescribed burn would be occurring. Air quality would be expected to return to very good to excellent quality after prescribed fires are extinguished, especially since the majority of burning would have been completed during the first few hours. The amount of time for regional air quality to return to pre- disturbance condition depends on the prevailing winds and the movement of air masses.

Prescribed burning conducted under proper management can prevent severe impacts to air quality by reducing the acres that could burn intensely in future wildfires.

Each site prep prescribed burn plan would include smoke trajectory maps, smoke dispersal factors, and identification of smoke-sensitive areas. Fire weather forecasts would be used to correlate ignitions with periods of optimal combustion and smoke dispersal. Burning would only occur when conditions are predicted for adequate smoke dispersal away from smoke sensitive areas or when mitigation for smoke sensitive targets has taken place. Monitoring of smoke effects has demonstrated that prescribed burn planning is effective in managing local effects from smoke (USFS, 1999b). Mitigation measures would be defined in the plan and arrangements made prior to ignition to ensure that designated resources are available if needed to implement the mitigation measures. Prescribed fire would not be implemented when atmospheric conditions exist that could permit degradation of air quality to a degree that negatively affects public health. Federal and state air quality standards will be the basis for this decision.

Direct adverse impacts to air quality from site prep prescribed fire under this alternative would include release of particulates and smoke into the airshed and the potential for a slight (not measurable) increase in fugitive dust from fire management activities. Smoke particulates could remain suspended in the atmosphere for a few days to several months. Very small particulates can travel great distances and add to regional haze conditions. Inversions could occur and smoke from fires may linger in the valleys for a period of time. There could be an intermittent and short-term exceedance of air quality standards (especially particulates) resulting in small short- term, localized impacts to air quality. On a regional basis, effects to air quality would generally be small, short-term, and adverse as quantities of pollutants, primarily particulates, are released to the atmosphere and travel beyond project area boundaries. Indirect adverse effects from these air emissions would include reduced visibility along roadways, reductions in recreation values due to visibility limitations, smoke and odors, and possible health effects to sensitive receptors, such as residents and visitors.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 38 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Herbicide Use Under this alternative, approximately 10 acres of NNIP, 1,300 acres of Corney Lake, and up to 297 acres of site preparation acres for regeneration would be treated with herbicide application. Potential impacts of herbicide application on air quality could occur from spray drift (movement of herbicide in the air to unintended locations) and volatilization (the evaporation of liquid to gas) of applied herbicides. This could occur temporarily as herbicide particles drift in the air, and can then be inhaled and deposited on skin or plant surfaces and affect humans, wildlife, and non- target plants. Herbicide particles can be transported away from the target location, depending on weather conditions and the herbicide application method. Atmospheric concentrations of herbicides resulting from spray drift would be temporary (most predominant at the time and location of treatment) and would not be expected to substantially impact air quality. Chemical volatilization is temporary in nature, and none of the herbicides proposed for use are likely to result in substantial volatilization from soils. Application of herbicides would not be expected to impact air quality through volatilization. Mitigation of herbicide drift would be implemented via the conditions under which they are applied, such as wind speed and direction; thus impacts should be minimal.

The Proposed Action would have direct, short-term, minor, adverse impacts locally from timber harvest, road maintenance, herbicide application, and prescribed burn activities. On a larger scale, effects to air quality would generally be minor, short-term, and adverse as emission and smoke pollutants are released to the atmosphere and travel beyond project area boundaries. Following mitigation measures and BMPs would reduce the effects of adverse impacts on air quality from heavy equipment and smoke emissions so that overall effects are expected to be minimal. Additionally, timber harvest and prescribed burning conducted under proper management can prevent severe impacts to air quality by reducing the acres that could burn intensely in future wildfires.

3.4.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The direct and indirect effects from using herbicide in Corney Lake in Alternative B would pose a minimum overall risk to air quality in the project area. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative, thus there would only be the potential for spray drift and volatilization of herbicides from application on 307 acres under Alternative C (compared to application on 1,607 acres in Alternative B).

3.4.5 Cumulative Effects A wide range of activities in the project area, such as vehicular traffic, use of recreational boats and vehicles, use of heavy equipment during construction and logging, and smoke from prescribed fires and wildfires produce various amounts of air pollutants and have periodic adverse impacts on air quality. Cumulative effects of smoke from other sources, such as fireplace or campfire emissions, could have adverse impacts during inversions. Emissions generated by the Proposed Action would be de minimis during project activities and very small as compared to cumulative past, present, and foreseeable future effects. Prescribed burns would be limited, so they would not interfere with a region’s timely attainment of the NAAQS. Burning of acres across the District would be spread over time and space to minimize local cumulative smoke

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 39 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment effects. Regional and global effects to air quality would be small due to the relatively small scale of these actions. The Proposed Action would contribute negligible adverse cumulative air quality impacts. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires. If these external sources of air pollution were combined with a major wildfire in the KNF, the impacts on air quality, although short-term, could be moderate in the region.

3.5 VEGETATION (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) 3.5.1 Affected Environment 3.5.1.1 General Vegetation The project area currently consists of five different Existing Vegetation Code classifications which describe the existing conditions in each stand. There are 504 acres coded as loblolly pine- hardwood stands, 1,901 acres coded as loblolly pine, 275 coded as sweetgum-oak, 72 acres coded as white oak-hickory, and 48 acres coded as southern red oak-yellow pine. For reference purposes, loblolly pine is considered an off-site species on the Caney Ranger District with restoration of shortleaf pine-oak/hickory ecosystem as the main objective for both SMA’s in the project area. The KNF is divided into four major landscape community types which represent the historical landscapes of the Forest: longleaf pine forests, shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forests, mixed hardwood/loblolly pine forests, and riparian forests. Detailed descriptions of each community type are provided in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan FEIS, pages 3-19 through 3-21 (USFS, 1999b). Over time, these landscapes have been altered by management actions. The most significant change has been the reduction of old-growth, uneven- aged forests, which have been harvested and replanted to create younger, even-aged forests. In an attempt to monitor the health of these landscapes, Management Indicator Species (MIS) have been selected for each landscape type. These species were chosen to represent specific niches within each of these communities. The concept is to use these species to indicate the effects of management actions on each of the communities. Summary descriptions of the landscape community types and the plant species MIS for each is as follows:

Longleaf Pine Forest Longleaf pine forests occur in hilly upland areas, and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) is the dominant overstory species found in these areas. These forests are dominated by pine communities with a canopy at or approaching maturity, with less than 30 percent hardwoods. The midstory is sparse, and the herbaceous ground cover is diverse and thick with grasses, composites, legumes, and other forbs. Snags and downed logs are common throughout the area. Prescribed fire is used frequently and is the principle influence in creating and maintaining open, park-like forest conditions. MIS plants are: • Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) • Noseburn (Tragia urticifolia) • Pinehill Bluestem (Andropogon scoparium var. divergens) • Pale Purple Coneflower (Echinacea pallida)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 40 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Shortleaf Pine/Oak-Hickory Forests Shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forests occur in uplands along slopes and ridges. These areas can be described as mixed pine-hardwood communities with multi-layered, mature canopies having relatively open areas, with considerable amounts of hardwoods (30 – 50 percent). Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) is historically the dominant species, but currently loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) appears to be more prevalent. The midstory is diverse and multi-layered and can be thick in some areas. The herbaceous ground cover ranges from sparse to dense, with snags, downed logs, and den trees. Regular intervals of prescribed burning are utilized to control plant community composition and to maintain an open midstory. MIS plants are: • Black Hickory (Carya texana) • Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) • Mockernut Hickory (Carya tomentosa) • Partridge Pea (Cassia fasciculata) • Shortleaf Pine (Pinus echinata) • White Oak (Quercus alba) • Wild Bergamot (Monarda fistulosa) Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly Pine Forests Mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forests are generally moist, rich woods dominated by mixed hardwood-pine and hardwood communities. The multi-layered forest canopy is at or approaching maturity and is relatively closed. Loblolly pine comprises 20 percent or more of the overstory, but large amounts of hardwoods (greater than 50 percent) are also found in the canopy. The midstory is multi-layered and diverse, with a variety of trees, shrubs, vines, and overstory saplings. The understory has sparse patches of herbaceous vegetation, and the ground is covered with leaf litter. Snags, downed logs, and den trees are common throughout the area. MIS plants are: • Bigleaf Snowbell (Styrax grandifolia) • Black Snake-root (Actaea racemosa) • Christmas Fern (Polystichium acrostichoides) • Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) • Partridge Berry (Mitchella repens) • Southern Red Oak (Quercus falcata var. falcata) • Virginia Dutchman’s Pipe (Aristolochia serpentaria) Riparian Forests Riparian forests are narrow, wetland forests occurring along small rivers or streams that are usually dominated by hardwood and hardwood-pine communities. The composition and structure of these areas is determined by the frequency and duration of flooding. The mature canopies consist of a diverse variety of oaks, hickories, and some pines may be present in the small-stream communities. The midstory is multi-layered with a diverse population of small trees and shrubs. The herbaceous understory is sparse but may contain a variety of ferns, mosses, sedges, vines, and flowering plants. Snags, downed logs, and den trees are common throughout the area. MIS plants are:

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 41 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Small-Stream Riparian Plants • American Beech (Fagus grandifolia) • Basswood (Tilia americana) • Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda) • Inland Sea-oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) • Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) • Mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum) • Wild Azalea (Rhododendron canescens) Large-Stream Riparian Plants • Green Hawthorn (Crataegus viridus) • Inland Sea-oats (Chasmanthium latifolium) • Lizard’s Tail (Saururus cernuus) • Louisiana Sedge (Carex louisianica) • Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) • Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii) The longleaf pine forest has been greatly reduced through harvesting and replanting of loblolly and slash pines. 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 one to four years (USFS, 2000a). With the suppression of fires, other pine species, hardwoods, and shrubs began to invade the understory and midstory, thereby reducing the species diversity historically found within the longleaf pine forest.

The shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forest supported a less frequent fire regime. This contributed to the creation of these 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.

Within the mixed hardwood/loblolly pine forest, the hardwood component has been removed or reduced through timber harvesting. This has allowed the loblolly pine forest type to dominate the overstory.

Alterations to the riparian forest have been minimal. These forests generally have retained their historical structure and composition. There is evidence that a portion of the loblolly pine component has been removed from this community.

Embedded within the four landscape types are numerous small-scale, unique community types. A number of rare plant habitats are present. Within the upland longleaf forests are hillside bogs and baygalls. Xeric longleaf habitat supports sandy woodland communities. Zones surrounding streams near the prairies can often be classified as calcareous or riparian forest. In addition there are numerous sites with disturbed vegetation along roadsides and right-of-ways.

3.5.1.2 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Conservation Botanical Species 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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 42 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Region sensitive species; and Forest conservation and management indicator species lists. The botany report (Appendix C; Moore, 2015) is incorporated by reference. Refer to the botany report (Appendix C) for more detailed information.

3.5.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Botanical Species The project area has been surveyed for threatened or endangered plant species. No 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 very narrow habitat specificity. Across its range, it is found in saline prairies and sandstone glades. 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 Caney Ranger District. Therefore, earth fruit was eliminated from further analysis.

3.5.1.4 Forest Service Sensitive and Conservation Botanical Species There are 83 Sensitive and Conservation plant species on the Kisatchie National Forest (see Botany Report in Appendix C for the complete list). Eighty of these species were excluded from further analysis as determined by their habitat requirements. Plants without the proper habitat in the project area were not considered further (see Botany Report for rationale). Additionally, plants outside of their known range were not considered further. Table 3-8 lists the three sensitive and conservation plant species that were retained for further analysis.

Table 3-8. Sensitive and Conservation Plants Retained for Further Consideration

Scientific Name Common Name Status* Habitat Monotropa hypopithys L. American pinesap C Shortleaf pine-oak-hickory forest, mixed hardwood-loblolly forest Orobanche uniflora L. Broomrape C Western upland longleaf pine forest Prenanthes barbata Barbed S Bottomland forest, Small stream (Torr. & A. Gray) rattlesnakeroot forest, Hardwood slope forest, Milstead Mixed hardwood-loblolly pine forest *C = Conservation species; S = Sensitive species

Regional Forester Sensitive Species The Kisatchie National Forest lists 24 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) plants as occurring, or likely to occur, on the Forest (see Botany Report in Appendix C). RFSS plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. One RFSS plant was retained for further discussion: barbed rattlesnake root (Prenanthes barbata). This species is described in detail in Appendix C.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 43 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Conservation Plants Conservation plants are identified in the Forest Plan (USFS, 1999a). 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, thus periodic revisions to the list are necessary. An individual species’ status, distribution, and subsequent designation are based upon occurrence records, information and knowledge of the Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 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. It is important to note that the Forest Plan prohibits most activities that would disturb land within 50 feet of a stream (this zone is known as a streamside habitat protection zone), 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 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.

Conservation plants that do not occur in the habitat types within the proposed project area were eliminated from further analysis. Two Conservation plants were retained for further discussion: American pinesap (Monotropa hypopitys) and broomrape (Orobanche uniflora). These species are described in detail in Appendix C.

3.5.1.5 Non-Native Invasive Plants Presidential Executive Order 13112, issued February 3, 1999 and amended by the National Invasive Species Management Plan of 2001, states: “A species is considered invasive if it meets two criteria: 1) it is nonnative to the ecosystem under consideration, and 2) its introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, and plant health.” The latter phrase contains recent modifications recommended to the National Invasive Species Council (USFS, 2008).

The Southern Region of the USDA Forest Service lists 384 plants as invasive exotic species of management concern (USFS, 2008). The KNF maintains its own list of non-native invasive plants. There are 38 species on the KNF non-native invasive plant list (see Botany Report in Appendix C). Table 3-9 lists the eight NNIP of concern occurring or possibly occurring in the project area. These NNIP are described in detail in Appendix C.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 44 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 3-9. NNIP Possibly Occurring Within the Project Area Scientific name Common name Habit Albizia julibrissin Silktree tree Lespedeza cuneata Sericea lespedeza forb Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet shrub Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle vine Melia azederach Chinaberry tree Pueraria montana var. lobata Kudzu vine Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass grass Triadica sebifera Chinese tallow tree

Additionally, American lotus (Nelumbo lutea) occurs on 1,300 acres of Corney Lake. American lotus is a perennial emergent aquatic plant whose roots are anchored in the mud, but whose leaves and flowers emerge above the water's surface. Although it is actually native to North America, large colonies of American lotus can be invasive, and they restrict small boat navigation and fishing and provide habitat for mosquitoes.

3.5.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, none of the proposed management activities included in the Proposed Action would be implemented. Vegetative structure and composition would not be altered within the proposed project area. These stands would continue to mature at the current rate.

Plant species richness in healthy shortleaf pine/oak hickory forests is similar to upland longleaf pine forest/savanna. Critical to this species richness is an open canopy, and closure of forest canopies could shade out the herbaceous species on the forest floor, thereby decreasing species richness within these stands. 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 would have to occur naturally or not at all.

The stands proposed for intermediate thinning currently have a high-risk rating for SPB infestation. Because stand densities greater than the optimum desired conditions stress pines and impede radial growth, pine stands become more susceptible to bark beetle infestation. Loblolly and shortleaf pine forest type stands classified with high hazard ratings for SPB infestation are those with a site index equal to or greater than 70 and with a total pine BA greater than 90 ft2/ac (stand condition greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to 12). Under the No Action alternative, this rating would continue to increase, and the stands would become more susceptible to SPB infestation.

Many of the stands are at a high risk for catastrophic wildfires. The No Action alternative would not take steps to reduce these fuel loads; however, prescribed burning proposed in other documents would occur as planned. If fires were to ignite in these stands, the entire stand could be significantly damaged, as well as surrounding structures.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 45 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment With the retention of overstocked stands, the closed canopy would not allow sunlight to reach the forest floor in order for many of the MIS to become established. The vegetation within the off- site pine landscapes would not be significantly altered. However, through monitoring, the Forest Service would be able to document the effects of the No Action alternative on each species in greater detail.

There would be no direct effects from management actions to RFSS and conservation plants. This alternative could reduce the amount of potential habitat for sensitive and conservation species to become established, especially those found in open, park-like forests of longleaf pine. Stressors would 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 RFSS and conservation plants. Effects of the No Action alternative on each of these species are evaluated and presented in detail in the Botany Report (Appendix C).

There would be no direct effects to NNIP from management actions associated with the proposed project because none would occur; neither would mitigation measures, treatments and surveys that may have been part of the project. 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. Effects of the No Action alternative on each of the NNIP in the project area are evaluated and presented in detail in the Botany Report (Appendix C). Additionally, American lotus in Corney Lake would continue to proliferate.

Under existing NEPA documentation, the District has been approved for prescribed burns during fiscal years (FY) 2013-17. These stands would receive some benefits from the prescribed burning. Some of the heavy fuel loads within the stands would be reduced, decreasing the potential of a catastrophic wildfire. The fires would possibly open the forest canopy and promote the growth of a variety of herbaceous species, possibly providing suitable habitat for conservation and sensitive species and promote the growth of the MIS designated for this forest type. However, without further prescribed burning on a regular rotation, these areas would return to an unsuitable condition, and habitat for conservation and sensitive species and/or MIS would deteriorate. Therefore, in comparison with the proposed action, the No Action alternative provides fewer benefits to conservation, sensitive, and MIS species.

Overall, the effects of the No Action would be long-term, adverse, minor to moderate and would affect local and district-wide vegetation due to the threat of catastrophic wildfire to the existing plant communities, reduced stand health, decreased species richness, increased expansion of NNIP, and increased susceptibility to SPB outbreaks.

3.5.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action

3.5.3.1 General Vegetation Timber Harvest First thinnings are proposed for approximately 118 acres of overstocked loblolly pine plantations. Stands within the project area are densely stocked with total basal areas far exceeding 100 ft2/acre and do not mimic the native community types of pre-European settlement.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 46 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Because stand densities greater than the optimum desired conditions stress pines and impede radial growth, pine stands become more susceptible to SPB infestation. The proposed thinnings are needed to increase growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual trees in the stands. Thinning treatments would open the forest canopy, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor and promote growth of desirable herbaceous species, which would also increase species diversity within the stand. This would also enhance recreational access and visibility in these stands, reduce wildfire fuels, and improve wildlife habitat. Species associated with the desired forest type would be favored during thinning treatments, promoting community restoration. Risk of SPB infestation would be reduced, and the overall health of the forest would be improved. Additionally, the risk of intense wildfires would be reduced. Adverse effects on native vegetation from thinning treatments throughout the project areas are expected to be minimal with the implementation of mitigation and BMPs.

Intermediate thinnings are proposed for approximately 1,918 acres of shortleaf and loblolly pine stands age 48-113 years. The stands have exceeded the desired stocking density for the SMAs and would benefit from an intermediate thinning at this time. The current combined pine/hardwood BA/acre ranges from a low of 86 BA/acre to a high of 165 BA/acre. The primary management emphasis in the project area is restoration of native shortleaf –oak/hickory habitat (SOH) communities in an intermediate time period while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources. However, this management treatment also benefits the biodiversity found in the shortleaf pine landscape, and would improve habitat for plant MIS and sensitive and conservation species. This alternative proposes thinning of the stands using commercial timber sales to 80 BA. These thinnings would open the forest canopy, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor and promote growth of desirable herbaceous species, which would increase species diversity within the stand. Residual trees would realize an increase in radial and vertical growth. Removing off-site species from mixed stands when thinning would prepare these stands for future restoration cuts by removing a potential seed source for undesirable species. The SHPZs within these stands would also be evaluated for the purpose of restoring the native communities.

Risk of insect and disease infestation would be reduced, and the overall health of the forest would be improved. Thinning followed by prescribed burning would reduce fuels loads, thereby reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Thinning of selected pine within the streamside zones would favor hardwood species in order to restore a hardwood-dominated riparian forest. Reduction of the pine overstory would allow desirable hardwoods to grow and mature. The equipment used in thinning of timber stands may damage any existing sensitive or conservation plant species within the area but is not expected to cause a decline in these species’ viability.

Clearcutting is proposed for a total of approximately 222 acres of loblolly pine forest type for regeneration back to native shortleaf pine. Artificial regeneration is the only option for successful restoration of native shortleaf pine. Artificial regeneration of shortleaf pine was historically difficult, but with the development of the containerized seedling method, planting success is typically better than 90%. Stands which are planted usually grow more trees to larger sizes in a shorter time than with other methods. Group selection harvests are proposed for a total of 542 acres to create openings on approximately 75 acres used for uneven age management to establish shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 47 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Much of the following information is summarized from the detailed method-specific effects disclosed in the VM FEIS of 1989, as amended. The more detailed description of effects in that document is incorporated here by reference. Site preparation generally accelerates succession by decreasing competition. Shortleaf pine does not compete well with other vegetation. Good site preparation and follow-up treatments are critical to successful regeneration of shortleaf pine. Eradication of undesirable woody species is initiated with chopping, a site-preparation method which reduces the woody debris to slash, where it can be safely burned to release nutrients and prepare the site for planting. Previous experience with restoring shortleaf pine on former loblolly pine sites has determined that use of herbicides with prescribed burning is the most effective site preparation method because the herbicide controls the hardwood brush more successfully than burning alone. The most common cause of shortleaf regeneration failure is competition from woody species. Clearcutting with no site preparation or burn only when converting loblolly pine stands to shortleaf stands will often fail. Controlling hardwoods and herbaceous weeds with fire or herbicides (or both) before and after planting enhances survival and growth of planted seedlings. By reducing competing plants, more water is also available to seedlings, which is particularly important on sandy sites where water percolates rapidly through the soil profile.

Although the mechanical clearing equipment is designed to have minimal effects on non-target vegetation communities, some crushing of non-target plants in the area would occur. Slash left on site would add organic material to the soil that would generally improve the water-holding capacity of the upper soils. This moisture would become available for the plants that remain. Areas disturbed by this action could promote the spread of invasive species unless BMPs are employed.

Road Maintenance The proposed road maintenance would require the removal of low growing herbaceous ground cover and some small sapling and shrub species that have become established within some existing roadbeds. Non-invasive or native grass species would be planted on bare soils after road maintenance is complete to help reduce erosion and sedimentation caused by the disturbance of soils during these activities. If any temporary drainage crossings are required, these structures would be removed after harvest and reseeded with native grass species.

Site Prep Prescribed Burning Fire affects plant species and communities by triggering the release of seeds; altering seedbeds; temporarily eliminating or reducing competition for moisture, nutrients, heat and light; stimulating vegetative reproduction of top-killed plants; stimulating the flowering and fruiting of many shrubs and herbs; and influencing community composition and successional stages through its frequency and/or intensity.

Fire can enhance the cycle of nutrients by releasing nutrients bound in dead plant material, making them available for new plant growth. While fire encourages new growth of many plant species, it can also alter plant community composition. Fire can be used to clear residual plants from a landscape and, when used in conjunction with other management tools, to negatively impact NNIP or other invasive species that dominate certain habitats to the extent that habitat quality is compromised.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 48 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Within the shortleaf pine/oak-hickory landscapes, the Proposed Action would create a somewhat open midstory with increased species diversity and age classes. The vegetation within the mixed hardwood/loblolly pine landscapes would not be substantially altered. Effects of prescribed burns on many of the MIS for this landscape are undocumented in past forest-wide monitoring or are unknown. However, through monitoring, the Forest Service would be able to document the effects for each species. The riparian landscape MIS would not be significantly impacted by the implementation of the Proposed Action since the areas that support the riparian MIS are typically too moist to carry a prescribed fire.

Herbicide Use Common site preparation with herbicides for the control of woody vegetation includes various formulations of chemicals. These chemicals act to inhibit enzymes or to regulate growth in woody plants. Some herbicides are absorbed through foliage and roots and are rapidly moved throughout the plant. They accumulate in growing tips of plants where they inhibit amino acid synthesis. Herbicides can enter the soil, but lateral and vertical movement is limited.

Herbicides affect plants by disrupting photosynthetic processes or interfering with the plant’s normal growth processes. In order to facilitate adherence to the leaf surfaces of plants, herbicides are often combined with a surfactant during the mixing process. It is a violation of Federal Law to use products in a manner inconsistent with their labeling (specimen labels should be consulted for general information, directions for use, precautionary statements, mixing and application instructions, etc.). Application of any of herbicides would be detrimental to any existing MIS, sensitive, or conservation plant species that may be growing in the targeted area; however, recolonization of herbaceous species after application is expected.

Chemical site preparation removes unwanted vegetation that would otherwise hamper reforestation efforts. In addition, most site preparation herbicides have some residual effect which would aid in the initial establishment of young pines, improving growth and decreasing mortality due to a reduction in competitive stress. Chemical site preparation is especially effective when followed by prescribed fire. Such an operation, which is also referred to as a brown and burn, serves to further eliminate hardwood competition and reduce debris, improving access. Burning should not occur until at least 30 days after application to allow the herbicide to move into the roots of targeted species.

Ground application would be necessary in order to apply herbicide more precisely than aerial application. This would ensure that the scattered hardwoods would remain for wildlife or aesthetic purposes. Additionally, drift of herbicide must be kept to an absolute minimum surrounding the stand being treated. There are two basic types of spray equipment that may be mounted on ground-based equipment. These are mist sprayers and boom sprayers. Mist sprayers are designed to apply concentrated herbicide in a fine mist that is atomized in a powerful stream of compressed air. This allows for better penetration into dense vegetation. This type of sprayer is well suited for treating stands with a well-developed understory from ground level. Boom sprayers consist of a boom, which holds a series of nozzles over the spray area. The nozzles dispense the chemical. Boom sprayers are useful for treating site preparation areas with low vegetation. Broadjet sprayers are an adaptation of the standard boom sprayer. They use a single large nozzle, or a cluster of small nozzles to replace the boom. Wick sprayers are another

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 49 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment adaptation of the standard boom-type spray rig. Herbicide is applied through wicks attached to the spray nozzles. The advantage of this type of apparatus is that vegetation can be selectively treated because the equipment operator can see exactly where the chemical is being applied. Ground application also allows a degree of selectivity of targeted vegetation that is not possible with aerial application.

If the vegetation to be controlled is scattered, cut-surface treatments may be used to eliminate competing trees or control resprouting of stumps during site preparation, pre-commercial thinning, and release. Three types of treatments may be used: 1)Tree injection, in which herbicide is placed directly within the wood of a tree by an injector, is most efficient on sites with sparsely distributed stems greater than 2 inches in diameter; 2) Frill or girdle treatments involve cutting through the bark with an axe or hatchet to expose the cambium. The cut surface is then completely wet with herbicide. Girdles are formed by completely encircling with a ring of cuts. Frilling generally results in a less complete ring of cuts; 3). Cut-stump treatments are applied to stumps of any size to reduce sprouting. A sprayer is used to thoroughly wet the cambial area (about the outer 1 inch) of the stump. Spray solutions are normally carried in backpack tanks, which hold between 1 and 5 gallons. All injection methods are target specific and are useful where selectivity is desired. These tools are most efficient where target plants are sparsely distributed and stems are larger than 2 inches in diameter.

There would be no chemical application within any SHPZs. Only Class A herbicide/method combinations as described in table II-1 of the Vegetation Management FEIS for the Coastal Plain (VMFEIS, Vol I, page II-42) would be used. Mitigation measures described in the Forest Plan, pages 2-53 through 2-57 would protect non-target species.

3.5.3.2 Sensitive and Conservation Species The implementation of the Proposed Action would be beneficial to sensitive and conservation plants. Thinning activities would open the canopy, promoting growth. Some vegetation would be removed from the existing roadbeds. This vegetation would consist of herbaceous ground cover, low growing shrubs, small saplings, and occasionally some merchantable timber. The larger trees would be removed when the existing road is widened to protect residual trees along the road. There could also be adverse effects as thinning activities and herbicide use for site prep and invasive plant treatment could damage or destroy plants, if present. Effects of the Proposed Action are described in detail for each sensitive and conservation species in Appendix C.

3.5.3.3 Non-Native Invasive Plants 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 the 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 and creating bare ground that can be more easily invaded than in undisturbed areas.

Severe disturbance removes competitive vegetation, alters nutrient composition, and creates bare soil, which creates potential sites for the establishment or spread of NNIP. Management activities that would create localized severe disturbance include burned areas from slash piles,

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 50 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment creation of log decks, bare soil created through road reconstruction, temporary road construction and use by machinery during mechanical thinning. Other management activities associated with the project, such as hand thinning, would be sources of disturbance, but the level of disturbance would not be as severe.

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 NNIP infestations already exist. These effects are reduced to a non-significant level by incorporating the mitigations, BMPs, and NNIP treatments for the project.

Direct and indirect effects of temporary road construction, road reconstruction, and maintenance include ground disturbance and increased risks of dispersal of existing weed species and populations and introduction of new species. These can be mitigated by following mitigation measures and design features.

Herbicide treatments, however, should be effective in controlling the spread of NNIP. Effects of the Proposed Action are described in detail for each NNIP in Appendix C. Additionally, herbicide treatment of American lotus on Corney Lake would control the infestation and reduce its spread.

Overall, the effects of the Proposed Action would be direct and indirect, short-term, adverse, and minor to moderate on local vegetation, including RFSS and conservation species, from removal and damage during proposed activities. However, over the long-term, impacts would be beneficial and minor to moderate affecting district-wide vegetation due to the high fuel loads that would be eliminated, the reduced threat of intense wildfire to the existing plant communities, and the reduced risk of disease and insect outbreaks. Additionally, there would be direct, short- and long-term, adverse, minor to moderate affects from the creation of disturbed habitat that could be invaded by NNIP; however, herbicide treatments could control NNIP and reduce the spread. Proposed activities would promote the desired conditions within these stands and promote the overall long-term management goals. Long-term trends in vegetation conditions would be shifted towards the historical native species complex that is adapted to frequent low-intensity fires. This change would have an important beneficial effect.

3.5.4 Impact of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish. Minor, direct, long term adverse effects on aquatic vegetation on Corney Lake would occur from continued growth and proliferation of non-native aquatic vegetation.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 51 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.5.5 Cumulative Effects Vegetation in the project area has been, and continues to be, cleared and/or disturbed for such purposes as construction of roads, infrastructure development, dispersed recreation, forestry and logging, prescribed fire and wildfire, habitat management, and invasive species management. These activities involve removal, trampling, or destruction of vegetation; disturbance of ground cover; and introduction of invasive species. Many of these actions also contribute to soil compaction and erosion, potentially making it more difficult for native plant species to re-inhabit an area after disturbance. Additionally, pressure from human presence and recreation includes trampling of vegetation due to pedestrian traffic and concentrated areas of foot traffic which removes vegetation and fragments habitat and vegetative populations. Past management activities and disturbances, such as homesteading, 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, have contributed to the establishment and distribution of NNIP in the project area.

Beneficial effects of past, present, and future actions include improved habitats and vegetation community structure and function due to habitat management, such as thinnings , SPB control, and restoration of ecological function with the management of invasive species. 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. Treating infestations with herbicides has reduced infestations in some areas and reduced the risk of noxious weeds spreading into new areas.

The distribution of vegetation on the landscape naturally changes over time with gradual processes like erosion or climate change. Global climate change, drought, fire, plant diseases, and spread of exotic plants shape landscape-scale vegetation patterns. 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. Rare and sensitive species may be especially vulnerable because they often need specific habitat components that are not widely available. This could negatively affect their abilities to migrate to suitable areas as environmental conditions change.

Adverse vegetation impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be negligible as compared to cumulative past, present, and foreseeable future effects, but beneficial effects would be minor to moderate. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would be expected to be short in duration and adverse, as well as long-term and beneficial. While the impact of the Proposed Action would move the targeted areas toward the desired condition, the incremental effect of this change in the regional context would be considered a small positive impact. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires and increased susceptibility to SPB infestation.

3.6 WILDLIFE (INCLUDING SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES) 3.6.1 Affected Environment This section includes key effects and conclusions for terrestrial and aquatic threatened, endangered, sensitive, and proposed fauna species listed under the Endangered Species Act of

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 52 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 1973, as amended, Forest Service Southern Region Sensitive Species, forest management indicator species, and migratory birds. The Biological Evaluation for the Horseshoe Loop Project, Corney Lake Unit, Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest (BE) (Appendix D) is incorporated by reference.

3.6.1.1 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species Proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (PETS) are federally listed in accordance with and provided protections by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Sensitive and Conservation Species are U.S. Forest Service designations. Sensitive species are designated by the Regional Office of the Forest Service and include species that are vulnerable or impaired. The regional sensitive species list is derived from a variety of state and global lists, as well as other factors and information on individual species. Each national forest identified those species on the regional list that are known or expected to occur on the forest. Conservation species are designated at the Forest level, and for the KNF, are specified in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest (USFS, 1999b). Conservation species are not considered impaired or vulnerable globally, but are species of local concern that are expected to occur on the Forest.

A complete list of all sensitive and conservation species are shown in Table 3-13 in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, page 3- 37 (USFS, 1999b) and in the BE in Appendix D. Sensitive and Conservation species receive no federal protection; however, all but one of the avian species listed as sensitive, conservation to include the management indicator species, listed in Tables 5-2, pages 5-15 through 5-19 in the Forest Plan, are listed as migratory birds in 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 10.13. In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. Conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

Species listed in Table 3-10 are of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature, and KNF records are addressed in this EA. All other species in Appendix A of the BE were considered but excluded from analysis due to the species not occurring within the range of the project area or appropriate and/or potentially appropriate habitat for the species is not present within the project area.

In 1986, the USFWS declared the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) extirpated on and around the Caney Ranger District (Forest Plan, page I-7). The federally endangered RCW is not known to exist on the Caney Ranger District due to unsuitable habitat. There are no active RCW clusters on the Caney Ranger District. The preferred habitat for the RCW is mature pine saw timber. The project area consists of loblolly pine and mixed hardwoods with a thick midstory, which is unsuitable for the RCW. The nearest RCW active cluster is located on the D’Arbonne National Wildlife Refuge about 48 miles away.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 53 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 3-10. PETS Species Addressed in Detail for the Horseshoe Loop Project Area Status State Caney Ranger Scientific Common USFWS USFS Status/Rank District Name Name Status* Status* (LNHP)** Habitat Occurrence Aimophila Bachman’s S S3 Open pine Common aestivalis Sparrow woods, old permanent brushy fields, resident cutover areas Alligator American TSA TSA Usually near Uncommon mississippiensis Alligator water, ponds, permanent swamps and resident rivers Corynorhinus Rafinesque’s S S4 Limestone caves Occasionally rafinesquii Big-Eared and forested encountered in Bat areas specific situations Myotis Southeastern S S4 Varied; cities to Occasionally austroriparius Myotis wilderness encountered in specific situations Myotis Northern T T S1 Mature Forests Within septentrionalis Long-eared “buffered” Bat range of species Notropis hubbsi Bluehead S S2 Quiet backwaters No records; Shiner of small to suitable habitat medium sluggish streams and oxbow lakes Plethodon Louisiana S S1S2 Hardwood Uncommon kisatchie Slimy forests permanent Salamander resident Urusus Louisiana R T T/S3 Forest and Very rare americanus Black Bear swamps sightings of lutrolus stray individuals

*FEDERAL and STATE STATUS: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate species, S = Sensitive **STATE RANK: S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = rare, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = demonstrably secure, SA = accidental in Louisiana, SH = of historical occurrence in Louisiana, SR = reported from Louisiana, SU = possibly in peril in Louisiana, SX = believed to be extirpated from Louisiana, SZ = transient species in which no specific consistent area of occurrence is identifiable (B or N may be used as qualifier of numeric ranks and indicating whether the occurrence is breeding or non-breeding) Source: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program; 2015.

The NLEB is the only known federally listed species within the project area, but there are no known occurrences on or near the district. Moderate habitat, at best, for the Louisiana black bear exist within the project area, but not within the proposed treatment areas. There have been no confirmed sightings of the Louisiana black bear in or near the project area.

Habitat for nearly all of the sensitive species occurs within some part of the project area. However, the Bachman’s sparrow is the only species that has habitat where vegetation treatments would occur. Other sensitive species, including the bluehead shiner, have habitat adjacent to treatment areas and, although unlikely, could potentially be affected by sedimentation.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 54 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment An analysis of PETS species was provided in the fauna BE. The BE was prepared in accordance to FW-009, page 2-8 of the Forest Plan (USFS, 1999a) to document likely effects of the proposed forest management activities on the viability of PETS species (see Appendix D).

3.6.1.2 Conservation Species Conservation species were not included in the fauna BE; therefore, as required by Forest Service NEPA guidelines, the following brief descriptions of each of these species are provided as a baseline for the analysis. All descriptions are based on NatureServe (2016). A list of the conservation species not analyzed as being a PETS species on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District is presented in Table 3-11.

Table 3-11. Conservation Species Possibly Located in the Project Area State Global Scientific Name Common Name Status* Status Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk S2BS3N G5 Chaetodipus hispidus Hispid Pocket Mouse S2 G5 Diplectrona rossi Caddisfly S1 G1 Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat S2 G5 Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler S3B G5 Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel S3 G5 Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch S2 G5 Plethodon serratus Southern Red-backed S1 G5 Salamander Polyodon spathula Paddlefish S4 G4 Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush S3S4B G5 Sitta carolinensis White-breasted Nuthatch S2 G5 Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot Mussel S2 G5 Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo S1B G5 *S1=Critically imperiled in Louisiana because of extreme rarity; S2= Imperiled in Louisiana because of rarity; S3= Rare and uncommon in Louisiana; S4= Apparently secure in Louisiana; G1=Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity; G2=Imperiled globally because of rarity; G3=very rare and local throughout its range or found locally; G4 Apparently secure globally; G5=Demonstrably secure globally; N and B are used as a qualifier of numeric ranks and indicating whether the occurrence is breeding or non-breeding.

Caddisfly Caddisfly distributions are separated by trophic category as related to stream resource availability. Shredders predominated in upstream habitats in relation to grazers and collectors. Groups have also been separated ecologically into lotic-erosional (running water riffles), lotic- depositional (running water pools and margins), lentic-limnetic (standing water), lentic-littoral (standing water, shallow shore areas), lentic-profundal (standing water, basin), and beach zone. Regardless of habitat, caddisfly adults tend to remain somewhat near the emergence site.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 55 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Big Brown Bat Habitats include conifer, hardwood, and mixed forests. Summer roosts generally are in buildings, bridges, hollow trees, spaces behind exfoliating bark, rock crevices, tunnels, or cliff swallow nests, in sites that do not get too hot. Maternity colonies may form in attics, barns, rock crevices, or tree cavities. Most adult females return to the same maternity roost site in successive years. Caves, mines, and especially buildings and human-made structures are used for hibernation.

Bigscale Logperch Habitat for this fish includes gravel and sand runs and pools of small to medium rivers. It prefers gravel raceway conditions of moderate to swift current, avoiding rubble riffles. Also found in rivers with low flow and can be abundant in impounded waters.

Cooper’s Hawk Cooper’s hawks often utilize pine plantations for nesting and may achieve their highest nesting density in such habitat. The nest sites are usually found in large tracts of relatively mature forests, either deep within a dense stand or near an opening. The Cooper’s hawk utilizes the thick cover of a dense forest for nesting and hunting, but large openings may also be used to locate prey when foraging.

Hispid Pocket Mouse Pocket mice are found in grassy fields, usually covered with a moderate stand of herbaceous vegetation, i.e., broomsedge (Androgen spp.). Sleeping and birthing occur in underground burrows dug into sandy or loamy soils.

Long-tailed Weasel The long-tailed weasel is extremely local in its distribution in Louisiana and must be considered quite rare. Suitable habitats range from crop fields to small wooded areas to suburban areas. The long-tailed weasel is usually found in burrows near a body of water.

Louisiana Waterthrush The Louisiana waterthrush favors large tracts of mature deciduous or mixed forests with moderate to sparse undergrowth, near rapid flowing streams. This species may also occur along sluggish streams and rivers and infrequently in swamps with standing or pools or water. The Louisiana waterthrush forages on the ground, always near streams, where insects and other small invertebrates are gleaned from the surface of rocks, mud, and water.

Paddlefish This species is considered a forestwide indicator in large and medium-sized rivers, impoundments, oxbow lakes, and floodplain lakes. The paddlefish prefers water depths greater than five feet and may seek deeper waters in late fall and winter.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 56 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Southern Red-backed Salamander The Southern red-backed salamander seeks shelter under logs, rocks, and leaf litter. This species prefers cool temperatures and occurs in mesic forests during dry summer months, well away from water bodies.

Squawfoot Mussel This species lives in a variety of freshwater habitat types, including rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. It tolerates still water and low to moderate flow gradients, but usually not high flow areas. It lives in mud, sand, and gravel substrates. Adult freshwater mussels are largely sedentary spending their entire lives very near to the place where they first successfully settled.

Warbling Vireo The warbling vireo occurs in open, mature hardwoods along rivers and streams. This species does not occur in forests, but may be present in open areas where hardwoods line streams and rivers. Nests can be found in tall trees along stream banks.

White-breasted Nuthatch The white-breasted nuthatch is most common in open forests of mature trees, primarily, oaks and pines. The species may also occur in bottomlands, forest edge habitats, parks, campuses, and residential areas. The white-breasted nuthatch prefers mature hardwood trees with natural cavities for nesting and roosting.

Worm-eating Warbler Breeding habitat in the Coastal Plain is in bottomland hardwoods with a rich understory of broadleaf evergreen shrubs or saplings. Nesting occurs on the ground and large tracts of unfragmented forests are required for successful reproduction. Wintering habitat is in forests with a dense understory, in broadleaf evergreen cover.

3.6.1.3 Featured Game Species Game species that occupy the project area are the eastern wild turkey, white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite quail, and gray and fox squirrels.

Eastern Wild Turkey The eastern wild turkey inhabits forests of late successional stages and has a relatively large home range. It has an affinity for mature and over-mature forests with a diverse mix of hardwoods. Eastern wild turkeys nest on the ground in open, park-like forests during the summer months.

Northern Bobwhite Quail The northern bobwhite quail is associated with open pine stands or early successional habitats, such as abandoned fields, hedgerows, thickets, and forest margins. This species nests on the ground in thick cover an feeds on seeds, fruits, nuts and occasionally, on small insects.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 57 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment White-tailed Deer The white-tailed deer represents an early seral stage of all forested habitat types. Although the species is highly adaptable to varying environmental conditions and found in all forest age classes, it is primarily a browser depending on plants found with the greatest quantities within early forest stages.

Gray and Fox Squirrel These species of squirrels inhabit forests rich in plant diversity and pine/hardwood mixes where mast-bearing trees and shrubs are found.

3.6.1.4 Terrestrial Management Indicator Species The Forest Service has collected population data for terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) for the Kisatchie National Forest as part of the Forest Plan and VM FEIS, (USFS 1999a, 1999b). The Forest Plan (36 CFR § 219.1) identified certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the Caney Ranger District as MIS (Forest Plan, Table 5-2, pages 5-15 through 5-19).

Population trends for all forest MIS are monitored at the Forest Plan level and reported annually in the Forest’s Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Annual forest-wide validation monitoring evaluates the cumulative effects of planned actions combined with past management actions on MIS population trends and provides a context for evaluating the effects of management on future MIS trends.

Twenty wildlife species are listed in the Forest Plan as terrestrial management species for habitats they represent. Of the 20 species listed, 12 are presented in Table 3-12. The Bachman’s sparrow is discussed in the BE; the RCW is discussed in Section 3.6.1.1; five species, Cooper’s hawk, Louisiana waterthrush, warbling vireo, white-breasted nuthatch, and worm-eating warbler, are discussed in Section 3.6.1.2; and one species, northern bobwhite quail, is discussed in Section 3.6.1.3 of this EA.

Table 3-12. Terrestrial Management Indicator Species for the Caney Ranger District Common Name Scientific Name Habitats Represented Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Longleaf pine/shortleaf pine/oak- hickory forest Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Longleaf pine forest Summer Tanager Piranga rubra Shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forest Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forest Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Shortleaf pine/oak- hickory/hardwood-loblolly pine/riparian forest White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus Hardwood-loblolly pine/riparian forest Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Hardwood-loblolly pine/riparian forest

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 58 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Common Name Scientific Name Habitats Represented Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Hardwood-loblolly pine forest Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Hardwood-loblolly pine forest Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Riparian forest Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus Riparian forest Northern Parula Parula americana Riparian forest

Prairie Warbler The prairie warbler is a bush-gleaning insectivore inhabiting abandoned fields with scattered saplings, scrubby thickets, cutover or burned-over woods, woodland margins, and other sapling- shrub growth. It is a neotropical migrant, present only during breeding season. The prairie warbler represents the shrubby conditions found in early stages of cleared or burned woodlands.

Red-headed Woodpecker The red-headed woodpecker is a cavity-nesting insectivore-omnivore that prefers open woods, groves and open swamps. The presence of the red-headed woodpecker indicates late successional stages of mature forests.

Summer Tanager The summer tanager is a tree-nesting, tree foliage-gleaning insectivore. The summer tanager prefers open to medium-growth woods, usually in dry soils within pinewoods. The summer tanager is another species that represents mid-to-late successional habitats. The summer tanager is a neotropical migrant present within the Forest only during the breeding season.

Eastern Wood -pewee The Eastern wood-pewee is a tree-nesting, hawking insectivore inhabiting open to medium- growth woods in dry areas. It is often associated with cleared, shrubby habitats and represents mature forests with a relatively open canopy. The eastern wood-pewee is a neotropical migrant and is present within the Forest only during breeding season.

Pileated Woodpecker The pileated woodpecker nests in cavities of dead trees and inhabits mature, old-growth, and extensive forests. Pileated woodpeckers represent the primary excavators and secondary cavity users of mature forest conditions.

White-eyed Vireo The white-eyed vireo is a bush-nesting migrant during its breeding season. This species prefers dense thickets, especially where moist, and may be found along swamp borders and openings. The white-eyed vireo represents the early successional stage for mixed hardwoods-loblolly pine forests. The white eyed vireo is a neotropical migrant present on the Forest only during the breeding season.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 59 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Yellow-billed Cuckoo This species is a neotropical migrant that nests in trees and is a gleaning insectivore. Its primary habitat includes broadleaf forests, especially in thick vegetation. The yellow-billed cuckoo is present within the Forest only during the breeding season and represents mid-to-late successional habitats within the mixed hardwood forests.

Hooded Warbler The species inhabits forests with rich understory layer, like those found in mature pine forests. Typically, territories usually include small clearings or gaps where a thick understory provides nest sites. The hooded warbler is a neotropical migrant found within the Forest during its breeding season.

Wood Thrush The wood thrush is a neotropical migrant found within the Forest during its breeding season. The wood thrush is a bush-nesting, terrestrial gleaning insectivore. It prefers deciduous or mixed forests with a fairly well-developed deciduous understory. The species prefers late-successional, upland mesic forests.

Acadian Flycatcher The Acadian flycatcher, a neotropical migrant, inhabits moist deciduous forests near streams. The Acadian flycatcher represents the small-stream riparian habitat within hardwood forests.

Kentucky Warbler The Kentucky warbler, a neotropical migrant, is a ground-nesting insectivore inhabiting rich, moist deciduous forests near streams during its breeding season (Hamel, 1992) within the Caney Ranger District. The Kentucky warbler represents the large-stream riparian habitat within deciduous forests.

Northern Parula The Northern parula is a neotropical migrant found in the Caney Ranger District during the breeding season and inhabits swamps and bottomland forests where Spanish moss is common.

3.6.1.5 Aquatic Management Indicator Species Potentially affected aquatic habitats within the Caney Ranger District are slow-flowing silt/clay bottom streams, and impoundments. Seven wildlife species are listed in the Forest Plan as aquatic management species (Forest Plan, Table 5-2, page 5-19). These species are presented in Table 3-13.

Swift-flowing streams as well as slow-flowing streams are present within the project area. KNF streams generally have sandy substrates and low gradients, which are typical of coastal plain streams. Most of the streams are intermittent and fill with winter and spring rains, and are usually dry during the late summer and fall. SHPZs and RAPZs were created to protect and enhance these resources and are not managed for timber production. Fish utilize the streams as spawning and nursery habitats.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 60 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 3-13. Aquatic Management Indicator Species for the Caney Ranger District Common Name Scientific Name Habitats Represented Brown Madtom Noturus phaeus Swift-flowing streams, sand/gravel bottom Redfin Darter Etheostoma whipplei Swift-flowing streams, sand/gravel bottom Louisiana Pearlshell Margaritifera hembeli Swift-flowing streams, sand/gravel Mussel bottom Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus Slow-flowing streams, silt/clay bottom Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus Slow-flowing streams, silt/clay bottom Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Impoundments and ponds Sunfish Lepomis spp. Impoundments and ponds

The following gives the habitat requirements of each MIS as representative species:

Brown Madtom Inhabits sand-gravel riffles and runs among debris, rocks and undercut banks of springs, creeks and small rivers. Its conservation status is secure regionally.

Redfin Darter The redfin darter inhabits sandy and rocky pools, sometimes runs and shallow gravel to rubble riffles, of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers. It is also found in moderate-size rivers, in current- swept vegetation, on mixed gravel and sand, and on sand and mud. The largest populations are in small clear rocky streams.

Louisiana Pearlshell Mussel This species inhabits small, clear, shallow streams with moderate current and fine sand substrates. The Louisiana pearlshell mussel has been registered as a rare species since the 1970s and was listed in the Federal Register as a threatened species in 1993.

Pirate Perch The pirate perch is found in slow-moving streams within the Forest, and relative abundance has shown a slight increase. The increase in relative abundance in addition to its short life span indicates little concern for the viability of pirate perch populations within the Forest.

Blackspotted Topminnow This species is found throughout the Forest inhabiting slow to moderate-flowing pools. Relative abundance of the blackspotted topminnow has shown a marked increase over time in the Forest.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 61 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Largemouth Bass The largemouth bass is distributed statewide in Louisiana and inhabits lakes, ponds, and large streams. Populations of this species have fluctuated, as is typical of impoundments. Viability concerns are minimal due to the management practices as a sport fish.

Sunfish Sunfish are distributed statewide in Louisiana and inhabit the littoral zone of impoundments and ponds. Populations of these species have fluctuated, as is typical of impoundments. Viability concerns are minimal due to the management practices as a sport fish.

3.6.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action

3.6.2.1 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Conservation Species (PETSC) Under Alternative A, none of the proposed management activities would be conducted within the project area. As the structural diversity (differences in vegetation in terms of height and spatial arrangement of the plants) of forests in the Corney Unit is reduced over time, so is their capability to support various and abundant wildlife species. Forest structural diversity is considered to be the main determinant of the number and abundance of wildlife species. The overstocked loblolly, longleaf, and shortleaf pine plantations targeted for thinning have low diversity. Effects on PETS species are discussed in the BE in Appendix D.

Environmental changes would be limited to biological processes. This alternative would favor species requiring mature stand conditions for food and cover. It would not provide for management of early succession species. It would not allow for any management activity other than wildfire or pest control and would move the stands to older age classes.

Lack of vegetation management prevents management of habitat for many animal species. Wildlife habitat could be destroyed by wildfire as fuels build up to hazardous conditions. As the forest ages, the late-succession species such as fox squirrel and gray squirrel would benefit from the mature and over-mature stands, but other species dependent on early succession habitat would be adversely affected by the lower potential for soft mast and forage production with canopy closure. Wildfire events would create new snags for dependent species but would burn existing used dry snags due to increased fuel loads.

This alternative would have no direct effect on any PETSC species. Indirect impacts of no action may adversely affect the long-term habitat and population goal for Louisiana slimy salamander, Bachman’s sparrow, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, southern myotis, and bluhead shiner on the Caney Ranger District. Without thinning and prescribed burning, for example, the forest composition and structure would change through hardwood encroachment, continued dominance of off-site pine species, and increased forest density throughout the future. Treatments to restore the native shortleaf pine ecosystem would not be conducted, and a large part of the area would remain in off-site species. The Forest policy of suppressing all wildfires would allow more woody vegetation to invade under the canopy, creating a midstory of small trees and brush. Loss of open park-like conditions would not benefit the Bachman’s sparrow.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 62 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment The entire District has been approved under a separate NEPA decision document to be prescribed burned in FY 2013 through 2017. These burns would possibly consume some of the saplings and open the overstory and understory of these dense stands. These openings would allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, which would promote the growth of a more diverse herbaceous stratum within these stands. These openings would allow sunlight to reach the forest floor, which would promote the growth of a more diverse herbaceous stratum within these stands. If prescribed burning is not conducted in these areas after this time, suitable habitat could be lost due to encroachment. Continued habitat improvement within these stands could potentially provide suitable habitat to many of the PETSC species in years to come. Under the No Action alternative, Desired Future Conditions/Objectives of the Forest Plan 1-5, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, and 6-1 listed in Chapter 1, Table 1-2 of this document would not be met.

The No Action alternative would have indirect, long-term, adverse minor to moderate effects on wildlife and PETSC species locally and district-wide due to reduced wildlife diversity as caused by diminishing forest structural diversity, and wildlife habitat that may be destroyed by wildfire. Some minor, beneficial effects may occur for late-successional wildlife species.

3.6.2.2 Featured Game Species Eastern Wild Turkey Alternative A would not promote new growth of grasses and forbs. No new foraging and nesting areas would be created. Understory species would begin to dominate and shade out the herbaceous species and fire-tolerant species favorable to the turkey. Availability, amount, and nutritional value of forage would decrease with this alternative.

Northern Bobwhite Quail Alternative A would cause the existing habitat to degrade and become unsuitable for the northern bobwhite quail. Understory species would begin to dominate and shade out the herbaceous species and fire tolerant species favorable to the northern bobwhite quail. Availability, amount, and nutritional value of forage would decrease under this alternative.

White-tailed Deer Alternative A would not provide additional habitat. Futhermore, the closed canopy would retard the growth of browse important for white-tailed deer forage. Lack of fire in open, immature pine sawtimber stands can result in preferred browse growing beyond the reach of deer. Hardwood encroachment could provide hard mast for winter food supplies. Openings which provide high quality food, fawning cover, and valuable bedding and protection cover would not be available in this alternative.

Gray and Fox Squirrel Alternative A would have no effect on these species. There would be a loss of habitat for eastern wild turkey under the No Action. White-tailed deer are generalists and would be able to maintain populations without habitat alterations. Hunting pressure has more of an effect on white-tailed deer populations. Hardwood encroachment, if left over long periods of time, would eventually

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 63 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment replace the open stands of pine with mixed stands. Hard mast production would benefit most game species.

3.6.2.3 Terrestrial Management Indicator Species Under Alternative A, the proposed thinning, clearcutting, and clearcutting with reserves, and road maintenance operations would not be performed. The forest stands in question would remain overstocked. Encroachment of hardwoods and other midstory would increase. Bird species likely to benefit from lack of prescribed burning are those requiring shrubby midstory vegetation for nest sites such as the red-eyed vireo and hooded warbler. Off-site species would not be removed. Effects on MIS would be as follows:

Prairie Warbler Some of the stands proposed for intermediate thinning may provide some habitat. With on-going management, these stands would not provide the preferred habitat for this species. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the prairie warbler.

Red-headed Woodpecker Because the red-headed woodpecker prefers late successional forest and the proposed thinning stands are early to mid-successional, Alternative A would have no direct effects on the red- headed woodpecker or its habitat. Indirect effects from this action would only lengthen the time period for these stands to develop into the mature forest this species requires. There would be no adverse cumulative effects on this species from the implementation of the alternative.

Summer Tanager The summer tanager prefers mid to late successional stages of open, mature pine forests. Alternative A would have no direct effects on individuals of this species or its preferred habitat. Indirect effects from the absence of timber harvests would delay conversion of the area to suitable habitat within the foreseeable future. Cumulatively, this alternative would result in beneficial effects over time from the maturation of the project area into an open pine forest.

Eastern Wood -pewee Habitat types occurring within the project area currently do not provide the preferred habitat of the eastern wood-pewee. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, effects on individuals of the species. The indirect and cumulative effects from this alternative would increase the time required for the project area to develop the components necessary to provide suitable habitat for the species.

Pileated Woodpecker Individuals of this species prefer mature, old growth forests with snags and dense cover. Current habitat types within the project area do not provide the preferred habitat of the pileated woodpecker. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct effects on individuals of the species. The indirect and cumulative effects from this alternative would increase the time required for the project area to develop the components necessary to provide suitable habitat for the species.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 64 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment White-eyed Vireo Currently, the project area does not provide the thick, moist habitat preferred by the white-eyed vireo. Even through natural succession, these stands would provide the preferred habitat. Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects would be expected to the white-eyed vireo from the implementation of Alternative A.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Habitat types occurring within the project area currently do not provide the preferred habitat of the yellow-billed cuckoo. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct effects on individuals of the species. The indirect and cumulative effects would increase the time required for the project area to develop the components necessary to provide suitable habitat for the species.

Hooded Warbler Alternative A would have no direct effects on the hooded warbler. Their indirect and cumulative effects from this alternative would increase the time required for the project area to develop into a mature forest that would provide suitable habitat for the species.

Wood Thrush The preferred habitat of the wood thrush does not occur within the project area. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on individuals of the species.

Acadian Flycatcher The project area stands are not part of the suitable habitat for the Acadian flycatcher, nor would the desired future conditions for these stands provide the suitable habitat. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on individuals of this species.

Kentucky Warbler Preferred habitat for this species is not currently provided by the project area stands. With the implementation of Alternative A, these stands would remain unsuitable for the species. Therefore, Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on individuals of the species.

Northern Parula The project area stands do not provide the hardwood stands preferred by this species and would not be managed to provide this type habitat. Thus, the implementation of Alternative A would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the northern parula.

3.6.2.4 Aquatic Management Indicator Species Alternative A would have no effects on the aquatic MIS within the project area.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 65 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.6.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Timber Harvest and Road Maintenance Under the Proposed Action, mechanical disturbance during thinning activities could cause temporary disturbances and direct mortality of adult animals, particularly species that are small or less mobile (i.e., snakes, small rodents, and insects), or result in destruction of eggs or young. Normally, vertebrate species are able to flee in advance of equipment and escape harm, although some may be killed. Mowing, chopping, shearing, raking, disking and other mechanical tools cause direct mortality to invertebrates, but because of large populations and high reproductive rates, populations are not affected. Destruction of eggs and young depends upon season of treatment and can occur when equipment is used during the nesting season.

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 and any domestic animals present are not likely to be affected at all.

Disturbance caused by equipment may result in abandonment of young or nests. With larger animals such as deer or rabbits, such abandonment is normally temporary. Ground-nesting birds may permanently abandon nests if disturbance occurs soon after nesting begins but would tolerate greater disturbance when eggs are close to hatching. Although most ground-nesters would re-nest, survival rates for young from late-season nesting attempts are generally lower.

Abrupt changes in habitat conditions resulting from changes in plant structural characteristics in the treatment areas would have a more noticeable and longer lasting effect because vegetation changes would persist for several years. Some species would benefit from the vegetation changes, while others would be adversely affected. Thinning would benefit wildlife species that utilize mid succession habitats such as deer, quail, turkey and nesting songbirds. Turkeys can utilize recently cut areas for berries and other soft mast and insects common in these areas. Existing snags and future tree mortality would provide some habitat for cavity nesting species. Mid or late successional species, such as squirrels, would be adversely affected by thinning operations. Overall, improving forest structure diversity would contribute towards increasing diversity of wildlife.

The management actions proposed would not change 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. Streamside zones, which contain hardwood species used by wildlife, would be protected from harvesting in order to provide key area corridors for wildlife.

Thinning the pine stands to a BA of 60-70 ft2/ac would reduce the susceptibility to SPB infestations by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and improve stand health and growth by reducing competition.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 66 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Wildlife openings would be installed on 40 acres in the stands that had timber harvest operations performed. These openings would be established and maintained for herbaceous plant growth for wildlife habitat enhancement. Herbaceous plants would be a valuable source of food and cover for a host of wildlife species.

Road maintenance and the use of roads may cause temporary disturbance to the species that occupy those particular areas, but species would return after road maintenance activities cease.

Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning could result in the temporary displacement of wildlife or individual mortality of wildlife species. Prescribed burns would have an immediate effect on wildlife and wildlife habitats by removing plant material, exposing soils, stimulating growth of some plants, and killing or reducing the vigor of some plants. The amount of habitat removed may depend on fire characteristics such as size, severity, patchiness, and time of year.

The ability of animals to survive fire depends on their mobility and on the uniformity, severity, size, and duration of the fire. Most small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians seek refuge underground or in sheltered places within the burn, while large mammals must find a safe location in unburned patches outside the burn.

Fire-caused bird mortality depends on the season, uniformity, and intensity of the prescribed burn. For instance, eggs and young of ground-nesting birds are vulnerable to spring fires. Long- term fire effects on bird populations depend partly on their tendency to re-nest. Species nesting in the canopy would be less likely to be injured unless there is intense surface fire and crown fire.

The ability of fire to alter plant species composition and abundance could provide a variety of habitat conditions which would better meet the resource needs of wildlife species. Prescribed burns can have beneficial effects by enhancing nutrient cycling by releasing nutrients bound in dead plant material, making them available for new plant growth. Fires encourage new growth of many plant species, which provides a food source for some wildlife species. Altering plant species composition and abundance could provide a variety of habitat conditions for wildlife.

Herbicide Use It is highly unlikely that any individual animals would be exposed to enough herbicide to cause any ill effects. Because of the small size of the treatment sites, it is virtually certain that no major population of any vertebrate species would be directly exposed. It is unlikely that any individual animal located in a treatment site would be directly exposed to an herbicide while it is being applied because of the proposed methods of herbicide application. These are restricted to minimum volume techniques, including backpack or handheld spray mechanisms. Any animals at these sites would almost certainly move out of the site away from applicators while the herbicides are being applied simply because of the human disturbance. Animals would more likely be exposed to smaller residual amounts of herbicides when they reenter or move through a sprayed site sometime after the applicators have left. Herbivores might ingest herbicide if they consume sprayed plants, although the herbicides are likely to render the plants unpalatable. Other animals might receive an oral dose in grooming their feathers or fur after coming in contact with

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 67 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment sprayed plants. A predator might consume an animal that has received such a dose and thereby receive a secondary dose. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the herbicides proposed for use to control or eradicate invasive species would pose a serious risk to wildlife species or their habitat.

The Proposed Action would have direct, short-term, adverse, negligible to minor impacts on local wildlife, including PETSC species, during proposed activities if individuals are killed or nests are destroyed. Species may also be temporarily disturbed during road maintenance activities. Although some species would be adversely affected by changes in habitat due to thinning, overall there would be long-term, beneficial, minor to moderate effects locally and district-wide with increased diversity and improved stand health.

3.6.3.1 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive, and Conservation Species Specific descriptions of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to each of the PETS species is presented in the BE (Appendix D). This project is likely to adversely affect the NLEB; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under final 4(d) ruse (50 CFR 17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic BO, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat: therefore, the programmatic BO satisfies the USFS’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the NLEB for this project.

Habitat within the project area is not suitable for the worm-eating warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, warbling vireo, long-tailed weasel, hispid pocketmouse, southern red-backed salamander, paddlefish, bigscale logperch, squawfoot mussel, or caddisfly. Therefore, Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on these species. Individuals of the Cooper’s hawk and the big brown bat may be directly affected by this alternative; however, these species would be likely to escape to refuge areas during all forest management activities. Timber harvests would create suitable habitat for the white-breasted nuthatch and would improve the foraging and nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk in the foreseeable future.

First thinning and intermediate thinning in pine stands are intended to provide the open forest habitat desired by Bachman’s sparrow for nesting and foraging. Shortleaf pine would be favored when making selections, as well as relicts, potential relicts, and older pines. Opening areas around relicts and older pines would provide more ideal nesting habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow. These thinning are not likely to have an adverse effect on the Bachman’s sparrow or its available foraging habitat. The thinnings would promote the establishment of an open understory, pine overstory community, which would provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow as well.

The area proposed for clearcutting should have no direct or indirect effect on the Bachman’s sparrow. Since only registered herbicides are proposed for use, and Forest Service policy and mitigation measures would be utilized, there should be no direct effects to the potentially affected PETSC. For both aquatic and terrestrial animals, the weight of evidence suggests that no adverse effects are plausible using typical or even very conservative worst-case exposure assumptions (USFS, 2014a).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 68 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Restoring the native shortleaf pine/oak-hickory ecosystem for future quality foraging and nesting habitat for the Bachman’s sparrow should also create favorable nesting habitat for the Southern myotis. When combined with other restoration projects on the District, this will ensure young stands of shortleaf pine, which would be available for foraging habitat at a time when older stands are succumbing to mortality from old age.

Prescribed burning has been conducted in the past across the District, and continued burning would help restore and maintain the herbaceous ground cover. Prescribed burning would benefit the Bachman’s sparrow by maintaining a low, herbaceous ground cover.

Road maintenance activities are necessary to preserve the transportation system essential for conducting management activities inside the SMA’s. No new roads are being proposed, and existing roads consist of low standard roads suitable for trucks or off-highway vehicles. Fragmentation caused by existing roads is not a problem for any of the conservation species that may occur in the project area.

Thinning of forest stands is key to producing quality wildlife. According to the findings of the BR, thinning and prescribed burning of the proposed project stands provide positive indirect effects, such as open stands where herbaceous ground cover increases foraging quality. Cumulative long term benefits of quality foraging may result in greater reproduction.

Thinning and burning operations, in conjunction with other approved management actions in these stands, would result in reduced fuel loads, increased herbaceous growth, and control of hardwood sprouting, as well as other beneficial cumulative effects on PETSC species. These habitat improvements would provide a healthier forest community suitable for Bachman’s sparrow and Southeastern myotis. Overall, heavy, mechanized equipment may impact individual Louisiana slippery salamanders, but is not likely to cause a loss of viability of the population. bluehead shiner populations should not be impacted since minimal to no activities would take place within streamside management zones.

3.6.3.2 Featured Game Species Eastern Wild Turkey Under this alternative, thinning treatments would open the forest canopy and stimulate the growth of grasses and forbs that are essential for eastern wild turkey sustenance. With increased sunlight, the understory species would provide nesting and foraging habitat for the turkey. The prescribed burns would favor the production of legumes, reduce external parasites, maintain brook habitat for poults, and increase the amount of insects available for food. Although prescribed fire enhances brood rearing cover, fire can reduce production by destroying nests of ground nesting birds.

Northern Bobwhite Quail Alternative B would open the forest canopy and promote the growth of various grasses and other herbaceous plants utilized for foraging, nesting, and cover. Prescribed burns would favor the production of legumes, reduce external parasites, maintain brood habitat, and increase the

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 69 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment amount of insects available for food. This alternative would promote the development of the stands toward the mature open pine stands preferred by the northern bobwhite quail.

White-tailed Deer Alternative B would be beneficial to white-tailed deer because it would increase the quantity and palatability of legumes and browse from thinning and prescribed burning. This alternative would also increase the quantity and quality of ground cover within the Forest by opening the forest canopy. Forest management actions would provide both hard mast and browse vegetation, which are primary food sources for deer. White-tailed deer generally benefit from even-aged regeneration methods, and would realize some advantage from the restoration cutting. The herbaceous and woody stem production after cutting provides a high-quality food source, good fawning cover, and valuable bedding and protection cover. The use of chemical site preparation followed by burning would reduce the amount of time this habitat would remain optimal.

Gray and Fox Squirrel Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the gray or fox squirrel.

3.6.3.3 Terrestrial Management Indicator Species First thinning and intermediate thinning of pine stands would help open the forest canopy on the uplands. Within the SHPZs, removal of selected pines would promote the growth of riparian community plants that are not currently found in these areas. Restoration of the riparian community structure would benefit species that are commonly associated with wetlands or mature hardwoods. Clearcutting of loblolly pine forest would create openings for early successional upland species. Additional snags for cavity nesters would be created during chemical site preparation. Road maintenance could cause physical injury or mortality to wildlife, also. Expected effects on the MIS for shortleaf and riparian landscapes are as follows:

Prairie Warbler Since the prairie warbler inhabits early seral community types such as scrubby thickets, open fields with scattered shrubs and other sapling/shrub growth, the thinning and burning of the project area stands would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.

Red-headed Woodpecker Alternative B would have no direct or indirect effects on the red-headed woodpecker. However, the thinning operations along with other planned management actions within the stands would create a healthier and more vigorous growing forest, which would provide additional habitat for the red-headed woodpecker within the foreseeable future. Creation of snags with the site preparation process would create more nesting sites.

Summer Tanager The summer tanager prefers mid-to-late successional stages of open, mature pine forests. The project area does not provide the preferred habitat; therefore, the implementation of Alternative B would have no direct effects on the species. With the implementation of this alternative and

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 70 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment future management action within the stands, beneficial cumulative effects would result from an increase in preferred habitat of the species and the creation of a healthier, more open forest.

Eastern Wood -pewee It is unlikely that eastern wood peewees would be harmed during mechanical activities such as thinning, rehabilitation and maintenance of timber harvest related skid trails or road maintenance. However, eggs or nests may be destroyed if logging activities occur during the nesting season. Eastern wood peewees may be disturbed by workers in the project area for all proposed activities and would probably seek cover. These activities would be short term in nature and the eastern wood peewees would probably return later. Positive changes are attributed to the effects of thinning. Thinning activities would open up the midstory and overstory allowing the eastern wood peewee to forage for flying insects. Prescribed burning also opens up the understory and midstory.

Pileated Woodpecker The species inhabits mature, old-growth forests that are not currently found within the project area. Therefore, Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.

White-eyed Vireo The project area does not provide suitable habitat for the species. This alternative would not result in the creation of a dense, moist thicket habitat that is preferred by the species. Therefore, Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo The project area does not provide suitable habitat for the species. This alternative would not result in the creation of a dense, moist thicket habitat that is preferred by the species. Therefore, Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on this species.

Hooded Warbler Alternative B would have no direct or indirect effects on this species. However the alternative would open the canopy and allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor to promote the growth of various understory species. Initially, the alternative would not create suitable habitat. However, within a year, beneficial cumulative effects would result from abundance of habitat associated with understory growth.

Wood Thrush Alternative B would have temporarily adverse effects on the wood thrush and may cause a short- term reduction in species abundance within the project area. Clearcut regeneration and prescribed burning would result in a reduction of mid-story vegetation, which is a habitat requirement of wood thrushes. However, Alternative B would have minimal adverse impacts to individuals of this species due to their flexibility of nest placement. Cumulative effects would result from the opening of the forest canopy, thus promoting a pine forest with an open understory, which is unsuitable for this species.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 71 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Acadian Flycatcher The project area stands do not currently provide suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, the proposed treatments would have no direct effects on individuals of this species.

Kentucky Warbler Since this species prefers hardwood forests along perennial streams, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the implementation of Alternative B.

Northern Parula The project area stands do not currently provide suitable habitat for this species. Therefore, the proposed treatments would have no direct effects on individuals of this species. In those areas, that contain small drains or streams, thinning operations would remove some of the pines in an attempt to reestablish the hardwood component along these riparian corridors. This would provide more suitable habitat for the northern parula in the future.

3.6.3.4 Aquatic Management Indicator Species The Proposed Action would not be conducted within the SHPZ of the streams within the project area. Erosion and sedimentation in the watershed may occur as a result of Alternative B. However, erosion control activities would be implemented after harvest and the increased levels of sedimentation would have no effect on the aquatic habitat. Therefore, Alternative B would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on the aquatic MIS within the project area.

3.6.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish, causing adverse effects on aquatic habitat in the lake.

The direct/indirect effects from using herbicide in Alternative C pose a minimum overall risk to wildlife in the project area. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative, thus there would be a reduction in adverse effects on terrestrial species. However, minor, direct, long term adverse effects on aquatic animal species in Corney Lake would occur from continued non-native aquatic vegetation growth.

3.6.5 Cumulative Effects Wildlife and habitat in the project area have been, and continue to be, subject to disturbance and alteration from prescribed burning and periodic wildfire, visitor use, construction and development, vehicle use, forestry and logging, habitat management and restoration, and invasive species. Wildlife impacts related to these activities include disturbance, displacement, and mortality of individuals; interruption of breeding; the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat; invasive species which outcompete native species, particularly vegetation that then alters and degrades habitat; and human presence and activity which increases noise and disturbs wildlife. Past, current, and future development adjacent to the Forest reduces wildlife habitat and

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 72 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment fragments wildlife corridors and edge habitat. However, beneficial cumulative effects also exist from habitat management and restoration, such as thinning projects for RCW habitat and SPB control, installation of artificial RCW nesting cavities and predator excluders, and longleaf pine release.

Wildlife and habitat impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be negligible as compared with the cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would be expected to be adverse in the short- term, as well as beneficial in the long-term. A variety of vegetation types and structure occurs when vegetation management practices in combination with timber harvest and other management practices are applied in a forest. Over time, a mosaic of trees is spread across the forest landscape and habitat is provided for many different species of animals. This cumulative effect would increase overall or among-stand wildlife diversity even though within-stand diversity for a particular site may decrease. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse, long-term cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires. Additionally, without treatment, long-term wildlife composition either would remain unchanged or would gradually change in response to changes in habitat conditions associated with the gradual transition to an increasingly thicker tree cover.

3.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 3.7.1 Affected Environment The Caney Ranger District promotes visitor safety and protection of the Forest’s resources and facilities. Both state and federal safety regulations are enforced, and a safe working environment is provided for federal employees. Forest Service workers must comply with dress and safety standards specified in the Health and Safety Code Handbook (FW-152).

The project area is in a rural setting with a dispersed population. There are small communities scattered throughout the vicinity surrounding the District. The Horseshoe Loop project area is located approximately 5 miles northeast of Summerfield, LA. Several residences are scattered adjacent to the project area. Louisiana Highway 9 crosses the Corney Unit. The stands proposed for treatments currently do not pose any special threat to human health and safety other than fuels buildup on the forest floor. Some roads in the project area are in poor maintenance condition due to washouts and gullying. Major collector roads in the area have received the minimum maintenance necessary to keep them passable, but are in need of additional surfacing to make them safer for log truck and passenger car traffic.

3.7.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, conditions for public health and safety would remain status quo in the short-term, but there could be long-term adverse impacts. Without timber harvest, herbicide applications, and prescribed burn activities, 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. There would be no reduction in fuel loads in the short- term. The risk of exposure to wildfire would remain constant or increase. Potential wildfires could threaten local landowners and forest users. The risk to public health and safety of uncontrolled fire could include loss of life and property, and injury and health effects caused by

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 73 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment exposure to smoke and particulate emissions. Smoke from wildfires would cause hazardous driving conditions on local roads, increasing the probability of traffic accidents. Without road maintenance, the transportation system would continue to deteriorate, increasing the potential for accidents at washouts and gullies or slippery road surfaces.

Airborne particulates are the primary pollutant of wildland fires. Particulate emissions generally range from 0.001 to 10 microns in size. Most of the larger particles gravitate out of the air. Larger smoke particles, especially those around six microns in diameter, scatter light and produce opaque fogs. As the size decreases below five microns in diameter, increasing numbers are deposited in the lower respiratory tract, including over 50 percent of those between 0.01 and 0.1 micron. Many forest fire smoke particles have a potential for being deposited deep in the lungs through smoke inhalation.

Without herbicide applications, this alternative would allow the infestation of American lotus to continue to overtake the lake surface of Corney Lake, thus providing additional mosquito breeding areas which can be a nuisance and public health concern.

The No Action alternative would have adverse, negligible to minor, localized public health and safety effects in the short to long-term due to proliferation of mosquito breeding areas on Corney Lake. Over the long-term there could be adverse minor to moderate effects region-wide associated with the increased potential for wildfire, and locally due to deteriorating roads.

3.7.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Timber Harvest 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 equipment and transport vehicles is not uncommon in the area. Signs placed at dangerous locations would warn motorists of hazardous conditions.

Risk to neighbors, visitors, and KNF staff during implementation of this alternative would be minimal. Use of machinery within the targeted areas would generate noise but should not disrupt daily routines. Emissions from equipment would be temporary. Due to the small area over which actions would be taken, KNF visitors and employees can avoid these areas and still remain within the Forest.

Road Maintenance Road maintenance and/or spot surfacing activities may hinder travelers and local residents. Such maintenance actions would be intermittent and would be conducted only on roads used by logging and transport equipment. However, improved road surfacing would create a safer environment for Forest users in the long-term.

Site Preparation Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning could have short-term, adverse effects on public health and safety. Smoke may affect local sensitive areas such as hospitals, churches, schools and other residences

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 74 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment scattered throughout the area. Smoke inhalation can pose a threat to human health & safety. A study of firefighter smoke exposure found that most smoke exposures are not considered hazardous, but a small percentage routinely exceed recommended exposure limits for carbon monoxide and respiratory irritants (USFS, 2000b).

Implementation parameters applied to areas of prescribed burning would minimize or eliminate public human health and safety concerns resulting from smoke exposure and fire injuries. Management of smoke would comply with burn plan parameters that ensure adequate opportunity for smoke dispersal. The safety of Forest Service personnel and the public would be protected by following proper safety procedures including wearing personal protective equipment, using qualified personnel, implementing the burn plan, following smoke management guidelines, traffic signs, and area reconnaissance to find potential Forest visitors in the burn area. Residents would be notified prior conducting burns in order to allow them enough time to vacate the area or take precautionary measures. The effects of smoke and gases could pose a hazard to sensitive individuals, but burning would be performed when conditions would minimize these effects. Therefore, adverse effects to workers and public from exposure to smokes and gases are considered to be minimal.

Herbicide Use The use of herbicides involves potential risk to workers and members of the public living or engaging in activities in or near herbicide treatment areas. The potential effects to the public would be less than to workers because they are not performing treatment tasks, and signs would be posted warning people of treatment activities. Members of the public, both visitors and nearby residents, could potentially be exposed to herbicides from drift or accidental spraying if they are in the area at the time of application or if exposed by entering areas soon after treatment. Exposure scenarios for the public include 1) dermal exposure through spray drift, 2) dermal contact with vegetation, 3) dermal contact with water while swimming, and 4) consumption of berries, water, fish, and game.

Workers would be mixing chemicals and water, cleaning equipment, and storing and applying herbicides. The herbicides would be applied using minimum volume techniques, and spray mechanisms would be equipped with low regulators that control application rates, maximize effectiveness, and minimize drift. Workers could be exposed through inhalation and dermal contact. In general, there are lower risks to the public than to workers.

However, the herbicides which would be used in clearcut harvest areas and for control of NNIP are all Class A herbicides which do not pose a risk that would require mitigation measures in addition to those described in the FEIS for Vegetation Management of the Coastal Plain/Piedmont pages II-57 – II-64. (VMEIS, Vol. I, July 1989) The Risk Assessment (Appendix A of the VMEIS) shows that using these mitigation measures lowers health and environmental risk.

Additionally, herbicide applications on Corney Lake would control the infestation of American lotus on the lake surface, thus minimizing mosquito breeding areas and reducing this public health concern.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 75 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment The Proposed Action would reduce the potential for wildland fire by reducing hazard fuel loads, thus protecting life and property and greatly reducing potential long-term risks to human health and safety. The Proposed Action would have direct, short-term, adverse, local, negligible to minor impacts on public health and safety during project activities. Long-term effects would be beneficial, minor to moderate, both region-wide associated with reduced risk for wildfire and locally from improved road conditions.

3.7.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish. Proliferation of undesirable plant species would provide additional mosquito breeding areas which can be a nuisance and public health concern. However, there would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to public health and safety than under Alternative B.

3.7.5 Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future actions that could contribute to cumulative effects on public health and safety include prescribed burning and periodic wildfire, construction and development, vehicle use, hunting, and herbicide use. All of these activities have inherent risks on the safety of firefighters, staff, visitors, or local residents. Smoke from fires and emissions from heavy equipment pose health risks to sensitive receptors, as would pollution from vehicular traffic and urban development. Hunting and herbicide use have associated risks which could be avoided by following appropriate safety precautions. The Proposed Action would provide benefits to public health and safety as it would reduce the risk of intense fires. Reducing fuel loads within the areas targeted for timber harvest and prescribed fire would provide a long-term beneficial effect due to a reduction in fuel loading which would deter fire migration. Impacts on public health and safety associated with the Proposed Action would be small as compared with the cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would be expected to be adverse and minor in the short-term and beneficial in the long-term. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires.

3.8 RECREATION 3.8.1 Affected Environment The KNF is the second largest supplier of public recreation lands in the State of Louisiana. The Caney Ranger District offers many developed and dispersed recreational resources with recreation sites, improved camping sites, primitive camping sites, boat launches, and picnic areas. There is one developed recreation complex on the Corney Unit: Corney Lake Recreation Area which offers swimming, fishing, canoeing, and boating.

The undeveloped areas of the KNF support dispersed recreation activities such as hunting, walking or hiking, wildlife viewing, primitive camping, horseback riding, biking, etc. or activities requiring minimal constructed facilities. The 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 76 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment (NVUM) survey of people using the KNF reported that viewing wildlife (47 percent), hiking/walking (40 percent), and hunting (39 percent) were the three activities with the greatest percentage of participation (USFS, 2010).

Hunting, fishing, and trapping are permitted in the KNF in accordance with federal and state regulations. Hunting opportunities generally range from fair to good for most game species. There are also hunting opportunities for small game species. The typical deer season on the KNF runs from October 1st through January 31st. It opens with archery season, progresses to primitive firearms season, and finishes with all types of firearms. Rabbit, squirrel, quail, migratory game birds and waterfowl, feral hogs, coyotes, armadillos, and beavers are also hunted during the same time period with some exceptions (USFS, 2014b).

Recreational Opportunity Spectrum The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) system defines seven recreation opportunity classes that provide different settings and opportunities for recreation use. The project area includes lands in three of the eleven classes: Roaded, Roaded Natural, and Semi-primitive Motorized (Table 3-14).

Goal 4 associated with recreation in the KNF Revised Land and Resources Management Plan is to: 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. Objective 4-2 is to: 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 ROS class (USFS, 1999a).

Table 3-14. ROS Classifications and Objectives. ROS Acres in Classification ROS Land Characteristics Project Area Semi-Primitive • Distant from sight and sound of human activity. 1,435 Motorized Greater than a ½-hour walk from better than primitive roads but less than a ½-hour walk from primitive roads. • Evidence of past human activities may be present • Moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of outdoor skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk. • Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. • Opportunity to use motorized equipment while in the area. • Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 77 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment ROS Acres in Classification ROS Land Characteristics Project Area size. • Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. • Motorized use may be limited in some areas. • Motorized and non-motorized use may be permitted on designated roads and trails. Roaded Natural • Within ½ mile from better-than-primitive roads. 1,092 Appearing • Moderate probability of experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans, independence, closeness to nature, tranquility, and self-reliance through the application of woodsman and outdoor skills in an environment that offers challenge and risk. • Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. • Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible. • Area is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate size. • Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. • Motorized use is permitted, but may be restricted in some areas. • Motorized and non-motorized use may be permitted on designated roads and trails. Roaded Natural • Within ½ mile from better-than-primitive roads. 273 Modified • Evidence of past human activities may be present • About equal probability to experience affiliation with other user groups and for isolation from sights and sound of humans. • Opportunity to have a high degree of interaction with the natural environment. • Challenge and risk opportunities associated with more primitive type of recreation are not very important. • Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of recreation are possible. • Area is characterized as a generally natural appearing environment that may be substantially

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 78 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment ROS Acres in Classification ROS Land Characteristics Project Area modified as a result of management activities. • Moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans may be present. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. • Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. • Motorized use is permitted, but may be restricted in some areas. • Motorized use permitted on designated roads and trails. Source: USFS, 1999b

Scenic Integrity Objectives To provide a more detailed picture of the overall inventory, analysis, and management of the scenery within the KNF, the Forest Plan has adopted a Scenic Management System. The forest land base has been divided into Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO). Under this system, there are five classifications: very low, low, moderate, high, and very high. Of the five SIO ratings, three are found in the project area: low, moderate, and high (Figure 3-3).

These SIO ratings define the acceptable range of human caused alteration to the landscape. The integrity of the landscape is also measured by the degree of the alteration in line, form, and texture of the natural-appearing and other landscape features. 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. (Forest Plan FW-407). In moderate SIO zones, human activities may repeat form, line, color, and texture of landscape elements normally found in the natural-appearing landscape character being viewed. Activities may also introduce form, line, color and texture that are found infrequently or not at all in the landscape character, but these new scenic attributes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the natural or natural-appearing landscape character being viewed and consistent with the landscape character goal (Forest Plan FW–426). In low SIO areas, 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 FW– 442)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 79 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Figure 3-3. Corney Unit Scenic Integrity Objectives Ratings 3.8.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no direct effects on developed or dispersed recreation as proposed project actions would not take place. In areas that continue to be burned on a regular basis, dispersed recreation such as hunting, hiking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, and horseback riding would continue at the current level. Scenic viewing would continue to decline due to visual blockage by dense timber growth and thick underbrush. Those areas needing thinning may be too dense for the casual user. These areas would also be more susceptible to complete destruction from wildfire due to a buildup of hazardous fuels over time. Wildfire damage to recreational facilities, as well as natural resources, would adversely affect the visitor experience. Furthermore, large wildland fires can drastically alter the scenic landscape as well as its recreational resources. In addition, if the proposed actions are not implemented, stressed stands of timber may be overcome by insect or disease and dead trees and snags could cause hunters and other recreationists to stop using the area.

Without herbicide applications, this alternative would allow the infestation on American lotus to continue to overtake the lake surface of Corney Lake, thus restricting boat navigation, a popular recreational activity.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 80 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

The No Action alternative would have short- and long-term, direct, adverse, minor impacts on recreation locally as the forest understory may become dense and possibly limit access to recreational activities and block scenic views, and if boat navigation is hindered on Corney Lake by proliferation of American lotus. There would also be long-term, adverse, minor to moderate impacts district-wide if intense wildfires occur and damage recreational facilities and natural resources.

3.8.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Timber Harvesting Forest visitors would be temporarily displaced from areas during the relatively short periods of timber harvest. However, the first thinning, intermediate thinning, and group selection treatments under the Proposed Action would open the forest by removing individual trees throughout many of the stands of timber, allowing better access and scenic views for the public. Clearcut harvesting would create more edge for game species and provide better hunting opportunities. Broken limbs, skid trails caused by equipment, and browning could occur, creating a temporarily unsightly landscape. However, roads and skid trails used by logging equipment would generally be used by recreationists after the sale.

The proposed actions would be beneficial to hunters using the area because the stands, as they currently exist, are too thick to allow access and there is no browse. By reducing the density of the stands, the forest would be more accessible to recreational activities such as hiking, mountain biking, OHV use, and hunting, thus supporting the Forest’s open forest policy (Forest Plan FW- 124, page 2-17 and FW-327, page 2-32). Mechanical treatments would also reduce shading of vegetation and allow more sun tolerant plants to come into the area initially and would, over time, become more aesthetically appealing.

Road Maintenance Roads that are adversely affected by equipment tread and disruption could limit admittance to the newly opened forest in the short-term. However, in the long-term, maintenance and/or spot surfacing of roads utilized by harvesting equipment would provide improved road access to newly thinned and accessible forest areas and therefore encourage recreational users to take advantage of the Forest’s open forest policy as well as the other facilities in the area.

Site Preparation Prescribed Burning Prescribed burning may temporarily hinder the access and enjoyment of recreational activities and resources within the areas burned. A temporary decrease in aesthetic appeal due to charring and smoke may occur. Winter food sources should still be available along stream courses and floodplains where fires do not burn as hot or as frequently. Burning activities may open the forest to increased recreational use on the portion of land designated for prescribed burn. Reducing brush and midstory plants via burning and herbicides should produce more palatable browse for whitetail deer and provide more suitable habitat for eastern wild turkey and bobwhite quail, offering more hunting opportunities. Smoke accumulations on relatively calm days could reduce visibility in downwind areas and disturb or displace recreationists. Windier days would

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 81 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment disperse smoke faster and keep visibility higher, but may affect larger areas. All possible BMPs would be implemented to ensure minimal adverse effects.

Prescribed fire treatments maintain landscapes with high scenic diversity (USFS, 2012c). As such, no SIO or ROS would be degraded as a result of the Proposed Action. Mitigation measures described in the Forest Plan for moderate and low SIOs would be implemented to reduce any negative effects of the proposed activities on the quality of the view for sightseers and other casual recreationists. (Forest Plan 2-37 to 2-39).

Herbicide Use Herbicide applications on Corney Lake would control the infestation on American lotus on the lake surface, thus allowing for unrestricted boat navigation.

The Proposed Action would have direct, short-term, minor, adverse effects on recreation in and near the targeted areas from timber harvesting and prescribed burning operations. However, opening up the forest canopy, moving the targeted areas toward a more desired condition, and controlling American lotus so that there is unrestricted boat navigation would have long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on recreation.

3.8.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish. Without herbicide applications, this alternative would allow the infestation on American lotus to continue to overtake the lake surface of Corney Lake, thus restricting boat navigation, a popular recreational activity.

3.8.5 Cumulative Effects Past, present, and foreseeable future actions that contribute to cumulative impacts are those that change recreational sites in ways that limit a user’s ability to enjoy the site as they are accustomed to. Such actions include urban and rural development, road construction, silviculture and timber harvesting activities, and other land use changes. Activities that would occur during timber harvesting, prescribed burning, herbicide applications, and road maintenance would have temporary effects on recreation. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action are expected to be minor and adverse in the short-term and beneficial in the long-term. The cumulative, short- term impacts to recreation would likely be more adverse under the Proposed Action than under the No Action. The opposite would be true in the long-term. The cumulative impact under the No Action Alternative would be negligible. Vegetation management treatments to attain desired forest conditions would generally add to the short-term adverse or long-term beneficial impacts discussed under the Proposed Action. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts with wildland fires increasing in frequency and size and potentially damaging recreational facilities as well as landscapes and vistas.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 82 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 3.9.1 Affected Environment History of Timber and Timber Outputs Timber production in Louisiana started in the late 1800s, and the state was one of the leaders until the late 1920s when the Great Depression hit. By 1979 and 1980, KNF led all other national forests of the South in revenue produced per acre (USFS, 2012c).

The 2006 decline in U.S. housing and 2008 global financial crisis drove down wood product prices and production fell dramatically. As shown in Table 3-15, the KNF’s timber volume sold increased from 2004 to 2006 but doubled overall from 2004 to 2013. In the Caney Ranger District, the timber volume more than doubled from 2010-2013 (USFS, 2013).

Table 3-15. Timber Targets and Volume Sold in Caney Ranger District Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest (Total) Volume Sold Volume Sold Fiscal Year (FY) Target (CCF) Target (CCF) 2004 478 34 50,478 59,808 2005 2,000 1,841 55,000 69,688 2006 5,000 3,944 80,000 97,080 2007 5,000 5,061 63,700 93,886 2008 6,150 5,795 88,700 100,702 2009 5,500 8,527 76,200 98,990 2010 8,000 7,108 95,100 88,746 2011 13,600 12,734 124,061 123,046 2012 18,582 18,994 131,000 132,123 2013 15,750 15,749 118,000 120,075 Source: USFS, 2013

Thinning Projects Over the last few years, more emphasis has been placed on commercial thinnings for forest health and wildlife habitat improvements (Table 3-16). In 2014, the Caney District Shortleaf Restoration Project resulted in approximately 4,631 acres of commercial thinning and shortleaf pine restoration (USFS, 2014c). According to established forest management guidelines, stands within SMAs 2AS and 3BS of the project area are considered overstocked and in need of timber harvest operations. All timber sales associated with past and existing projects, as well as this proposed project, have been and will be positive revenue sales.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 83 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Table 3-16. Acres/Estimated Costs of Thinning Projects in the Caney Ranger District 2009 2013 2015 Estimated Estimated Estimated Treatment Type Acres Cost Acres Cost Acres Cost First 382 $155,856 506 $182,160 195 $163,800 Commercial Thinning Intermediate 0 0 235 $84600 373 $313,320 Commercial Thinning Shortleaf pine 0 0 0 0 106 $89,040 restoration TOTAL 382 $155,856 741 $266,760 674 $566,160 Source: USFS, 2016

Southern Pine Beetle The cost of fighting SPB infestations in the United States has increased since the mid-1980s. From 1999 to 2003, SPB caused unprecedented damage in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. In the Kisatchie Hills Wilderness Area, a SPB outbreak resulted in widespread destruction of longleaf pine. The KNF has not been affected by the SPB since 2006. However, SPB outbreaks usually occur on a seven year cycle (USFS, 2016).

As discussed under the Proposed Action, the Southern Pine Beetle Hazard Rating System for the Kisatchie National Forest was also used to determine hazard ratings for the stands proposed for thinning. This is a newly developed system adapted from National Forest Risk Rating that depicts SPB hazard ratings based on several parameters. Claiborne Parish is classified as having a High hazard rating (USFS, 2012a). Loblolly pine forest type stands classified with High hazard ratings for SPB infestation are those with a total pine basal area greater than 120 ft2/acre (USFS, 2014a). As shown in Table 2-2, the majority of treatments are proposed on stands with a basal area greater than 120 ft2/acre.

Wildland Fire Suppression The cost of fighting wildland fires in the United States has risen over the years due to increased size and occurrences of wildland fires. One of the reasons behind the increase in acreage burned is the increase in available fuels on the natural landscape. Thinning treatments keep forest fuels at low energy levels, limiting wildland fire suppression costs.

As noted in both the FY 2009 Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan and Report and FY 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the KNF, wildland fire preparedness funding continued to be below the most efficient level. As a result, wildland fire losses were not being minimized due to the funding shortfall. Resources identified in National Fire Management Analysis System (NFMAS) continue to be made available in accordance with budget funding level. The NFMAS is the tool used in planning and developing forest fire suppression direction.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 84 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

The acceptable range identified for wildland fires on KNF is 2,108 acres. As shown in Table 3- 17, in 2011 and 2012, the acres burned in wildland fires was below this acceptable range; but in 2009 and 2015 the acres burned in wildland fires was above this acceptable range. The number of wildland fires, average size per fire, and total acreage affected were lower in 2012 than 2009. The cost of suppressing wildland fires on the KNF decreased $208,400 from 2009 to 2012. From 2012 to 2014, the acres burned from wildland fires, the average size of wildland fires, and the suppression costs about doubled (USFS, 2009; USFS, 2012c; USFS, 2015).

Recreational Value The Corney Lake Recreation Area is a 2,300 acre reservoir which has become a popular fishing and waterfowl hunting destination. Corney Lake has primitive camping on both the north and south shores. However, the north short camp sites are strictly for tent campers. Visitors to Corney Lake can enjoy fishing opportunities, either from their boat, shore, or from one of the fishing piers. All Corney Lake use areas, campgrounds, boat launches and ramps are free (USFS, No Date).

In 2009, channel catfish fingerlings were stocked in Corney Lake (4,000) to improve the sport fishery and fill a habitat niche that would otherwise be filled by undesirable species (e.g., bullheads). Corney Lake needs to be drawn down to maintain a healthy fish population balance, manage aquatic weeds, and to allow decomposition of the “muck” on the benthos layer, or lake floor (USFS, 2009; USFS, 2012c; USFS, 2013).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 85 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Table 3-17. Wildland Fire Suppression Costs Item Measured 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Acres burned 1,677 675 2,077 2,761 2,761 1,719 1,719 n/a 3,369 7,175 from wildland fires Number of 75 44 44 68 126 154 52 n/a 51 75 wildland fires Average size 22 15 47 41 83 23 33 n/a 66 n/a of wildland fire (acres) Estimated cost $333,400 $135,000 $415,400 $552,200 $2,096,800* $682,200 $343,800 n/a $673,800 n/a of suppression Source: USFS, 2015; USFS, 2016 *The Wrangler wildland fire affected 4,363 acres. n/a = Not Applicable

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 86 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

3.9.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no direct social or economic effects to the KNF or the local economy. Forest management actions would be limited to units for which other valid NEPA documentation and project plans exist. However, a decrease in thinning treatments would render the Caney Ranger District more susceptible to both wildland fires and SPB infestation as the rate at which both spread is related to the amount of understory and basal area. Without the proposed thinnings, wildland fire suppression and SPB control costs could potentially increase in the future. Additional costs would be incurred if natural resources and properties were damaged as a result of either. Lastly, the lack of thinning would create dense vegetation conditions not conducive to the majority of non-consumptive uses, thus causing adverse socioeconomic impacts.

3.9.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action The Proposed Action would commercially harvest (intermediate thinning) approximately 1,918 acres of pine and mixed pine/hardwood, which would help achieve the timber harvest target for the Caney Ranger District of approximately 18,000 ccf. Thinning activities would ultimately depend on timber sale activity. Prices and markets continue to drive the demand for wood products, and future demand is uncertain. Funding has constrained the timber program’s ability to increase and achieve the average of the offer/sold levels outlined in the 1999 KNF Revised Land and Resource Management Forest Plan, though both the Caney Ranger District and the KNF overall met or exceeded the timber targets in 2007, 2009, 2012, and 2013 (USFS, 1999a; USFS, 2013). The ability to increase and achieve these levels would indicate whether additional thinning would increase.

Forest management activities benefit the local economy from both consumptive and non- consumptive use. Consumptive uses would include the sale of forest products and jobs related to logging and post-harvesting contracting activities such as reforestation projects. Benefits also occur from the processing of the material from sales and jobs generated by the timber program in the surrounding area. Increased timber sales would provide jobs directly to loggers and processors and indirectly to others through multiplier effects. These employees would spend all or part of their income locally at businesses, hotels, and restaurants. Timber sale revenues would also produce a return to the treasury, generating funds for other uses on KNF land. Knutson- Vandenburg funding would be available for other resource improvement activities in the timber sale area.

This alternative would create higher quality timber as a final product at the end of its rotation. Stands that were thinned grow at least two to four additional inches in girth in comparison with stands that were not thinned prior to final harvest (USFS, 2014c). These findings illustrate the higher quality and quantity of the final timber product available at the time of the sale; higher prices and volume would increase available Knutson-Vandenberg funding. According to the Forest Plan and the proposed project, these commercially harvested areas would be returned to historical shortleaf pinelands or favor shortleaf pine/oak hickory as leave species. The additional Knutson-Vanderburg funding could expedite this restoration process.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 87 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment By definition, a non-consumptive forest value, such as public perception, is not a commodity that is consumed and is therefore not given a dollar value. Non-consumptive use may include recreational activities such as bird-watching and camping. Benefits from these activities are not directly associated with the Proposed Action, but come from multiplier effects within the community and the visual benefits of more open forest stands from timber harvest activities.

A public perception study of the McDonald and Dunn Forest in Oregon discovered that people preferred mature timber stands to harvested stands, and that partial cuts were favored over clearcuts. Positive attributes used to describe a forest consisted of “attributes of biodiversity,” “lack of human influences,” and “attraction places” (i.e., vistas), while “presence of dead or dying wood” was often considered a detraction despite its biological importance. Many of the proposed timber harvests would occur in compartments adjacent privately-owned lands, especially in the northwestern portion of the Caney Ranger District. A study of adjacent landowners showed that they prefer thinned stands to small patch cuts or two-story stands, and any alternative to clearcut harvest. Not surprisingly, people are more critical of timber harvesting when performed in the vicinity of their homes and are willing to pay to mitigate the harvest intensity (Johnson et al., 2005). The proposed timber harvests could adversely affect adjacent landowners in the short-term as the equipment used for these activities would create noise. The magnitude of the impact would depend on the distance of the private property to the compartments and would occur during thinning activities in all compartments and clearcut harvests in compartments 7, 8, 9 and 10. In the long-term, the visual appearance of the stands could improve and therefore create beneficial impacts.

Prevention activities (restoration and thinning) are designed to improve forest health and reduce SPB hazard, while still providing desired forest values. Thinning is the preferred practice for reducing a forest stand’s susceptibility to SPB and constitutes the predominant strategy of prevention efforts. Thinning reduces intraspecific competition and promotes tree health. The resultant increased tree spacing also disrupts SPB spot growth. The SPB Prevention and Restoration Program, a joint effort by the USDA Forest Service and the Southern Group of State Foresters, set targets to thin down to at least 450 stems/acre for pre-commercial thinning and to a basal area of 80 square feet per acre (+/-15%) for first thinnings (USFS, 2005b). The District is proposing intermediate thinning treatments to a BA of 70 square feet per acre and first thinning treatments to a BA of 60 square feet per acre, which meet or exceed the targets set by the SPB Prevention and Restoration Program. In the instance of an epidemic, road maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 20 miles of existing roads could also enable access to infested stands for sanitation cuts. As such, the proposed thinnings would create beneficial socioeconomic impacts by reducing the District’s susceptibility to SPB and facilitating access to stands for sanitation cuts or future timber harvest.

The proposed project would cost approximately $672,000, based on an average production of 10 ccf/acre at $24/ccf. The average cost for wildland fire suppression is approximately $200 per acre. While an SPB outbreak has not occurred on the KNF since 2006, if such an outbreak occurs, damage of infestation would be reduced by immediately cutting the infested trees and then cutting a buffer to minimize losses. Generally, the infested areas can be accessed effectively through roads and trails, which are more prevalent now than in the mid-1980s. Without an SPB outbreak at KNF, the control costs of suppressing an SPB outbreak and wildfires cannot be

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 88 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment compared to the cost of thinning treatments. Even so, such figures would not be directly comparable as thinning treatments are a preventative measure and wildland suppression and SPB control costs are reactive. Also, wildland fire suppression estimates do not include the potential cost to rehabilitate damage to properties, energy and recreation infrastructure, fire-susceptible species, and municipal watersheds. Project costs and acres for the proposed project are higher than those described in Table 3-13 but follow the general historical trend. The proposed timber harvests would reduce forest fuels; limit the size and frequency of wildland fires and therefore suppression costs; as well as reduce the likelihood and extent of an SPB outbreak (USFS, 2013b; USFWS, 2012). The proposed activities would provide a level of wildfire protection, which emphasizes cost effective wildfire prevention and suppression while minimizing loss of resources; and allow the Caney District to reach Objective 1-4 of the Forest Plan.

The proposed herbicide application on Corney Lake (1300 acres) would treat American lotus infestations that may restrict small boat navigation, fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes. While user fees are not associated with any of the recreational activities at Corney Lake Recreational Area, clear, weed-free lakes are often highly valued for enhanced property values and contact recreation (EPA, 2015b). Intermediate thinning in compartments 2, 3, and 4 on Corney Lake could cause increased soil erosion and sedimentation. However, with runoff management practices in place to protect soil loss, impacts on the recreational value of Corney Lake would be negligible.

The Proposed Action would have both short- and long-term, beneficial, minor impacts to socioeconomic resources related to the sale of forest products and jobs related to logging and post-harvesting contracting activities. Timber sale revenues could produce a return to the treasury, generating funds for other uses on KNF land. The equipment used to conduct the proposed thinning treatments could create minor, adverse impacts to landowners adjacent the compartments due to noise, but the disturbance would only last the duration of the timber harvest activities. In the long-term, minor, beneficial impacts could also occur as timber harvests would increase the non-consumptive forest value in the long-term with the improved visual appearance of stands. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts could also occur as herbicide application would improve both consumptive (i.e. fishing) and nonconsumptive (i.e. boating) uses of Corney Lake by minimizing American lotus infestations.

3.9.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish.

The direct/indirect effects from using herbicide in Alternative B pose a minimum overall risk to socioeconomics. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to socioeconomics.

3.9.5 Cumulative Effects Past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in the area could marginally impact KNF management costs or timber sales. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action are expected to

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 89 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment be both adverse and beneficial, and negligible. Manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, and herbicide vegetation management treatments to attain desired forest conditions would generally add to adverse or beneficial impacts discussed under the proposed action. This assumes that the Caney Ranger District would continue to share wildland suppression and any future SPB control costs with other districts; benefiting directly or indirectly from actions that would affect timber sales. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts with wildland fires or SPB infestations increasing in frequency and size and therefore increasing suppression or control costs.

3.10 TRANSPORTATION 3.10.1 Affected Environment The transportation network on KNF includes U.S. and state highways (including federal aid primary and secondary roads); parish roads and private land access; and Forest Service roads. The transportation system also includes bridges under Forest Service jurisdiction. While federal, state and parish roads provide primary access into the national forest, Forest Service roads provide the intermediate and final avenues needed to administer, manage, and protect public lands and resources. Travel on the Forest occurs on paved roads, gravel roads, and primitive woods roads.

Louisiana Highway 9 crosses the Corney Unit. There are several local roads throughout the project area; some are paved and some are gravel. The forest roads in the project area are used to access forest lands for timber management as well as for recreational uses, such as hunting and hiking. Local roads are generally dead-end roads that provide access for administrative purposes and seasonal dispersed recreation, consistent with the travel management rule.

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 Caney Ranger District in 2014. A subset of the Caney Ranger District TAP was used to inform the Horseshoe Loop EA transportation needs within Compartments 1-4 and 6-10.

Ownership and Maintenance of Transportation System There are approximately 108 miles of road in the Horseshoe Loop project area. Of these, the Forest Service owns 34 miles of road, Claiborne Parish owns 24 miles of road, and LA DOT owns 50 miles of road. Risks and Benefits were analyzed for each road segment in the project area (Horseshoe Loop TAP 2016).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 90 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Risks Considered Risks considered to soil and water quality are through sedimentation, NNIP, habitat fragmentation, sight distance and curves difficult to navigate, flooding, and bridge condition.

Risk Findings All analyzed risks were scored from 1 to 3, with 1 being the lowest and 3 being the highest. The TAP yielded Medium to High overall risks associated with the project area roads maintained by the USDA Forest Service. The Medium to High overall ratings were associated with NNIP, sight distance and curves difficult to navigate and flood-prone low areas.

Benefits Considered Benefits considered were access to private property and Special Uses; access for wildfire suppression and fuels management; access to developed and dispersed recreation sites; access for the management of forest products; and access for the improvement of habitat for PETS or other wildlife.

Benefit Findings All analyzed benefits were scored from 1 to 3, with 1 being the lowest and 3 being the highest. The TAP yielded Medium to High overall benefits associated with the project area roads for providing access to fire suppression efforts and fuels management, dispersed recreation, forest product management and habitat improvement.

Current Motor Vehicle Use Status Thirty-five miles of USDA Forest Service roads are open year-round to motor vehicle use and five miles are seasonally closed (Catahoula MVUM 2015).

Table 3-18 displays roads in the project area that are needed for project work.

Table 3-18. Roads in the Horseshoe Loop Project Area Needed to Accomplish Project Activities Total Segment Length Total Segment Length Route ID (miles) Route ID (miles) CN02G 0.434 CN03F 0.117 CN02H 0.247 CN03G 0.108 CN02I 0.559 CN03H 0.022 CN03D 0.484 CN03K 0.602 CN04H 0.52 CN04E 0.2 CN04I 0.104 CN04S 0.058 CN04K 0.14 CN07A 1 CN06G 0.155 CN07C 0.566 CN07B 0.362 CN07D 0.209 CN09B 0.106 CN09A 0.309 CN09G 0.597 CN09D 0.267 CN09H 0.064 CN09F 0.61

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 91 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Total Segment Length Total Segment Length Route ID (miles) Route ID (miles) CN01A 0.866 CN10A 0.47 CN01D 0.415 CN10B 0.218 CN02C 0.49 CN10C 0.539 CN02E 0.489 CN10D 0.449 CN02J 0.273 CN10E 0.995 CN03A 0.951 CN10F 0.118 CN03B 0.651 904 2.109 CN03C 0.179 905 1.889 CN04B 0.106 922 0.515 CN04C 0.307 903 1.866 CN04D 0.523 902 3.75

3.10.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action Under the No Action alternative, the existing condition for the roads in the project area would persist. No road maintenance activities would be performed. Current use patterns would continue, and existing roads could experience possible deterioration such as surface rutting and erosion. However, any adverse impacts associated with timber harvesting would be avoided. Area roads would not be subject to use or damaged by logging trucks and equipment.

In the absence of timber harvesting and prescribed burning, the buildup of hazardous forest fuels could result in intense wildfires throughout the project area. In the event that a wildfire does occur, affected highways and several local roads could be temporarily closed due to reduced visibility and smoke dispersion for extended periods of time.

No direct or indirect, short-term or long-term, adverse or beneficial impacts on transportation are expected from the No Action alternative, unless an intense wildfire occurs due to the high fuel loads that would remain in place under this alternative. In the case of wildfire, impacts would be adverse and could range from minor to moderate in the short-term depending on the frequency and severity of wildfires.

3.10.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Horseshoe Loop Annual Road Maintenance Activities The Forest Service annually administers a contract to maintain 11 miles of road designed for passenger car travel in the Horseshoe Loop 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, large culvert installation, culvert replacement, spot surfacing and resurfacing, removal of slides and slumps, removal of hazard trees, removal of road side vegetation for improved sight distance on the roads, dust abatement, and removal of overhanging vegetation to allow for access and installation of signs. Dust abatement is expected to occur on all miles of road as part of the timber contract.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 92 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Prescribed Burning Smoke from prescribed fires can create hazardous situations on roads. The potential exists for smoke to affect traffic on state and local roads, and Forest Service roads adjacent to the burn areas. Disruptions, such as temporary closures of roads could result in a small decrease in visitation or displacement to another area due to limited accessibility. Short-term, temporary closures may occur due to heavy smoke, if the road crosses the burn area, or if the road is being used as a fire break. The extent of these disruptions would vary depending on the size, location, and duration of each prescribed burn. Generally, it is expected that road closures would be of short duration ranging from a few minutes to a few hours, if necessary at all.

Where visibility on local roads and highways might be affected by prescribed burning, signs would be placed in appropriate places to mitigate the effects of smoke on traffic. There is no expectation for road closures throughout the project area; however, the Sheriff’s Department has the authority to enforce road closures on a short-term basis to protect public safety. In addition, some Forest Service roads may be closed to reduce the visibility limitations associated with smoke.

The Proposed Action would have short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on local roads due to temporary closures during road maintenance and prescribed burning, as well as smoke from burning that can cause hazardous road conditions. There would also be long-term, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on the transportation system in the project area as roads would be improved through maintenance activities and would provide better future access in the District.

3.10.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish.

The direct/indirect effects from using herbicide in Alternative B pose a minimum overall risk to transportation. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to transportation.

3.10.5 Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary is the 6,800-acre project area. The timeframe of the cumulative effects analysis for past projects is approximately 10 years. Reasonably foreseeable projects were derived by reviewing the most recent (January to March 2016) Kisatchie NF Schedule of Proposed Actions.

The Forest Service annually administers a contract to maintain 11 miles of Maintenance Levels 3 and 4 in the Horseshoe Loop Project Area. There are no ongoing or reasonably foreseeable road- related projects in the project area. Although prescribed fire is an ongoing activity (approximately 300 acres per year within the project area), road maintenance or reconstruction is not associated.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 93 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Under Alternative A, there would be 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.

Under Alternatives B and C, approximately 20 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”. Upgrading the road conditions may increase recreational use throughout the project area. Under both Alternatives B and C, there would be no new roads added to the system. All closed roads would be closed back upon completion of activities associated with timber harvest and reforestation activities. Over 29 miles of road would remain open to motorized vehicles year-round.

3.11 HERITAGE RESOURCES 3.11.1 Affected Environment To ensure that historic properties [properties eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)] are not affected, implementation of proposed actions are preceded by an archaeological resources inventory of the proposed Area of Potential Effect (APE), and consultation with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) [see 36 CFR 800.14, Forest Plan page 4-105, and the Forest Service Manual 2361.02 (5)].

The KNF, Caney Ranger District Heritage Program conducted a complete archaeological survey of the project areas on the Caney Unit and other units of the District. During the course of the survey, no archaeological resources were documented. Reports of findings are covered in three separate survey documents, R2013-08-06-06-001, R2015-08-06-06-001 and R2015-08-06-06- 003.

Per Section VB1 of the Southern Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), and further agreed to by the Louisiana SHPO, an approved programmatic agreement satisfies the agency’s Section 106 responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the agreement until it expires or is terminated.

3.11.2 Impacts of 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.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 94 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.11.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action In the event that any additional or previously unknown archaeological resource sites are discovered at any time during proposed project activities, all work at that location would cease immediately and the Caney District Zone Archaeologist would be notified. Activity at that location would be suspended until an evaluation of the resource was made by a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Louisiana SHPO, the appropriate THPOs, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (36 CFR 800.13). Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts on heritage resources expected under Alternative B.

3.11.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish.

The direct/indirect effects from using herbicide in Alternative B pose a minimum overall risk to heritage resources. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to heritage resources.

3.11.5 Cumulative Effects Past, present, and future actions that would contribute cumulative impacts to heritage resources include any ground-disturbing activities, such as large construction projects and logging, wildfires, and looting and vandalism. Ground-disturbing actions could create adverse, cumulative impacts to heritage resources and the intensity could range from negligible to large as these actions may diminish the integrity of the resource or change one or more character defining features of a resource that is listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Impacts associated with human activities include exposure of buried sites, changes in artifact condition, destruction of artifacts or structures, loss of context of artifacts, site covering, and contamination of sites. Natural effects such as erosion and wildland fires also contribute to cumulative losses of heritage resources available for scientific study and the practice of traditional tribal activities.

Based on past archaeological investigations and the management requirements applied, there is no reasonable expectation of cumulative effects on heritage resource sites considered to be eligible or potentially eligible for placement or listing on the NRHP. 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.

Impacts on heritage resources associated with the proposed project would be small as compared with the cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action would be expected to be adverse and negligible or non-existent. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 95 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment 3.12 CLIMATE CHANGE 3.12.1 Affected Environment A growing body of scientific research, published in peer reviewed journals and synthesized by groups such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, depicts a global climate that is changing. The following elements of climate change are known with near certainty (IPCC, 2013): 1. Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, are well-documented and understood.

2. The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. 3. An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 degrees to 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit occurred from 1906-2013. Warming occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres and over the oceans. 4. The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. 5. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. In addition to increases in global average air temperatures, the IPCC reports that the earth’s warming trend has also resulted in increases in global average ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. There have also been changes in the patterns of precipitation. Furthermore, the IPCC concluded that it is very likely that over the past 50 years, cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is also likely that over most land areas heat waves have become more frequent and that heavy precipitation events have also become more frequent (USFS, 2012b). According to IPCC (2013), however, it is uncertain how much warming will occur, how fast that warming will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns.

Some researchers have also speculated that increasing temperatures in conjunction with uncertain precipitation scenarios may result in increased fire occurrence, intensity, and duration both regionally and locally. The highly uncertain outcome of varying scenarios of climate change, and its effect on fire occurrence and behavior, makes climate change very difficult to quantify in a dynamic environment such as fire.

Climate change across the region will gradually impact Forest resources. These changes may be incremental but over time (50-100 years) the cumulative effects may be substantial to certain species or habitats. Blunden et al. (2014) documented 2013 as among the ten warmest years on record, with 2012 as the warmest for the United States. Further, they report that atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide all continued to increase in 2013. As in previous years, each of these major greenhouse gases once again reached historic high concentrations.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 96 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP, 2014) reported average temperatures are projected to increase by about 4.5° F in the southeastern U.S. by the 2080s. Models predict southeastern states will have less precipitation in winter and spring, and the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts will be more severe. Warming temperatures projected for the next 50- 100 years will result in declines in forest growth and agricultural crops. Lower soil moisture and higher temperatures may lead to intense wildfires, drying of wetlands, and outbreaks of insect pests like the southern pine beetle. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to both natural and built environments and to the regional economy. Increasing temperatures and the associated increase in frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events will affect public health, natural and built environments, energy, agriculture, and forestry.

There is much we do not know about how the climate will change and how a changing climate will affect the environment. Uncertainty is a result of a lack of knowledge of how climate will respond to the changing chemistry of the atmosphere, and how the atmosphere will change in the future. There are many climate change models in use and they vary considerably in their assumptions and the strength of different feedback mechanisms.

In 2010, the USDA Forest Service developed a strategic roadmap to address climate and climate variability because climate change places ecosystems at risk. The roadmap recommends the following management actions to mitigate the effects of climate change and promote healthy, resilient forest and grassland ecosystems, including: • Treat overgrown forests to make them less vulnerable to wildfire, pathogens, and insect attack. • Control insects, pathogens, and invasive species that threaten the health and resilience of ecosystems.

3.12.2 Impacts of Alternative A: No Action In forests that are designed to burn, plants grow freely and carbon accumulates. In fire-adapted landscapes, such as in the project area, with frequent summer lightning storms, the concern is not whether the forest will burn, but rather when and how it will burn. Accumulated undergrowth adds to the potential for severe drought-year fires that can consume undergrowth, oxidize soil carbon, kill large trees and possibly threaten communities. It is these types of fires which severely impact forest habitats that contribute substantially to increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in combination with the burning of fossil fuels. Large wildfires can contribute a significant percent of an area’s CO2 annual emissions, in some cases exceeding anthropogenic sources.

Under the No Action alternative, without a reduction in hazardous fuels, large, uncontrolled fires could burn everything, even canopies of the tallest trees, essential organic material in soil, seeds (also in soil), logs, and other carbon-accumulating features. Eventually, a tall forest could be converted to woodland and shrub land with a long-term or permanent loss of stored carbon.

Although it would contribute adversely, it is not expected that the No Action alternative would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. Impacts from climate change and warmer temperatures on Forest habitats and management may not be apparent for many

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 97 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment years. Substantial climate impacts within the 10-year time frame of this program are not expected, nevertheless, the trend is apparent.

3.12.3 Impacts of Alternative B: Proposed Action Prescribed Burning Forests have emerged as important factors in climate change. Trees store, or sequester, significant amounts of carbon, thereby helping offset the large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted by factories, motor vehicles, and other sources. When trees burn to the ground or die, much of that carbon is returned to the atmosphere. It can take decades for forest regrowth to sequester the amount of carbon emitted in a single fire.

However, the use of prescribed burning to manage forests may help the United States reduce its carbon footprint. Results of a recent study (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau, 2010) found that such burns, used by forest managers to reduce underbrush and protect bigger trees, release substantially less carbon dioxide emissions than wildfires of the same size. Wildfires often consume large trees that store significant amounts of carbon. Prescribed fires are designed to burn underbrush and small trees, which store less carbon. By clearing out the underbrush, these controlled burns reduce the chances of subsequent high-severity wildfires, thereby protecting large trees and keeping more carbon locked up in the forest.

Wiedinmyer and Hurteau (2010) used a regional fire emissions model to estimate the potential reduction in fire emissions when prescribed burning is applied in dry, temperate forested systems of the western U.S. Daily carbon dioxide (CO2) fire emissions for 2001−2008 were calculated for two cases: a default wildfire case and one in which prescribed burning was applied. The study found that wide-scale prescribed fire application can reduce CO2 fire emissions by 18−25% in the western U.S., and by as much as 60% in specific forest systems.

The results of the Wiedinmyer and Hurteau (2010) study can be extrapolated to the southern U.S., indicating that prescribed fire application can reduce CO2 fire emissions in the project area as well. Periodic controlled burns used to manage many natural areas, such as longleaf pine ecosystems, do not release a great deal of carbon relative to what is stored in the forest stand. Thus prescribed burning is a strategy to help lower overall carbon dioxide emissions. Burning away the fuel load that has built up over time under controlled conditions means that the threat of unnaturally severe fires is lessened and overall carbon dioxide releases are reduced.

Carbon that is released during prescribed burning would then be recaptured in new plant growth fairly quickly. Low-intensity fires tend to stimulate regrowth of grasses and other species that quickly accumulate carbon in both leaves and roots after controlled burns.

Prescribed burns can help lessen climate change and maintain biodiversity because they: • Consume only surface fuels • Leave organic matter in soil intact • Leave behind a layer of ash which protects soil and logs • Release a relatively small amount of CO2 by comparison to uncontrolled fires • Help prevent large, uncontrolled fires

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 98 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Timber Harvesting Timber harvesting activities that would affect air quality include the use of heavy equipment that creates exhaust emissions during logging operations and road maintenance. Particulate emissions levels from these activities would vary, and impacts off-site would depend on the location of activities and the daily wind and weather. Although some impacts would occur, they would be transitory, temporary, and controlled through mitigation measures and BMPs. Additionally, this alternative would help prevent large, uncontrolled wildfires through the reduction of hazard fuels.

Although it would contribute beneficially, it is not expected that the Proposed Action would substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. Overall, the impacts of the Proposed Action alternative on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would be negligible. 3.12.4 Impacts of Alternative C The proposed treatments for Alternative C are the same as described for Alternative B except that Corney Lake would not receive any herbicide applications. The American lotus infestation in Corney Lake would increase in size, and any future infestations by either native or non-native undesirable species would be allowed to grow and flourish.

The direct/indirect effects from using herbicide in Alternative C pose a minimum overall risk to climate change. There would be a decrease of 1,300 acres treated under this alternative; therefore, there would be even fewer direct and indirect effects to climate change.

3.12.5 Cumulative Effects Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions generated by project activities are expected to contribute to the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect climate change. Projected climate change impacts include air temperature increases, sea level rise, changes in the timing, location, and quantity of precipitation, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts, and floods. Emissions generated by project activities are expected to contribute very small amounts to the global concentration of greenhouse gases that affect climate change.

Because greenhouse gases from project activities mix readily into the global pool of greenhouse gases, it is not currently possible to discern the effects of this project from the effects of all other greenhouse gas sources worldwide, nor is it expected that attempting to do so would provide a practical or meaningful analysis of project effects. Potential regional and local variability in climate change effects add to the uncertainty regarding the actual intensity of this project’s effects on global climate change. Further, emissions associated with this project are extremely small in the global atmospheric CO2 context, making it impossible to measure the incremental cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with this project.

The potential for cumulative effects is considered negligible because the Proposed Action would not result in measurable direct and indirect effects on global climate patterns. The No Action alternative could contribute greater adverse cumulative impacts in the event of intense wildfires.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 99 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 4.1 LIST OF PREPARERS Kistachie National Forest Jeff Bass, Silviculturist Barbara Bell, Forest Silviculturist Elizabeth Hoyt, Forest NEPA Coordinator Dave Moore, Forest Botanist Camelia Steward, Wildlife Biologist

Solv LLC Eveline Martin, Project Manager and Environmental Analyst Nathalie Jacque, Environmental Analyst Chelsie Romulo, GIS Specialist

4.2 INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND TRIBES CONSULTED Table 4-1 lists the individuals, organizations, and tribes consulted in this EA process.

Table 4-1. Individuals, Organizations, and Tribes Consulted First Title Name Last Name Company/ Address City State Zip Mr. Jerry Adkins 155 Magee Road Homer LA 71040 Mr. David Adkinson 8052 Elaine Drive Keithville LA 71047 Ms. Mary Alderson 1811 Alderson Road Lillie LA 71256 Mr. Daniel Armstrong 245 Renee Street Natchitoches LA 71457 Mr. Ken Ash 5766 Bayou Drive Bossier City LA 71112 -4976 Mr. Steve Aycock 390 Barber Creek Road Bernice LA 71222 Sheriff Ken Bailey Claiborne Parish Homer LA 71040 Sheriff’s Office 613 E. Main Street Mr. Phil Bowman LA Department of Baton Rouge LA 70898 Wildlife & Fisheries, -9000 Asst. Secretary P.O. Box 98000 Mr. W. G. Brame 17080 Highway 79 Minden LA 71055 Mr. Kent Brantley P.O. Box 344 Junction City AR 71749 Ms. Pam Breaux State Historic Baton Rouge LA 70804 Preservation Officer P.O. Box 44247

Consultation and Coordination 100 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

First Title Name Last Name Company/ Address City State Zip Mr. Ronney L. Broussard Sierra Club Delta Pollock LA 71467 Chapter 241 Broussard Road Mr. Jeff Brown 210 Corney Lake Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Jerry Brunson 451 Cramer Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Rick Bryan 2405 Evergreen Lane Pineville LA 71360 Mr. Dennis Butcher P.O. Box 450 Homer LA 71040 Mr. Joe Cagnolatti LA Wild Turkey Gonzales LA 70737 Federation 1606 South Houmas Mr. S.D. Campbell P.O. Box 127 Summerfield LA 71079 Mr. Ronnie Daniels P.O. Box 294 Junction City AR 71749 Mr. Scott Davidson Claiborne Parish Police Homer LA 71040 Jury P.O. Box 270 Mr. Tommy Durrett 14346 Alt. 2 Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Patti Faulkner LA Natural Heritage Baton Rouge LA 70898 Program, LA -9000 Department of Wildlife & Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Congress John Fleming United States Congress Shreveport LA 71105 -man 6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350 Mr. Denis Gaston P.O. Box 177 Summerfield LA 71079 Mrs. Dena Ginn LA Office of Forestry Haughton LA 71037 740 Covington Road Mr. Gerald Glover 207 Germantown Road Minden LA 71055 Warden Jerry Goodwin Wade Correctional Homer LA 71040 Center Bell Hill Road Ms. Lisa Guidry 3771 Hwy 9 Summerfield LA 71079 Mr. Steve Hebert LA Department of Minden LA 71055 Wildlife & Fisheries 9961 Highway 80 Ms. Lynn Herren 250 Woodard Drive Minden LA 71055 Mr. Bill Herring 231 N. Main Street Homer LA 71040 Ms. Jill Humphreys 470 Featherston Road Homer LA 71040

Consultation and Coordination 101 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

First Title Name Last Name Company/ Address City State Zip Mr. Keith Hurst P.O. Box 222 Spearsville LA 71277 Mr. Richard Johnson LA Native Plant Saline LA 71070 Society 216 Caroline Dorman Road Mr. Alvin Kelly P.O. Box 790 Junction City AR 71749 Mr. Billy Kennedy 314 Cramer Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Mark Killingsworth 716 Sexton Road Minden LA 71055 Mr. James Laird 265 Hunt Plant Road Bernice LA 71222 Senator Bill Cassidy 5555 Hilton Avenue Shreveport LA 71101 Suite 100 Mr. Glenn Leake P.O. Box 77 Junction City LA 71749 Mr. Edward Lee 252 Ham Lee Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Millard Lee 385 Back Forty Lane Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Danny Lee 1370 Flatwoods Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Stephen Lewis 5764 Hwy. 9 Summerfield LA 71079 Mr. Tab Long 1683 Harmon Loop Homer LA 71040 Road Mr. Richard Martin The Nature Baton Rouge LA 70821 Conservancy P.O. Box 4125 Mr. Dave Moreland LA Department of Baton Rouge LA 70898 Wildlife & Fisheries, -9000 Asst. Secretary P.O. Box 98000 Mr. Gerald Moring 446 Thurmon School Bernice LA 71222 Road Mr. Tim Morris P.O. Box 1435 Minden LA 71055 Ms. Nancy Murphy 23 North Talton Minden LA 71055 Mr. Harold Newson Webster Parish School Sarepta LA 71071 Board 180 North Thomas Super- Daniel Rawls Webster Parish School Minden LA 71058 intendent Board P.O. Box 520 Mr. Earl Phillips Box 577 Junction City AR 71749 Major Jerry Powdrill 906 Winnfield Road West Monroe LA 71292 -2284

Consultation and Coordination 102 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

First Title Name Last Name Company/ Address City State Zip Mr. Mike Rainwater LA Wildlife Turkey Ruston LA 71273 Federation P.O. Box 691 Mr. Herman Ratcliff 1900 West Oak Street El Dorado AR 71730 Mr. Ricky Rea 14190 Hwy 2 Alt. Bernice LA 71222 Mayor Tommy Davis 520 Broadway Minden LA 71055 Mr. John Rogers P.O. Box 543 Junction City LA 71749 Mr. James Scriber P.O. Box 152 Summerfield LA 71079 Mr. Greg Scriber P.O. Box 133 Summerfield LA 71079 Sheriff Gary Sexton Webster Parish Minden LA 71058 Sheriff’s Office P.O. Box 877 Dr. Eddie Sherman Box 191 Summerfield LA 71079 Mr. Robert Shirey 1281 Buck Green Road Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Steve Shirey 1263 Buck Green Road Bernice LA 71222 Mayor Roy Lewis City Hall Homer LA 71040 Mr. Lattimore Smith LA Natural Heritage Baton Rouge LA 70898 Program, LA -9000 Department of Wildlife & Fisheries P.O. Box 98000 Mr. Lester Smith 426 Randolph Road Lillie LA 71256 Ms. Monica Sikes U.S. Fish & Wildlife Lafayette LA 70506 Service 646 Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400 Mr. Kenneth Sones 121 Sones Road Lillie LA 71256 Mr. D'Arcy Stevens 14189 Hwy. 2 Alt. Bernice LA 71222 Mr. Wayne Tanner P.O. Box 235 Lisbon LA 71048 Mr. Antonio Tatum P.O. Box 282 Junction City AR 71749 Mr. Walt Thompson P.O. Box 239 Junction City AR 71749 Mr. H.W. Thompson P.O. Box 42 Junction City LA 71749 Ms. Frances Tubbs 150 Seth McClelland Lillie LA 71256 Road

Consultation and Coordination 103 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

First Title Name Last Name Company/ Address City State Zip Tulane 6329 Ferret Street New Orleans LA 70118 Environmental Law Clinic Attn: Notification Division Mr. Charles Turner 419 Summit Street Minden LA 71055 Mr. Ray Vaughn Wildlaw Environmental Montgomery AL 36117 Law Firm -0000 8606 Hearthstone Drive Mr. Charles Walker Webster Parish Police Minden LA 71055 Jury P.O. Box 389 Mr. Roger Wells Quail Unlimited Inc. Americus KS 66835 Attn: Roger Wells 868 Road 290 Mr. Bill Kennedy Claiborne Parish Homer LA 71040 School Board P.O. Box 600 Ms. Carrie V. Wilson Arkansas Fayetteville AR 72701 Archaeological Survey 223 East Lafayette Ms. Adde Wilson 1263 John Kelly Road Lillie LA 71256

Consultation and Coordination 104 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 5: LITERATURE CITED (Blunden et al., 2014). Blunden, J. and D.S. Arndt, Editors. 2014. State of the Climate in 2013. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 95 (7), S1-S279. Available online at: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2014BAMSStateoftheClimate.1

(DEQ Louisiana, 2014). Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana. 2014. Louisiana Water Quality Inventory: Integrated Report (305(b)/303(d)) Final. Appendix A: 2014 Integrated Report of Water Quality in Louisiana July 28, 2015. Available at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/DIVISIONS/WaterPermits/WaterQualityStandardsAsses sment/WaterQualityInventorySection305b/2014IntegratedReport.aspx

(EPA, 2015a). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Accessed December 2015 at: http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/index.html

(EPA, 2015b). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division. 2015. Ecosystem Services in Lakes. Accessed January 2016 at: http://archive.epa.gov/aed/lakesecoservices/web/html/ecosl.html

(IPCC, 2013). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Fifth Assessment Report. Available online at: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

(Johnson et al., 2005). Johnson, R.L., B. Shelby, M. Brunson, and J. Leahy. 2005. Socioeconomic Responses to Silvicultural Alternatives. College of Forestry Integrated Research Project: Ecological and Socioeconomic Responses to Alternative Silvicultural Treatments. Accessed January 2016 at: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/7883/RC46.pdf?sequence=1

(NatureServe, 2016). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2016. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed February 2016 at: http://explorer.natureserve.org/

(Sandberg et al., 2002). Sandberg, D.; Ottmar, R.; Peterson, J. and Core, J., 2002: Wildland fire on ecosystems: effects of fire on air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p.

(Scott et al., 2004). Scott, D.A., J. Novosad, and G.J. Goldsmith. 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.

(USFS, No Date). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kisatchie National Forest. Web Page No Date. Caney Ranger District Brochure. Accessed January 2016 at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5398467.pdf

Literature Cited 105 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment (USFS, 2016). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 3 February 2016. Personal communication with Jeff Bass, Silviculturist, Kisatchie National Forest, Caney Ranger District.

(USFS, 2015). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18 March 2015. Personal communication with Larry Kile, Fire Management Officer, Kisatchie National Forest, Winn Ranger District.

(USFS, 2014a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Environmental Assessment Caney District Shortleaf Pine Restoration Project. Kisatchie National Forest.

(USFS, 2014b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Kisatchie National Forest 2014-2015 Hunting Dates. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3814319.pdf

(USFS, 2014c). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Final Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact - Caney Shortleaf Restoration Project. U.S. Forest Service, Caney Ranger District, Webster and Claiborne Parishes, Louisiana. Accessed January 2016 at: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www /nepa/96312_FSPLT3_2371996.pdf

(USFS, 2013). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013. 2013 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Kisatchie National Forest. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3830833.pdf

(USFS, 2012a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Southern Pine Beetle County Hazard Rating Maps. Accessed December 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm_spb.shtml

(USFS, 2012b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, National Forest System Land Management Planning. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5349141.pdf

(USFS, 2012c). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012 Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Kisatchie National Forest. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795834.pdf

(USFS, 2010). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. National Visitor Use Monitoring, FY2010 Visitor Use at the Kisatchie National Forest.

(USFS, 2009). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. FY 2009 Kisatchie National Forest, Monitoring and Evaluation Action Plan & Report. Accessed January 2016 at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3796189.pdf

Literature Cited 106 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment (USFS, 2008). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Regional Task Force. 2008. In: Nonnative Invasive Species in Southern Forest and Grassland Ecosystems. Accessed February 2016 at: http://www.invasive.org/south/taskforce.html

(USFS, 2005a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Volume 4. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. Rocky Mountain Research Station. 212 pp.

(USFS, 2005b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Southern Region. 2005. Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Restoration Program. Accessed January 2016 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/spb_success_story.pdf

(USFS, 2000a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42, Volume 2. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Flora. Rocky Mountain Research Station. 257 pp.

(USFS, 2000b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2000. Smoke Exposure at Western Wildfires. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper. PNW-RP-525.

(USFS, 1999a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA.

(USFS, 1999b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest. Pineville, LA.

(USFS, 1989a). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental impact Statement, Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Vol. I & II. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23. USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia.

(USFS, 1989b). United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. January. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont, Appendices. Volume II. Management Bulletin R-8-MB-23.

(USFWS, 2012). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Fuels Treatments Reduce Wildfire Suppression Cost. Accessed online at: http://www.fws.gov/southeastfire/documents/FMIR_Fuels_Treatments_Reduce_Wildfire_Re port.pdf

(USGCRP, 2014). U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. Accessed December 2015 at: http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/climate-change-impacts-united-states-third- national-climate-assessment-0

Literature Cited 107 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau, 2010). Wiedinmyer, C. and M.D. Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed Fire as a Means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol., 44 (6), pp 1926–1932. Available online at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902455e?journalCode=esthag

Literature Cited 108 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 6: ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY 6.1 ACRONYMS ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE Area of Potential Effect BA Basal Area BE Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practice CCF 100 Cubic Feet CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO2 Carbon Dioxide EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FY Fiscal Year IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KNF Kisatchie National Forest LaDOT Louisiana Department of Transportation LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LNHP Louisiana Natural Heritage Program LTA Landtype Association LVSM Louisiana Voluntary Smoke Management MIS Management Indicator Species NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMAS National Fire Management Analysis System NNIP Non-Native Invasive Plants NRHP National Register of Historic Places NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring OHV Off-Highway Vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement Pb Lead PETS Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species PETSC Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive and Conservation Species PM Particulate Matter RAPZ Riparian Area Protection Zone RCW Red-Cockaded Woodpecker RFSS Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Acronyms and Glossary 109 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment ROD Record of Decision ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SHPZ Streamside Habitat Protection Zone SOH Shortleaf Pine/Oak-Hickory TAP Transportation Analysis Process THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TMA Timber Management Assitant SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SMA Sub-Management Area SOH Shortleaf Pine/Oak-Hickory SPB Southern Pine Beetle U.S. United States USC United States Code USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VM Vegetation Management

6.2 GLOSSARY Affected Environment: The components of the physical, biological, and social environment that will be affected by a proposed action or alternative.

Agriculture: A broad class of resource uses which includes all forms of land uses for the production of biotic crops– whether animal or plant.

Basal Area (BA): Cross sectional area of a tree, in square feet, measured at breast height. Used as a method of measuring the volume of timber in a given stand.

Commercial thinning: Partial harvesting of a stand of trees for economic gains from the harvested trees and to accelerate the growth of the trees left standing.

Conservation Species: A species that is considered rare within the State of Louisiana although it is commonly found in other states.

Cumulative Effects Analysis: An analysis of the effects on the environment resulting from the incremental impacts of a proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal), or person undertakes such other action.

Degree of Support: The level at which water quality supports the designated uses of a water body specified in the Louisiana Water Quality Standards. The degree of support is divided into three levels: fully supporting uses, partially supporting uses, and not supporting uses.

Designated Stream Crossing: Area designated by Forest Service officials where vehicles are allowed to cross a stream.

Acronyms and Glossary 110 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Designated Water Use: A use of the waters of the state as established by the Louisiana Water Quality Standards. These uses include, but are not limited to, recreation, propagation of fish and other aquatic life and wildlife, including oysters, public water supply, agricultural activities and outstanding natural resource waters.

Desired Future Conditions: A portrayal of the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.

Diameter at Breast Height (DBH): The diameter of a standing tree at a point 4 feet, 5 inches from ground level.

Dissolved Oxygen: The amount of oxygen dissolved in water, commonly expressed as a concentration in milligrams per liter (mg/l).

Dormant Season: That period of time when plants are not photosynthesizing and transpiring and adding growth tissue. In Louisiana, this is generally mid-September to mid-March.

Duff: The lower portion of the organic layer covering the soil, consisting of decomposed litter.

Ecosystem: A community of organisms and its physical setting. An ecosystem, whether a fallen log or an entire watershed, includes resident organisms, nonliving components such as soil nutrients, input such as rainfall and output such as organisms that disperse to other ecosystems.

Endangered Species: Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, other than members of the class Insecta that have been determined by the Secretary to constitute a pest and whose protection under the provision of the Act (Endangered Species Act of 1973) would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to man. Endangered species must be designated in the Federal Register by the appropriated Secretary.

Forest Plan: Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest, Louisiana, 1999. This is the guiding document for the management of National Forest Lands in Louisiana.

Fragmentation: Breaking up of contiguous areas into progressively smaller patches of increasing degrees of isolation.

Growing Season: That period of time when plants are photosynthesizing, transpiring, and adding growth tissue. In Louisiana, this is generally mid-March to mid-September.

Habitat: The total environment conditions on a unit of land including food, cover, and water within the home range.

Habitat Type: The collective land area which one association occupies, or will come to occupy, as succession advances.

Acronyms and Glossary 111 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment Intermittent Stream: A stream that flows seasonally (10 to 90 percent of the time) in response to a fluctuating water table, with a scoured channel that is at least three feet wide.

Landscape: An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of geology, land form, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area. Landscapes are generally of a size, shape and pattern which are determined by interacting ecosystems.

Landtype Association: An ecological unit ranging in size from about 25,000 acres to as much as 500,000 acres. An LTA is fairly uniform in land-surface form, sub-surface geology, soil patterns, and historical vegetation.

Litter: The upper portion of the organic layer covering the soil, consisting of unaltered dead remains of plants and animals whose original form is still visible.

Management Indicator Species: A species selected because its population changes indicate effects of management activities on the plant and animal community in general. A species whose condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.

Management Type: A forest vegetation type that has been selected as the species that will best achieve desired future conditions and meet the goals and objectives of the Forest Plan.

Midstory: A canopy layer of smaller trees that occur under an overstory of larger trees. Midstory trees are usually of a different species than the large trees and can grow in almost total shade. The midstory under a pine canopy usually consists of hardwood trees.

Mineral Soil: A soil consisting predominately of and having its properties determined predominately by mineral matter.

Old-Growth: A late successional or climax stage in forest development. Old-growth forests have a canopy of conifers or hardwoods with shade-tolerant trees beneath the canopy, along with snags and downed logs.

Perennial Streams: A stream that flows year-round (more than 90 percent of the time) with a scoured channel that is always below the water table.

Prescribed Burn: A fire ignited under known conditions of fuel, weather, and topography to achieve specified objectives.

Primary Contact Recreation: Any recreational activity which involves or requires prolonged body contact with the water, such as swimming, water skiing, tubing, snorkeling, and skin- diving.

Regeneration: The renewal of a tree crop, whether by natural or artificial means. Also, the young crop itself.

Riparian Areas: Areas at the interface between land and a river or stream.

Acronyms and Glossary 112 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Rutting: A track worn by a wheel or habitual passage.

Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO): Refers to the degree of acceptable alteration of the characteristics of the landscape.

Secondary Contact Recreation: Any recreational activity which may involve incidental or accidental body contact with the water and during which the probability of ingesting appreciable quantities of water is minimal, such as fishing, wading and recreational boating.

Seedling/Sapling: A forest successional stage in which trees are less than five inches in diameter.

Sensitive Species: Those plant or animal species that are susceptible or vulnerable to activity, impacts, or habitat alterations, including species proposed for classification as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the proposed rulemaking already published in the Federal Register and species identified by the Regional Forester as needing special management emphasis on the Southern National Forest.

Site Preparation: A general term for removing unwanted vegetation, slash, and even roots and stones from a site before reforestation.

Slash: The residue, e.g. tops and branches, left on the ground after logging, or accumulating as a result of storm, fire, girdling, or de-limbing.

Southern Pine Beetle: A species of bark beetle native to the forests of southern United States, Mexico, and Central America. It is the most destructive insect pest of pine in the southern United States.

Species: A population or series of populations of organisms that is capable of interbreeding freely with each other but not with members of other species.

Stocking: A relative term referring to the density of a particular stand as it relates to some base stand of similar composition.

Thinning: A silvicultural treatment made to reduce the stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality.

Threatened Species: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and that has been designated in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior as a threatened species.

Treatments: Generally silvicultural treatments such as thinning, planting, etc.

Understory: A structural layer of a forest consisting of trees, shrubs, and herbs that are growing far beneath the the tall mature trees in a timber stand.

Acronyms and Glossary 113 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

Vegetation Management: Manipulating plant communities to achieve desired objectives.

Watershed: A land area that collects and discharges excess surface or ground water through a single outlet.

Water-Source Seeps: Water escaping through or emerging from the ground along a line of surface, or from a spring where the water emerges from a localized spot.

Wetland: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water often enough to support plants and other aquatic life that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wildfire: A fire that is naturally caused or caused by humans that does not meet land management objectives.

Acronyms and Glossary 114 Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A: SCOPING LEGAL NOTICE

Appendices A-1

United States Forest Kisatchie National Forest 3288 Hwy. 79 Department of Service Caney Ranger District Homer, LA 71040 Agriculture 318-927-2061

File Code: 1950 Date: December 9, 2015

Dear Interested Public and Kisatchie National Forest Users:

Introduction The Caney Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest is proposing to restore native shortleaf pine/oak-hickory communities by applying commercial thinning treatments (first thinning and intermediate thinning), clearcut harvest, group selection harvest, wildlife habitat opening installation, prescribed burning for site preparation, herbicide applications for site preparation for planting and for control of non-native invasive species (NNIS), tree planting, and road maintenance all within the Corney Unit of the district. We are inviting you to submit comments to help refine the proposed activities disclosed in this letter. In addition, the Responsible Official is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of this proposal and needs your assistance to better identify issues, concerns, and opportunities.

The Corney Unit’s administrative boundary contains approximately 8,800 acres of National Forest System lands and approximately 6643 acres of private land for a total land area of approximately 15,443 acres. The proposed project would take place on 2,800 acres of stands in Compartments 1 through 10. All project stands are located in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana within Sub-management Areas (SMA) 2AS and 3BS.

At the present time, a majority of the stands in the project area are overstocked which poses a significant risk to southern pine beetle infestation and catastrophic wildfires. Additionally, the District has fallen well short of Forest Plan direction of Native Community Restoration (in SMA 3BS).

Purpose and Need Differences between current and desired conditions have been identified within the project area. The purpose of the proposed project is to move the area toward the desired future conditions through the implementation of specific management actions. This proposal is needed in order to implement the direction given in the Forest Plan.

Proposed Action The Caney Ranger District is proposing the following treatments in the project area:

 Commercially harvest (intermediate thinning) approximately 1,918 acres of pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands to a residual stand density of 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine/oak-hickory as leave species.  Regenerate 222 acres back to native shortleaf pine through the use of the clearcut harvest method. After harvest, this acreage would be prepared for planting by mechanical and or herbicide application followed by site-prep burning. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper

would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Herbicide release of the shortleaf pines would occur when herbaceous and woody competition poses a threat to their survival.  First thinning of approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations.  Group selection harvest of 542 acres to create openings (small clearcuts) approximately 75 acres in openings used for uneven age management to establish a new age class of trees. The remaining acres in these areas will be thinned to approximately 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine, oak/hickory as leave species.  Conduct road maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 20 miles of existing roads in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety.  Treat approximately 10 acres of NNIS with herbicide.  Wildlife opening installation on 40 acres in the stands that had timber harvest operations performed.  Herbicide treatment on Corney Lake to treat American Lotus infestation and any nuisance species that may appear in the future.

The Proposed Action is designed to initiate the first phase of a long-term plan to achieve the desired future conditions of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems by using comprehensive integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource loss or damage due to insects, diseases, or wildfire within the project area.

How to Comment We are interested in your opinion of this proposed action. Do you know of special areas or concerns that we should consider? What would you have us do differently? We will use comments from you and other interested citizens to develop alternatives to this proposal. We will then analyze environmental effects of these alternatives before making a decision.

You can help us improve our decision processes and make our management choices more responsive to the public we serve. Your comments (thoughts, ideas, and concerns that relate to this specific proposal) are invited on this proposal during the public scoping period. Specific written comments as defined by 36 CFR 218.2 should be within the scope of the proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting reasons for the responsible official to consider. It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure that their comments are received in a timely manner. To establish standing for objection eligibility, the designated opportunity for scoping comments to be received is December 9-23, 2015.

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including name and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on these proposed actions and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents. A 30-day Notice and Comment period will be provided at a future date (36 CFR 218.24). Only those who respond to this request for comments will remain on the mailing list for this project.

Specific written comments must be submitted to: Jeff Bass, Silviculturist, 3288 Hwy. 79, Homer, LA 71040, by phone at 318-927-2061, or fax at 318-927-6520. The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered comments are: 7:30 am to 4:00 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or word (.doc, .docx) to [email protected].

An objection period, if required, will follow the regulation found in 218.7. For objection eligibility (218.5), only those who have submitted timely, specific written comments during any designated opportunity for public comment may file an objection. Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project and attributed to the objector, unless the issue is based on new information that arose after a designated opportunity to comment (218.8(c)).

Please identify “Horseshoe Loop EA” in the subject line when providing electronic comments, or on the envelope when replying by mail.

Additional information on this proposed project is also available on the webpage: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?project=48120 and looking under “Horseshoe Loop EA”. If you would like any more information or have questions relating to this proposal, please contact Jeff Bass, Silviculturist by email at [email protected] or by phone at 318-927-2061.

Thank you for your continued interest in the management of the Caney Ranger District of the Kisatchie National Forest.

Sincerely,

Rondall J. Hudson District Ranger

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected] . USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B: COMPARTMENT OPERATIONS MAPS

Appendices B-1 922 Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie NationalCN03G Forest CompartmentBear Creek 1 902 . Proposed Operations CN03K CN03H

903 Corney Lake CN03C

CN03I

CN02G CN02H

901 CN03D

CN02I 901-A

CN02J Corney Bayou

CN03L

CN01E Kidd Lake

900 7 CN01A 01

Field Branch CN01B

CN01C

Legend Clearcut First Thin Group Selection 2 Intermediate Thin

CN01D Compartment FS Road Operation Maintenance Level 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams Streams Region 8 Waterbodies Waterbody Type LakePond ¤£2 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Reservoir SwampMarsh CN04C Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District

Kisatchie NationalCN04H Forest

CN04S

Greer Creek Compartment 2 CN04D CN04I CN04E . CN04K Proposed Operations 902 9 £¤ CN04B

CN04G

CN03A

CN04L CN06G CN05D CN04N

CN04O CN04P Barber Creek

Corney Bayou

CN04R

922

CN05A

Bear Creek CN03G

CN05B CN02B

21 Corney Lake CN02C 9

CN02E 902 11 12

CN03I CN02H 900 CN02G 19 02 901 CN02I 901-A

CN02J 15 Legend 13 Clearcut First Thin Group Selection 10 14 Intermediate Thin CN01E Compartment Kidd FS Road Operation Maintenance Level Lake 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams Streams Field Branch Region 8 Waterbodies CN01C Waterbody Type LakePond 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Reservoir SwampMarsh Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 3 . Proposed Operations

CN04C

Greer Creek

CN04H

CN04D 21 CN04I CN04E CN04K 20 CN04B

CN04G CN03F Dry Creek

CN04L CN04N CN03A 8 CN03B Bear Creek CN03E

CN04O CN04P

Barber Creek 902

CN04R 22 Corney Lake 922 2

18 4 CN03G 17 12

16 CN03K Legend 03 CN03H Clearcut Corney Bayou First Thin

Group Selection CN03C Intermediate Thin Compartment 11 CN03I 903 FS Road OperationCN02H Maintenance Level 901

1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CN03D 2 - HIGH CLEARANCECN02I VEHICLES 901-A

3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARSCN02J 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI900 Region 8 Streams CN03L Streams Region 8 Waterbodies Field Branch CN01E Kidd Waterbody Type LakePond Lake 0 0.3 0.6 Miles Reservoir CN01B SwampMarsh

CN01A Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 4 . 904 Proposed Operations

CN08D CN08F

CN08E

04

¤£

9

Bear Creek

Greer Creek

CN04J

CN04C

3 8

CN04H

CN04S 5 15 CN04D

CN04I CN04E CN04K

7

CN04B

CN04G CN03F

CN03A

CN04L 902 CN05D CN04N

CN03B CN03E

CN04O CN04P 9

Legend Barber Creek Corney Bayou Clearcut Bear Creek First Thin CN04R 922 Group Selection Intermediate Thin Compartment

FS Road CN05A Operation Maintenance Level CN03G 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CN05B 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES CN02B Corney Lake 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 900 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN03H 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI CN02C Region 8 Streams CN02E 903 Streams Region 8 Waterbodies CN03I Waterbody Type 901 LakePond CN02H CN02G 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir

CN03D 901-A SwampMarsh CN02I CN02J CN07A Horseshoe Loop Project904 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District CN07D

Kisatchie National Forest CN08F CN08D Compartment 6 . ProposedSugar Creek Operations

CN08E

CN09G

Corney Bayou CN04J

CN04C

CN10C 902

CN04S CN09F 6

CN04I

CN09D CN09H 905 06

CN04B CN09B £¤9 CN09A

CN06G CN05D 2 Corney Lake 8 16

Barber Creek

Legend

Clearcut CN05A

First Thin 900 Group Selection Intermediate Thin CN05B CN02B Compartment FS Road Operation Maintenance Level 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) CN02C 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS CN02E 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI CN02G Region 8 Streams CN02H Streams Region 8 Waterbodies Waterbody Type LakePond 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir SwampMarsh HorseshoeDry CreekLoop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 7 . Proposed Operations

Dowdy Branch 07

CN07B 12

Corney Bayou 4

8 CN07C Sugar Creek 904 6

CN07A

20 CN08C

10

CN07D

CN08F CN08D

Legend Clearcut CN08E Corney Bayou First Thin Group Selection

LeadbetterCreekIntermediate Thin Compartment FS Road Operation Maintenance Level CN09G 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES

3 - SUITABLECN10E FOR PASSENGER CARS 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN10F 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN10D CN10C S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams CN10B Streams 905

Region 8 Waterbodies CN09F CN10A Waterbody Type CN09D LakePond CN09H 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir 9 SwampMarsh £¤

CN09B CN09A HorseshoeDry CreekLoop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 7 . Proposed Operations

Dowdy Branch 07

CN07B 12

Corney Bayou 4

8 CN07C Sugar Creek 904 6

CN07A

20 CN08C

10

CN07D

CN08F CN08D

Legend Clearcut CN08E Corney Bayou First Thin Group Selection

LeadbetterCreekIntermediate Thin Compartment FS Road Operation Maintenance Level CN09G 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES

3 - SUITABLECN10E FOR PASSENGER CARS 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN10F 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN10D CN10C S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams CN10B Streams 905

Region 8 Waterbodies CN09F CN10A Waterbody Type CN09D LakePond CN09H 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir 9 SwampMarsh £¤

CN09B CN09A Dry Creek Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 8 . Dowdy Branch Proposed Operations

CN07B

1

Sugar Creek CN07C 904 15 08 CN07A

CN08C 5

6

9

£¤ CN07D

CN08F CN08D

CN08E Legend Clearcut First Thin Group Selection Intermediate Thin Compartment CN09G FS Road Operation Maintenance Level 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) Corney Bayou CN04J 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES CN04C 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT

Greer

Creek 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT CN09F 902 S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI CN04H

CN04S Region 8 Streams

Greer

Creek Streams CN04I CN04E RegionCN09H905 8 Waterbodies Waterbody Type CN04B LakePond CN09B 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir

CN09ASwampMarsh Barber Creek CN07C Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District CN07A Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 9 . Proposed Operations CN07D

Sugar Creek

Corney Bayou Alford Creek CN09G 4

CN10E

Goocher CN10F

CN10D CN10C 8 5 CN09F

CN10B

Leadbetter Creek CN10A 2 CN09D 7 CN09H

Horseshoe 905 3 6

CN09B 09 CN09A

900 Legend Clearcut First Thin Group Selection £¤9 Intermediate Thin 9 Compartment FS Road Operation Maintenance Level 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS Barber Creek 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT Beverly ¤£2 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT Thompson 2 AltS_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams Streams 2 Alt

RegionHightower 8 Waterbodies ¤£2 Waterbody Type Beauty LakePond Shop 0 0.25 0.5 MilesCullins Reservoir

SwampMarsh Country Hebron Horseshoe Loop Project 1:24,000 Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest Compartment 10

. CN07A Proposed Operations Corney Bayou

6

8 7 CN09G

9 Alford Creek CN10E CN10D Goocher CN10F 12 4 13 3 CN10C 5

CN10B 905 10 1 2 CN09F CN10A

CN09D CN09H

Horseshoe

CN09B

CN09A

Leadbetter Creek

Legend Clearcut First Thin Group Selection Intermediate Thin

Compartment ThompsonBeverly 2 Alt FS Road ¤£2 £¤9 Operation Maintenance Level 9 1 - BASIC CUSTODIAL CARE (CLOSED) 2 - HIGH CLEARANCE VEHICLES 3 - SUITABLE FOR PASSENGER CARS Barber Creek 4 - MODERATE DEGREE OF USER COMFORT 5 - HIGH DEGREE OF USER COMFORT S_USA.MinorHighways_ESRI Region 8 Streams 2 Alt Streams Hightower Beauty ¤£ Shop 2 Region 8 Waterbodies Waterbody Type LakePond

Country 0 0.25 0.5 Miles Reservoir SwampMarsh Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C: BOTANY REPORT

Appendices C-1 Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Southern Region

February Botany Specialist Report 2016 Horseshoe Loop Project

Kisatchie National Forest, Caney Ranger District, Claiborne Parish, Louisiana

Compartments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.

False Solomon's Seal (Maianthemum racemosum (L.) Link subsp. Racemosum) infloresence. Photo courtesy Craig Frazier @ http://www.pbase.com/cmf46/index_of_arkansa_native_wildflowers

1

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Purpose and Need ...... 7 Laws and Regulations ...... 8 Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction ...... 8 Units of Measure ...... 10 Analysis questions to be answered ...... 11 Alternatives ...... 11 Alternative A – No Action...... 11 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 11 Mitigation Measures and Design Features...... 12 Methodology for Analysis ...... 13 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 14 Introduction ...... 14 Assumptions ...... 14 Surveys ...... 15 Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Plants ...... 26 Regional Forester Sensitive Species...... 26 Existing Condition ...... 27 Desired future conditions ...... 27 RFSS plants with direct and indirect effects...... 27 Barbed Rattlesnake Root ...... 28 Existing Condition ...... 28 Alternative B ...... 29 Determination ...... 30 Conservation Plants ...... 30 Existing Condition ...... 31 Desired future conditions ...... 31 Conservation plants with direct and indirect effects...... 31 American Pinesap ...... 32 Broomrape ...... 34 Climate Change...... 37

2

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Non-native Invasive Plants ...... 38 Effects Common to All Species ...... 39 Alternative A No Action ...... 39 Alternative B ...... 41 Chinaberry ...... 43 Chinese Privet ...... 44 Chinese Tallow ...... 45 Japanese Honeysuckle ...... 46 Johnsongrass ...... 47 Kudzu ...... 48 Sericea Lespedeza ...... 50 Silktree ...... 51 Literature Cited ...... 54 Appendix A. NNIP - Kisatchie National Forest...... 60

3

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

List of Tables

Table 1. Stands covered under this Botanical Evaluation...... 5 Table 2. Summary of the Kisatchie National Forest Plan direction as relates to botanical aspects of the Horseshoe Loop project...... 9 Table 3. Mitigation Measures Required for All Action Alternatives...... 12 Table 4. Sensitive and Conservation plant species, their habitats, and determination of further consideration...... 15 Table 5. NNIP found in the Horseshoe Loop project area...... 38 Table 6. Monitoring Requirements...... 52 Table 7. Alternative Effects on NNIP...... 52

4

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

INTRODUCTION

The Horseshoe Loop project is a planning effort designed to promote forest health, and improve soil and water productivity and function on approximately 2,800 acres on the Caney Ranger District. The project area is located in the Amenity Value (2B) and Native Community Restoration (3B) management areas as designated by the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised LRMP) of the Kisatchie National Forest. The project is located in compartments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the Corney Unit of the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana.

This botanical report considers the effects of first-thinnings, intermediate thinnings and clearcuts as management actions for restoration of shortleaf pine. Actions will occur in the stands/compartments outlined in Table 1. Most of these stands are characterized by densely-stocked, 20-30 year old (approximate) poletimber-sized loblolly pine. Owing to the high degree of shade, the understory exhibits a low diversity of herbaceous, shrub, and mid-story species. Non-native invasive species are relegated, for the most part, to roadsides adjacent to these stands.

Objectives of this project are to

• Restore forest structure and forest health to historic condition • Improve vegetation composition and diversity • Restore fire regime condition class to historic ranges • Restore ecological processes and function to riparian systems

Table 1. Stands covered under this Botanical Evaluation. Compartment Stand SMA Acres Age Total Stand BA/Acre Treatment

1 2 2AS 52.8 75 123.0 Group Selection 1 7 2AS 28.3 71 175.0 Intermediate Thin 2 9 2AS 52.8 63 105.0 Intermediate Thin 2 10 2AS 28.3 33 165.0 First Thin 2 11 2AS 196.0 90 130.0 Group Selection 2 12 2AS 20.5 93 134.0 Group Selection 2 13 2AS 62.7 76 134.0 Intermediate Thin 2 14 2AS 27.7 121 99.0 Intermediate Thin 2 15 2AS 48.2 84 136.0 Intermediate Thin 2 19 2AS 27.0 90 132.0 Group Selection 2 21 2AS 61.0 94 110.0 Intermediate Thin 3 2 2AS 71.6 85 125.0 Intermediate Thin 3 4 2AS 126.8 73 128.0 Group Selection 3 8 2AS 38.9 75 130.0 Intermediate Thin 3 11 2AS 31.6 75 140.0 Intermediate Thin 3 12 2AS 6.7 85 140.0 Intermediate Thin

5

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Compartment Stand SMA Acres Age Total Stand BA/Acre Treatment

3 16 2AS 23.2 79 130.0 Intermediate Thin 3 17 2AS 16.3 88 140.0 Intermediate Thin 3 18 2AS 22.8 85 133.0 Intermediate Thin 3 20 2AS 27.5 75 122.0 Intermediate Thin 3 21 2AS 42.8 76 135.0 Intermediate Thin 3 22 2AS 40.6 71 125.0 Group Selection 4 3 2AS 125.4 84 108.0 Intermediate Thin 4 5 2AS 13.4 84 130.0 Intermediate Thin 4 7 2AS 45.7 108 128.0 Intermediate Thin 4 8 2AS 78.1 81 118.0 Group Selection 4 9 2AS 13.8 78 85.0 Intermediate Thin 4 15 2AS 6.2 88 70.0 Intermediate Thin 6 2 3BS 20.2 85 100.0 Intermediate Thin 6 6 3BS 13.7 22 140.0 Intermediate Thin 6 16 3BS 27.4 56 130.0 Intermediate Thin 7 4 3BS 44.9 74 124.0 Intermediate Thin 7 6 3BS 11.1 71 140.0 Clearcut 7 8 3BS 24.5 72 120.0 Intermediate Thin 7 10 3BS 40.1 38 85.0 Intermediate Thin 7 12 3BS 53.4 29 72.0 Intermediate Thin 7 20 3BS 25.8 21 107.0 Clearcut 8 1 3BS 56.6 79 151.0 Clearcut 8 5 3BS 37.7 35 208.0 Intermediate Thin 8 6 3BS 28.4 22 140.0 First Thin 8 15 3BS 23.0 31 210.0 Intermediate Thin 9 2 3BS 62.9 31 70.0 Intermediate Thin 9 3 3BS 26.1 25 70.0 Intermediate Thin 9 4 3BS 275.4 88 123.0 Intermediate Thin 9 5 3BS 21.3 88 126 Intermediate Thin 9 6 3BS 46.6 76 120.0 Intermediate Thin 9 7 3BS 72.1 79 117.0 Clearcut 9 8 3BS 26.0 25 50.0 Intermediate Thin 10 1 3BS 37.8 32 152.0 Intermediate Thin 10 2 3BS 117.0 76 151.0 Intermediate Thin 10 3 3BS 24.0 31 110.0 First Thin 10 4 3BS 10.0 22 20.0 First Thin 10 5 3BS 14.7 45 126.0 Intermediate Thin

6

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Compartment Stand SMA Acres Age Total Stand BA/Acre Treatment

10 6 3BS 171.8 86 91.0 Intermediate Thin 10 7 3BS 18.7 29 155.0 First Thin 10 8 3BS 8.4 45 180.0 First Thin 10 9 3BS 56.7 76 103.0 Clearcut 10 12 3BS 20.3 22 40.0 Intermediate Thin 10 13 3BS 16.3 45 150.0 Intermediate Thin 2769.6

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need for proposing an action was determined by comparing the objectives and desired conditions in the Kisatchie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service. 1999), hereafter referred to as the Forest Plan, to the existing conditions related to forest resiliency and forest function; where Forest Plan information was dated or not explicit, local research and the best available science were utilized. The results of the comparison are displayed in narrative, tables, and photographs; in summary, there is a need for restoration of native, fire-dependent shortleaf pine communities, improve forest health, and improve soil productivity and watershed function (USDA 1999, pages 3-7 and 3-15).

1.4 PROPOSED ACTION

The Caney Ranger District is proposing the following treatments in the project area:

• Commercially harvest (intermediate thinning) approximately 1,918 acres of pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands to a residual stand density of 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine/oak-hickory as leave species. • Regenerate 222 acres back to native shortleaf pine through the use of the clearcut harvest method. After harvest, this acreage would be prepared for planting by mechanical and or herbicide application followed by site-prep burning. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Herbicide release of the shortleaf pines would occur when herbaceous and woody competition poses a threat to their survival. • First thinning of approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations. • Group selection harvest of 542 acres to create openings (small clearcuts approximately 2-3 acres in size each) on approximately 75 acres used for uneven age management to establish shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees. The remaining acres in these areas would be thinned to approximately 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine, oak/hickory as leave species. • Conduct road maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 20 miles of existing roads in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety. • Treat approximately 10 acres of NNIS with herbicide such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese tallow tree, kudzu, and Chinese privet. • Wildlife opening installation on 40 acres in the stands that had timber harvest operations performed.

7

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

• Herbicide application on Corney Lake (1300 acres) to treat American lotus infestations and any invasive or nuisance species that may appear in the future. Large colonies of American lotus may restrict small boat navigation, fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes.

For details of these actions, see the Final Proposed Action (Alternative B), as described in the EA (2016).

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 2 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, Chapters 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 Manual chapters 2900 and 2150 regarding noxious weed control. • Forest Service Manual 2070 (Amendment 2000-2008-1), regarding native plant policy

Kisatchie National Forest Land Management Plan Direction

The Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop project area lies within two Sub-management Areas – 2AS and 3BS.

Sub-management Area 2AS: Emphasis would be on protecting and enhancing non-market resources and values associated with shortleaf pine / oak-hickory dominated landscapes while allowing the highest level of landscape-wide alteration.

8

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Sub-management Area 3BS: Emphasis would be on restoring native shortleaf pine / oak-hickory communities in an intermediate time period while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources.

Specific measures related to this report as defined in the Forest plan are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of the Kisatchie National Forest Plan direction as relates to botanical aspects of the Horseshoe Loop project. PLAN EMPHASIS DESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT EMPHASIS

Overall emphasis on restoration and maintenance of the composition, structure and processes that formed the Management Area 3 Native Community Restoration major 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 shortleaf pine / oak-hickory Shortleaf Pine native community Management Area 3BS communities in an intermediate time restoration period while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources. Objective 2–1: Manage to restore or maintain the structure, composition, and processes of the four major Forest-wide Objective Native community restoration landscape forest 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, fish, and Forest-wide Objective Species viability 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 Forest-wide Objective Rare plant protection conditions for all threatened, 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, Forest-wide Objective Natural Community management habitat linkages 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 Guidelines Biological Diversity landscape levels. Applicable aspects of composition, structure and function should be considered within each

9

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

environmental analysis. FW–008: Prepare site-specific environmental analyses which include biological evaluations (BES) or assessments (BAS) of a project’s Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Rare plant analysis 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 proposed, or identified Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Biological Evaluation by the 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 decision- Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Pest Management making and action process 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, protection, and Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Rare plant coordination management of animal or plant species recognized by the Forest Service as sensitive or conservation species, and in the management of State Registry Natural Areas. (KNF) (GUIDELINE) Threatened, endangered, Forest-wide Standards and sensitive, and other rare plant FW–664 to FW-700 Guidelines species FW-701: Identify and map exotic pest plant species infestations as they are located. Use appropriate control methods as funding allows, including, Forest-wide Standards and Non-native Invasive Species but not limited to, prescribed fire, Guidelines 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

10

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

address whether, or to what degree, the project meets the purpose and need and complies with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan direction. 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 Alternative B.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

In response to the purpose and need for action, the Forest Service proposes to conduct the following activities on approximately 2,800 acres in compartments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 on the Caney Ranger District, Kisatchie National Forest, in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana:

• Commercially harvest (intermediate thinning) approximately 1,918 acres of pine and mixed pine/hardwood stands to a residual stand density of 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine/oak-hickory as leave species. • Regenerate 222 acres back to native shortleaf pine through the use of the clearcut harvest method. After harvest, this acreage would be prepared for planting by mechanical and or herbicide application followed by site-prep burning. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Herbicide release of the shortleaf pines would occur when herbaceous and woody competition poses a threat to their survival. • First thinning of approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations. • Group selection harvest of 542 acres to create openings (small clearcuts approximately 2-3 acres in size each) on approximately 75 acres used for uneven age management to establish

11

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees. The remaining acres in these areas would be thinned to approximately 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine, oak/hickory as leave species. • Conduct road maintenance and reconstruction of approximately 20 miles of existing roads in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety. • Treat approximately 10 acres of NNIS with herbicide such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese tallow tree, kudzu, and Chinese privet. • Wildlife opening installation on 40 acres in the stands that had timber harvest operations performed. • Herbicide application on Corney Lake (1300 acres) to treat American lotus infestations and any invasive or nuisance species that may appear in the future. Large colonies of American lotus may restrict small boat navigation, fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes.

Mitigation Measures and Design Features

The following mitigation measures and design features have been included for alternative B 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 3. 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 7 remove sources of weed seed and propagules to Reduces NNIP Infestations. prevent new weed infestations and the spread of existing weeds.

12

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Reduces loss of native seed bank, limits Place slash piles on previously used locations extent of severe disturbances and reduces such as old piling sites, old log deck sites, or 8 severely disturbed sites that are more other disturbed sites to avoid severe disturbance prone to invasion by NNIP. to additional locations where possible.

Treat weed infestations within treatment units 9 Forest Plan Direction before implementing treatments.

Controls weeds, reduces risk of invasion Monitor slash pile sites after burning and control 10 and reduces risk to native species by NNIP. 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, and alternative evaluation and implementation and 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.

13

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

• 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; Godgrey 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.

14

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

• The mitigations and Best Management Practices addressed in this document are included in analysis and project implementation. See Table 3 above for these features.

Surveys

Several botanical field surveys have been conducted within the proposed project area in the past. Phil Hyatt and Dr. R. Dale Thomas surveyed for other projects, but in the same project area, in the 1990s and early 2000s. David Moore, Forest Botanist, conducted surveys for this project in 2015. In addition, he has conducted surveys in and near the project area for past projects in 2009-2012.

No new locations of RFSS and TESC plants were located. However, new occurrences of NNIS were noted during these surveys.

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, or 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 Williams and Smith (1995) and Martin and Smith (1991).

Table 4. 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

15

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

Andropodon liebmannii 3 1 Mohr’s bluestem C Western upland longleaf pine forest No Hack. 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 No 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

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 grayoides 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

1Andropogon liebmannii is now referred to as Andropogon mohri (Hack.) Hack. ex Vasey according to the USDA Plants databa18se at http://plants.usda.gov

16

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

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

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 hypopitys L. American pinesap C Yes Mixed Hardwood-Loblolly Forest Western upland longleaf and shortleaf 37 Orobanche uniflora L. Broomrape C Yes pine forest

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.

17

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

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) C Western upland longleaf pine forest No grass Lelong

Panicum strigosum Muhl. 41 var. leucoblepharis (Trin.) Roughhair panic grass C Pine flatwoods, savannahs, and bogs No 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

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 Yes A. Gray) Milstead hardwood-loblolly pine forest

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).

18

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

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 Schisandra glabra (E.P. 59 Bay starvine S forest, 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

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

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/.

19

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Considered Scientific name Common name Status Habitats further?

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

9 Small-flowered flame 70 Talinum parviflorum Nutt. 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 Barbed Rattlesnake 76 Verbesina walteri Shinners S Small stream forest No root 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

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.

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/.

20

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

B. 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. Calopogon oklahomensis D.H. Goldman is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high-quality Western hillside seepage bog, does not occur in the project area

11. 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

12. Carex decomposita Muhl. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, high- quality bayhead swamp, does not occur in the project area

13. 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

14. Carex microdonta Torr. & Hook is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, calcareous prairie and coastal prairie, do not occur in the project area

21

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

15. Carex stricta Lam. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

16. Ceanothus herbaceus Raf. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

17. Cheilanthes alabamensis (Buckl.) Kunze is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, limestone rock outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

18. Cheilanthes lanosa (Michx.) D.C. Eaton is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandstone outcrops, does not occur in the project area.

19. Cyperus grayioides Mohlenbr. is excluded from further consideration because its potential habitat, sandy woodlands, does not occur in the project area

20. 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

21. Dodecatheon meadia L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

22. Draba cuneifolia Nutt. ex T.&G. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

23. Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

24. Eriogonum longifolium Nutt. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

25. Euphorbia discoidalis Chapm. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandy woodlands, does not occur in the project area.

26. 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

27. Hedyotis purpurea L. var. calycosa Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, 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. Heliotropium tenellum (Nutt.) Torr. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, calcareous substrates, does not occur in the project area..

22

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

30. Koeleria macrantha (Ledeb.) Schult is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. Lyonia mariana (L.) D. Don is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

34. Marshallia trinervia (Walter) Trel. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

35. Mayaca aubletii Michx. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

36. Palhinhaea cernua (L.) Vasconcellos is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, hillside seepage bogs, does not occur in the project area.

37. Panicum flexile (Gatt.) Scrib. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area

38. 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.

39. Panicum strigosum Muhl. var. leucoblepharis (Trin.) 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.

23

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

45. 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.

46. Polanisia erosa (Nutt.) Iltis is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

47. Polygonella americana (Fisch. & Mey.) Small is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

48. Polygonella polygama (Vent.) Engelm. & Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

49. Platanthera blephartiglottis (Willd.) Lindl. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Eastern longleaf flatwoods savannah, does not occur in the project area.

50. Psilocarya scirpoides (Vahl) Wood is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

51. Psoralea subulata (Bush) Gray is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. Rhynchospora miliacea (Lam.) Gray is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

55. 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.

56. Schisandra glabra (E.P. Bicknell) Rehder is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the range for this species.

57. Schoenolirion wrightii Sherman is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, sandstone glade, does not occur in the project area.

58. 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.

59. 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.

24

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

60. Smilacina racemosa (L.) Desf. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

61. Spartina pectinata Link is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, wet saline prairie, does not occur in the project area.

62. Spiranthes longilabris Lindl. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

63. Spiranthes magnicamporum Sheviak is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

64. Sporobolus ozarkanus Fern. is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous prairie, does not occur in the project area.

65. Taenidia integerrima (L.) Drude is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, calcareous forest, does not occur in the project area.

66. Talinum calycinum Engelm. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, sandstone glades and salines, do not occur in the project area.

67. Talinum parviflorum Nutt. is excluded from further consideration because its habitats, sandstone glades and salines, do not occur in the project area.

68. Tetragonotheca ludoviciana (T.&G.) Gray is excluded from further consideration because its habitat, Western xeric sandhills, does not occur in the project area.

69. Tridens carolinianus (Steud.) Henr. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

70. Triosteum perfoliatum L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

71. 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.

72. Uvularia sessilifolia L. is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the known range of this species.

73. Verbesina walteri Shinners is excluded from further consideration because the project area is outside the 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.

25

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 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 Monotropa hypopitys (American pinesap), Orobanche uniflora (broomrape), and Prenanthes barbata (Barbed Rattlesnake Root). 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.

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

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.

26

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 Prenanthes barbata (Barbed Rattlesnake Root).

Existing Condition

The Horseshoe Loop project area is typical for the Caney Ranger District – stands variable in forest type (mostly loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or mixed pine-oak/hickory). NNIS are usually found along road edges. There are numerous firelines, user-created trails, and utility rights-of-way in the project area.

The dominant natural community in the project area is Shortleaf Pine, Oak-Hickory forest. Other natural communities found during past field surveys and in surveys for this project are Mixed Hardwood— Loblolly Pine Forest, Baygalls and Bayhead Swamps. Small Stream Riparian Forest surrounds most of the stream corridors. Bottomland Hardwood Forest occupies much of the riparian areas in larger streams such as Corney Bayou. Numerous loblolly pine plantations are also present.

NNIP Infestations are scattered throughout most of the project area, especially along roadsides, but vary in frequency and percent cover between species.

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.

• 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

27

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Barbed Rattlesnake Root

Existing Condition

Barbed rattlesnake root (Prenanthes barbata) is a perennial herb that blooms from August to October and fruits from September through November (Cronquist 1980). It grows in sandy, often calcareous soils in open woods, prairies, pine barrens, and mesic hardwood forests (Cronquist 1980, LNHP, and Singhurst et al. 2004). In Louisiana this plant has been found in Mixed Hardwood—Loblolly Pine Forest and Small Stream Riparian Forest (Reid 2006 and Hyatt 1997).

Barbed rattlesnake root is fairly widespread in the southeastern United States, ranging from Kentucky through Georgia in the east, then west to Arkansas, Louisiana, and East Texas. It has been found in six parishes in Louisiana (Reid 2006). The KNF has sixteen occurrence records of this plant, fifteen on the Winn RD and one on the Caney RD. Barbed rattlesnake root is becoming rare because of habitat loss. Botanists associated with the Kisatchie National Forest have observed that populations of this plant respond well to mild disturbance that produces gaps in the canopy and increases the amount of light reaching the forest floor (Hyatt 1997).

There is one occurrence of barbed rattlesnake root very close to the boundary of the project area, and suitable habitat does exist within the project area. However, field surveys did not yield any new populations of this plant. Suitable habitat is present for barbed rattlesnake root in loblolly stands, near streams, and at sites with calcareous soils. Not all sites with suitable habitat were field surveyed when this species would have been fertile and identifiable. It may be present but undetected.

Alternative A No Action

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for Barbed rattlesnake root (Prenanthes barbata).

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 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 Barbed rattlesnake root.

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

28

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

In the no action alternative, there would be no road reconstruction 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 Barbed rattlesnake root 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 shortleaf 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) (see Vegetation Report).

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.

Alternative B

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, Barbed rattlesnake root 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 favorable 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 shortleaf pine forest, thus increasing suitable habitat for this plant.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the Horseshoe Loop project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2003, when Barbed rattlesnake root was first found on the Kisatchie National Forest. The

29

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

following past actions may have affected the abundance and Barbed rattlesnake root and have established baseline current condition for this SC plants.

The drought in 2010 and 2011 probably affected populations of Barbed rattlesnake root, 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 bicycle and foot traffic on established trails and trail maintenance occur in some areas near the population but do not directly affect plants.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in the habitat of Barbed rattlesnake root. Activities include hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and dispersed camping.

The Kisatchie National Forest implemented the Travel Management Rule in 2012. The cumulative effects to this and other species would be 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 would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of Barbed rattlesnake root.

Determination

It is my determination that the Horseshoe Loop project may impact individuals of Prenanthes barbata (Barbed rattlesnake root) 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.

30

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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). 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 American pinesap (Monotropa hypopitys) and broomrape (Orobanche uniflora).

Existing Condition

The Horseshoe Loop project area is typical for the Caney Ranger District – stands variable in forest type (mostly loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, or mixed pine-oak/hickory). NNIS are usually found along road edges. There are numerous firelines, user-created trails, and utility rights-of-way in the project area. There is also one multiuse trail in the project area.

The dominant natural community in the project area is Shortleaf Pine, Oak-Hickory forest. Other natural communities found during past field surveys and in surveys for this project are Mixed Hardwood— Loblolly Pine Forest, Baygalls and Bayhead Swamps. Small Stream Riparian Forest surrounds most of the stream corridors. Bottomland Hardwood Forest occupies much of the riparian areas in larger streams such as the Middle Fork of Bayou D’Arbonne. Numerous loblolly pine plantations are also present.

NNIP Infestations are scattered throughout most of the project area, especially along roadsides, but 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:

31

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

• 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.

American Pinesap

Existing condition

American pinesap (Monotropa hypopitys) is a perennial herb that lacks chlorophyll. Known as a myco- heterotroph, it obtains food through parasitism upon fungi that form a mycorrhizal relationship with nearby tree species – usually of the genus Pinus (Diggs et al. 1999; NatureServe 2006). Plants flower from April through July and fruit from summer through fall (Diggs et al. 1999; Radford, Ahles and Bell 1968). In Louisiana, this plant has been found in Mixed Hardwood—Loblolly Pine Forest and Shortleaf Pine—Oak-Hickory Forest. It has been found in Calcareous Forest on the Winn Ranger District.

American pinesap is widespread throughout much of North America, including much of the continental US, Canada, and Central America, extending as far south as Guatemala. However, this plant is ranked as rare in Louisiana (NatureServe 2006). There are seventeen recorded occurrences of this species in eleven, northern parishes of the state (Reid 2006). Three occurrences have been recorded on the Kisatchie National Forest—one on the Caney Ranger District and two on the Winn Ranger District. There is a chance that American pinesap is present within the proposed project area although it has not been recorded in the project area.

Desired future conditions for American pinesap

The analysis question to be answered for this and all SC plants species is: How would proposed treatments affect these TESC plants plant species? The most significant effect to this species from management actions are effects to the shady, mesic habitat needed for its survival and reproduction.

Effects Analyses and Determinations

Alternative A

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for American pinesap (Monotropa hypopitys).

32

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 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 American pinesap.

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 affect all understory species to some degree, including SC plants. There would continue to be a reduction or loss of understory vegetation and therefore a loss of understory services (see Vegetation Report).

In the no action alternative, there would be no road reconstruction 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 2004 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented occurrence of American pinesap 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. Past activities such as logging, grazing and fire exclusion have resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. Conditions in many eastern forests, including the shortleaf pine/oak-hickory forests in northern 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) (see Vegetation Report).

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.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects

If Alternative B is implemented, American pinesap 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 should be no cumulative effects. Chances are slim that American

33

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

pinesap is present within the project area, so few, if any, plants are likely to be present. Its population would not be substantially reduced.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2004, when American pinesap was first found on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions have affected the abundance of American pinesap and have established baseline current condition for American pinesap.

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 such grazing and fire exclusion have resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. Conditions in many eastern forests, including the shortleaf 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) (see Vegetation Report).

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.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in the habitat of American pinesap. Activities include hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and dispersed camping.

The Kisatchie National Forest implemented the Travel Management Rule in 2012. The cumulative effects to this and other species would be 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 would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of American pinesap.

Several utility corridors are present in the potential habitat (no plants have been identified along corridor) of American pinesap. 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 Horseshoe Loop 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

34

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Existing condition

Broomrape (Orobanche uniflora) is a perennial herb that lacks chlorophyll. It parasitizes roots of various plant species (Judd et al. 1999; Radford et al. 1968). Plants bloom from April to May (Correll and Johnston 1979). It usually grows in acid soils in various types of forest, including rich woodlands, open woods, and pinelands (Correll and Johnston 1979; Radford et al. 1968; Steyermark 1963; and Reid 2006). This plant has been found in Upland Longleaf Pine Forest near seeps and bogs in Louisiana (Hyatt and Moore 1999; Reid 2006).

Broomrape is widespread in North American, but is rare in Louisiana. It has been found in all but one of the states (Hawaii) of the US, as well as in much of Canada (NatureServe 2012). This species has been recorded in two Louisiana parishes (Reid 2006). There are two occurrences of broomrape on the Kisatchie National Forest.

There is a slim chance that broomrape is present within the proposed project area although it has not been recorded on the District. Broomrape has been found in Rapides Parish (Reid 2006) where most of the project area is located. There is limited suitable habitat near baygalls in the project area. The project area has not been completely field surveyed, so it may be present but undetected.

Desired future conditions for broomrape

The analysis question to be answered for this and all SC plants species is: How would proposed treatments affect these TESC plants plant species?

The most significant effect to this species from management actions are effects to the shady, mesic habitat needed for its survival and reproduction.

Effects Analyses and Determinations

Alternative A

This discussion addresses the no action alternative for broomrape (Orobanche uniflora).

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 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 broomrape.

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 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 (see Vegetation Report).

35

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

In the no action alternative, there would be no road reconstruction 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 1999 to present. This date was selected to coincide with the first documented occurrence of broomrape 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. Past activities such as grazing and fire exclusion have resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. Conditions in many eastern forests, including the shortleaf 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) (see Vegetation Report).

If the “no action” alternative is selected, a trend toward a more closed-canopy forest dominated by loblolly pine would continue.

Alternative B

Direct and Indirect Effects

If Alternative B is implemented, broomrape 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. There should be no cumulative effects. Chances are slim that broomrape is present within the project area, so few, if any, plants are likely to be present. Its population would not be substantially reduced.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary of this discussion is the Horseshoe Loop project area. The time limit for this analysis begins in 2004, when American pinesap was first found on the Kisatchie National Forest. The following past actions have affected the abundance of broomrape and have established baseline current condition for broomrape.

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 such as grazing and fire exclusion have resulted in a shift in environmental conditions. Conditions in many eastern forests, including the shortleaf 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

36

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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) (see Vegetation Report).

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.

Ongoing and future foreseeable actions

Dispersed recreation is an ongoing activity that occurs in the habitat of broomrape. Activities include ATV riding, hiking, horseback riding, bicycling and dispersed camping.

The Kisatchie National Forest implemented the Travel Management Rule in 2012. The cumulative effects to this and other species would be 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 would reduce the impacts of vehicle traffic in the habitat of broomrape.

Several utility corridors are present in the potential habitat (no plants have been identified along corridor) of broomrape. 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 Horseshoe Loop project may impact individuals of for broomrape (Orobanche uniflora) 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

37

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 (see Vegetation Report), 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. See additional assumptions above.

• 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 table XX for these features.

NNIP on the Kisatchie National Forest are managed using the best available science. There are 8 NNIP found in the Horseshoe Loop 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 5. NNIP found in the Horseshoe Loop project area. Common name Scientific name habit

1 Chinaberry Melia azederach tree

2 Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense shrub

3 Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera tree

4 Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica vine

38

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Common name Scientific name habit

5 Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense grass

6 kudzu Pueraria montana var. lobata vine

7 Sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata forb

8 silktree Albizia julibrissin tree

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.

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.

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

There would be no direct effects to NNIP from management actions associated with the Horseshoe Loop project because none would occur.

Mitigation measures, treatments and surveys that may have been part of the Horseshoe Loop 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 the Horseshoe Loop

39

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

project would not be done. As a result, weed infestations within the treatment units of the Horseshoe Loop project area 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 Horseshoe Loop project 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 the Horseshoe Loop project EA.

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the project area for the Horseshoe Loop project. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2000. Past management activities and disturbances have contributed to the establishment and distribution of NNIP in the project area. Past activities such as 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 2000, 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/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.

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 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 shortleaf pine have been resilient to fire, but this resilience is threatened by invasion of NNIP. Once these non-native

40

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

species are established, they can change community composition and ecosystem processes including the fire/fuel cycle (Collins et al., 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).

Alternative B

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 and creating bare ground that can be more easily invaded than in undisturbed areas.

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, 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 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.

Cumulative effects

41

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Past actions

The boundary for this cumulative effects analysis is the Horseshoe Loop project area boundary. This discussion includes management actions related to NNIP since 2000. Prior to 2000, 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.

Noxious or invasive survey and control 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 national forest system lands 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 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

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).

42

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Chinaberry

Description and Threat

Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) is a moderate sized, deciduous tree (Allen et al. 2002) from Southeast Asia and northern Australia (Batcher 2000). It was introduced as an ornamental in Georgia and South Carolina around 1830 (Waggy 2009). It flowers from March to May and produces berry-like, poisonous, yellow fruit from July to January (Miller et al. 2010). This tree was once a popular ornamental throughout the southeast and has persisted and spread from cultivation (Allen et al. 2002). It is found in a wide variety of soil types, usually near roads, old homesteads, and at forest margins (Batcher 2000, and Miller et al. 2010).

Chinaberry has spread to most of the states in the southern half of the continental US, as well as to Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands (USDA, NRCS 2012), Mexico, the Pacific Islands, and South Africa (PIER 2006). It is probably present in all 59 Louisiana parishes (Allen et al. 2002). This tree produces abundant fruit and seeds, which are dispersed by birds. It also spreads vegetatively from root sprouts. Although chinaberry usually invades disturbed sites, it has been reported to invade undisturbed areas in the wetlands of Florida and upland sites in Texas. It is highly resistant to insects and disease and grows rapidly, so it often out-competes native vegetation. Chinaberry can also alter soil chemistry by increasing alkalinity and nitrogen through its leaf litter (Batcher 2000, and Waggy 2009).

Chinaberry is controllable if treated when infestations are small. However, the cost of treating large, well-established Infestations is prohibitive. It is difficult to control by mechanical methods, since it can resprout from root storage organs and root collars. Herbicide treating cut stumps or saplings with triclopyr has been effective in killing this tree (Batcher 2000, and Miller et al. 2010).

Existing Condition

There is a small infestation of Chinaberry in stand 19/Compartment 3.

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

43

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

If Alternative A is implemented, chinaberry will continue to spread slowly throughout the project area.

If Alternative B is implemented, chinaberry 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.

Chinese Privet

Description and Threat

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is a shrub that was 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). 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).

Chinese privet is 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). It spreads 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, and is 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

Chinese privet infestations are common on the Caney Ranger District, but almost always restricted to riparian areas, which are outside the scope of the project. However, a few large infestations 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

44

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

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).

45

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Existing Condition

Chinese tallow occurs sporadically along roadsides 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, 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.

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 shortleaf pine forests, have

46

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 Compartments 100, 101, and 104.

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.

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).

47

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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 along roads 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.

Kudzu

Description and Threat

48

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) is a semi-woody, deciduous vine. It has large roots that can grow up to sixteen feet long. Vines originate from knot-like root crowns at the soil surface (Miller et al. 2010). Kudzu was first introduced to the United States in 1876 by the Japanese at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. It was widely used in the early 1900’s, and was even endorsed and encouraged by the USDA as a soil binder and fertilizer. It flowers from June to September and bears fruit from September to January. Kudzu grows at old Infestations, right-of-ways, forest edges, and stream banks (Diggs et al. 1999, and Miller et al. 2010). Kudzu infestations can eventually spread into undisturbed forested sites (Munger 2002b).

Kudzu is most prevalent in the southern United States, but is widely distributed throughout the eastern and central states except for the those furthest north. It is also found in Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii (Munger 2002b, and USDA, NRCS 2012). Vines can grow up to a foot a day in the spring, and up to sixty feet in a year (Miller et al. 2010). Kudzu infestations spread vegetatively for the most part, sending roots down from stem nodes. Seeds can be dispersed by water, wind, and animals, but seed production appears to be sparse. Kudzu forms dense mats of vegetation over the ground, on shrubs, and on trees. It starves the vegetation beneath it (Miller et al. 2010, and Munger 2002b)

Kudzu is very difficult to eradicate. Its large roots store reserves of starch that allow it to survive many environmental stresses, including drought, fire, frost, mechanical removal, grazing, and herbicide treatment. Eradication by any method requires treating Infestations multiple times for several years. Fire alone is inadequate to control kudzu. Although vines die back after fire, they can rapidly regrow to their former size a couple years after being burned. There is some evidence that kudzu seeds are stimulated to germinate when exposed to fire (Munger 2002b)

Existing Condition

There are five infestations of kudzu in the project area on the Middle Fork unit.

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, kudzu would not be affected. Continued herbicide treatments should eventually eradicate the known infestation within the project area.

49

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

If Alternative B is implemented, kudzu may 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.

Sericea Lespedeza

Description and Threat

Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), is a perennial herb that was introduced the United States from Japan in the late nineteenth century. Widely planted for erosion control and wildlife plots, it has escaped cultivation. It blooms from July through September and sets seed from October through March. This species is found in open, dry to moist sites such as roadsides, fields, savannas, and forest openings (Miller et al.).

Sericea lespedeza is widespread in the eastern and central United States (USDA, NRCS). This species spreads slowly, but persists in a wide variety of habitats. Reproduction is through seeds that have a low germination rate. However, seeds remain viable for decades (Miller et al., and Munger 2004). Although there is no published information about fire effects specific to sericea lespedeza, it has been observed that established plants resprout after fire and that seed germination may be enhanced by fire if temperatures are not too hot. Once established, this species can crowd out native grasses and can persist for many years, even when becoming shaded by woody vegetation (Munger 2004).

Project Area Locations

Sericea lespedeza infestations are found along most roads 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, kudzu would not be affected. Continued herbicide treatments should eventually eradicate the known infestation within the project area.

50

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

If Alternative B is implemented, kudzu may 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.

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.

51

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

Monitoring Requirements

Table 6. Monitoring Requirements. Requirement Timing Purpose

Assures compliance with the Review and apply the mitigations and design features mitigation measures and design included in this document so the Implementation features in 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 and Post-treatment Mitigates the effects of NNIP. treat NNIP if needed

Monitor NNIP treatments for Allows for adaptive management in Post-treatment effectiveness weed management.

SUMMARY

Table 7 is a summary of the likely impacts to NNIP by the proposed Horseshoe Loop project.

Table 7. Alternative Effects on NNIP. Common Alternative A Alternatives B Name

1 chinaberry continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

2 Chinese privet continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

3 Chinese tallow continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

4 Japanese honeysuckle continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

5 Johnsongrass continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

52

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Common Alternative A Alternatives B Name

6 kudzu continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

7 Sericea lespedeza continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

8 silktree continued spread herbicide treatments should halt spread

Prepared by:

David Moore Date: February 2, 2016 David Moore (Forest botanist) Kisatchie National Forest

53

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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]

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, available 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. 261 pp.

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.

54

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

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.

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.

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. 1997. Conservation assessment for Prenanthes barbata (barbed rattlesnake root). Kisatchie National Forest, Pineville, Lousiana. Internal Report, Kisatchie National Forest. 67 pp.

55

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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% 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 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.

56

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

Middleton, et al. 2006. Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America; Vol. 106, No. 8:2519-2524.

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.

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.

57

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

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.

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.

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.

Singhurst, J.R., R.J. O’Kennon, and W.C. Holmes. 2004. The genus Prenanthes (Asteraceae: Lactucaceae) in Texas. SIDA 21(1): 181-191.

Steyermark, Julian A. 1963. Flora of Missouri. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

58

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

59

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

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.

Williams, R.A. and L.M. Smith. 1995. A survey and description of the natural plant communities of the Kisatchie National Forest Caney District. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 142 pp.

Williams, R.A., editor. 1996 Proceedings of the Forest Ecosystem Management in the Gulf Coastal Plain Conference. Jackson, MS. February 14-16. Pub. School of Forestry, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 137pp.

Williams, R.A. 1998. Effects of fire on shortleaf and loblolly pine reproduction and its potential use in shortleaf/oak/hickory ecosystem restoration. p321-325. In Proc: Waldrop, Thomas A., ed. Ninth Biennial Southern Silviculture Research Conference; 1997 Feb 25-27; Clemson, SC. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-20. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 628 p.

Williams, R.A. 1998. The Louisiana shortleaf/oak/hickory forest of the pre-European settlement era-- abiotic factors that maintained it and caused its disappearance. In Proc: First Biennial North American Forest Ecology Workshop. June 24-26. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

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.

60

Caney Ranger District Horseshoe Loop EA Botany Specialist Report

Appendix A. NNIP - Kisatchie National Forest.

common name Scientific name aquatic 1 tree of Heaven Ailanthus altissima no 2 silktree (mimosa) Albizia julibrissin no 3 alligator weed Alternanthera philoxeroides yes 4 King Ranch bluestem Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica no 5 water hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes yes 6 thorny olive Elaeagnus pungens no 7 autumn olive Elaeagnus umbellata no 8 weeping lovegrass Eragrostis curvula no 9 English ivy Hedera helix no 10 hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata yes 11 cogongrass Imperata cylindrica no 12 Japanese lespedeza Kummerowia striata no 13 shrub lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor no 14 sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata no 15 Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense no 16 Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica no 17 Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum no 18 Chinaberry Melia azederach no 19 parrot feather water milfoil Myriophyllum aquaticum yes 20 sacred bamboo Nandina domestica no 21 Santa Maria feverfew Parthenium hysterophorus no 22 dallisgrass Paspalum dilatatum no 23 Vasey grass Paspalum urvillei no 24 chamber bitter Phyllanthus urinaria no 25 golden bamboo Phyllostachys aurea no 26 hardy orange Poncirus trifoliata no 27 kudzu Pueraria montana var. lobata no 28 Scarlet firethorn Pyracantha coccinea no 29 callery pear Pyrus calleryana no 30 sawtooth oak Quercus acutissima no 31 McCartney rose Rosa bracteata no 32 Cherokee rose Rosa laevigata no 33 Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta yes 34 Johnsongrass Sorghum halepense no 35 Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera no 36 Brazilian vervain Verbena brasiliensis no 37 tungoil tree Vernicia fordii no 38 wisteria Wisteria sinensis no

61

Kisatchie National Forest Horseshoe Loop Caney Ranger District Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX D: FAUNA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Appendices D-1 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION (Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive Species) USDA FOREST SERVICE Kisatchie National Forest Caney Ranger District

Horseshooe Loop Project Compartments 1 through 10

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to the loss of viability of any native or desirable non-native animal species. This BE documents likely effects of management actions on populations of proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive (PETS) species; as well as candidates to those designations. Such species are those, whose viability is most likely to be put at risk from management actions. Information presented here is used to ensure that such species are maintained at, or are moving toward, viable population levels. Populations of other species (those at less risk of losing viability) are maintained by creating and maintaining a diversity of habitat types distributed across the National Forest in accordance with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Through this combination of approaches, viable populations of all species are maintained.

Evaluation methods included internal expertise on species' habitat requirements, Forest Service inventory and occurrence records, Final Environmental Impact Statement/Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the Kisatchie National Forest, and the recovery plans for the Louisiana Black Bear and the Bald Eagle. The aforementioned research was conducted considering the best available science, and the potential effects discovered are discussed in this BE.

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:

The existing conditions within the project area do not currently meet the desired conditions outlined within the Forest Plan. 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.

According to established forest management guidelines, stands within the project area are considered overstocked and in need of timber harvest operations. All stands are within SMAs 2AS and 3BS. Existing roads will be utilized for timber harvest operations.

PROJECT LOCATION:

The project area is located in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana in Sections 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, and 28 of Township 11 North and Range 4 West.

CONSULTATION HISTORY:

The Final Environmental Impact Statement, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Kisatchie National Forest, which this project implements, and programmatic Northern long eared Bat Biological Opinion (BO) dated January 5, 2016 were concurred upon by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This project did not require project level concurrence, but rather an informative letter requested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

A heritage resource survey has been completed in these compartments. The findings of the survey have been sent to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and concurrence has been received.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTION:

The Proposed Action is designed to initiate the first phase of a long-term plan to achieve the desired future conditions of healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems by using comprehensive integrated approaches designed to prevent and minimize resource loss or damage due to insects, diseases, or wildfire within the project area. The following activities are proposed:

• Intermediate thinnings are proposed for approximately 1,918 acres of loblolly pine stands ranging in age from 48 to113 years, located in the project area. The stands have exceeded the desired stocking density for the SMAs (Forest Plan, pg. 3-19) and would benefit from an intermediate thinning at this time. The current BA/acre ranges from a low of 86 BA/acre to a high of 165 BA/acre. The primary management emphasis in the project area is restoration of native SOH communities in an intermediate time frame while providing a moderate level of protection of other resources. These stands should be managed for a relatively open canopy with variable tree densities having an average combined, pine and hardwood, basal area of 70 ft2/acre.

• First thinnings are proposed for approximately 118 acres of loblolly pine plantations in the project area. These stands are located in Compartments 2, 8, and 10. They are densely stocked with total basal areas far exceeding 100 ft2/acre. Because stand densities greater than the optimum desired conditions stress pines and impede radial growth, pine stands become more susceptible to SPB infestation. The proposed thinning treatments are needed to increase growth, vigor, quality, and productivity of the residual trees within the project area. Thinning treatments to a BA of 60 ft2/acre would reduce the susceptibility to SPB infestations by increasing the spacing between pines in the stand and improve stand health and growth by reducing competition. This would also enhance recreational access and visibility within the project area, reduce forest fuels, and improve wildlife habitat. Species associated with the desired forest type would be favored during thinning treatments, promoting native community restoration.

• Clearcut harvests are proposed for approximately 222 acres of various stands of loblolly pine forest type stand across the district for regeneration back to native shortleaf pine. After harvest, these sites would be prepared for planting by first chopping to control woody debris if needed, then applying the herbicides to control resprouting, followed by a site prep burn. Containerized shortleaf pine seedlings would be planted to a density of approximately 680/acre. Follow-up treatments would include release of the shortleaf pine seedlings from competition using herbicides.

• Group selection harvests are proposed for 542 acres to create openings (small clearcuts of approximately 2-3 acres in size each) on approximately 75 acres used for uneven age management to establish shortleaf pine and a new age class of trees. The remaining acres in these areas would be thinned to approximately 70 ft2/acre basal area favoring shortleaf pine and oak/hickory as leave species.

• Wildlife opening installation on 40 acres in the stands that had timber harvest operations performed. These openings would be established and maintained for herbaceous plant growth for wildlife habitat enhancement. Herbaceous plants are a valuable source of food and cover for a host of wildlife species. These openings would be treated with herbicides to control woody vegetation and promote herbaceous plant growth.

• Herbicide treatments would be applied on approximately 10 acres of NNIP such as Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese tallow tree, kudzu, and Chinese privet. Herbicides would be applied to Corney Lake (1,300 acres) to treat American lotus infestations and any invasive or nuisance species that may appear in the future. Large colonies of American lotus may restrict small boat navigation, fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes.

• Road maintenance is proposed for approximately 20 miles of existing roads throughout the project area in order to improve the transportation system, facilitate proposed timber harvest activities, improve water quality, and enhance public safety. After harvest, erosion control activities would be implemented to stabilize exposed soil on skid trails, landings, and temporary roads used during harvesting activities. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED:

A checklist of all the endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive animal species known to occur on the forest is attached in Appendix A. The sensitive species list is from the U.S. Forest Service Southern Region dated August 2007. All the species listed in Appendix A were condsidered. Species listed in Table 1 are of greatest concern in the project area based on field surveys, habitat availability, literature and KNF records are addressed in detail within this document. These species listed in Table 1.0 will be considered in the EA and BA/E. All other species in Appendix A were considered but excluded from Analysis due to the species are not within the range or appropriate and/or potentially appropriate habitat for the species is not present within the project area.

Table 1. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Conservation (PETSC) Species evaluated within the project area located on the Caney Ranger District of KNF.

Status Habitat Caney Scientific Common USFWS USFS State Ranger Name Name Status* Status* Status/Rank District (LNHP)* Occurrence Aimophila Bachman’s S S3 Open pine Common aestivalis Sparrow woods, old permanent brushy fields, resident cutover areas Alligator American TSA TSA Usually near Uncommon mississippiensis Alligator water, ponds, permanent swamps and resident rivers Corynorhinus Rafinesque’s S S4 Limestone Occasionally rafinesquii Big-Eared caves and encountered in Bat forested areas specific situations Myotis Southeastern S S4 Varied; cities Occasionally austroriparius Myotis to wilderness encountered in specific situations

Myotis Northern T T S1 Mature Forests Within septentrionalis long-eared “buffered” range Bat of species Notropis hubbsi Bluehead S S2 Quiet No records; Shiner backwaters of suitable habitat small to medium sluggish streams and oxbow lakes Plethodon Louisiana S S1S2 Hardwood Uncommon kisatchie Slimy forests permanent Salamander resident Urusus Louisiana R T T/S3 Forest and Very rare americanus Black Bear swamps sightings of stray lutrolus individuals FEDERAL and STATE STATUS: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate species, S = Sensitive STATE RANK: S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = imperiled, S3 = rare, S4 = apparently secure, S5 = demonstrably secure, SA = accidental in Louisiana, SH = of historical occurrence in Louisiana, SR = reported from Louisiana, SU = possibly in peril in Louisiana, SX = believed to be extirpated from Louisiana, SZ = transient species in which no specific consistent area of occurrence is identifiable (B or N may be used as qualifier of numeric ranks and indicating whether the occurrence is breeding or non-breeding) Source: USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program; 2015.

The NLEB is the only known Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species within the project area but there are no known occurrences on or near the district. Moderate habitat, at best, for the Louisiana Black Bear exist within the project area, but not within the proposed treatment areas. There have been no confirmed sightings of the Louisiana Black Bear in or near the project area.

Habitat for nearly all of the sensitive species occurs within some part of the project area. However, the Bachman’s Sparrow is the only species that has habitat where vegetation treatments would occur. Other sensitive species including the Bluehead shiner have habitat adjacent to treatment areas and, although unlikely, could potentially be affected from sedimentation.

EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION:

Louisiana Slimy Salamander: No specific survey was completed for the Louisiana Slimy Salamander for this project; however, suitable habitat exists within the project area. Knowing exact numbers this salamander within or adjacent to stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as project design criteria addresses streamside / riparian zone protection.

Bachman’s Sparrow: No specific survey was completed for the Bachman’s Sparrow for this project; however, suitable habitat exists. Knowing exact numbers of Bachman’s Sparrows within the stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as treatments would be beneficial to the species.

Southeastern myotis: No specific survey was completed for the Southeastern myotis for this project; however, suitable habitat exists. Knowing exact numbers of Southeastern myotis within the stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as treatments would be beneficial to the species.

Rafinesque’s big eared bat: No specific survey was completed for the Rafinesque’s big eared bat for this project; however, suitable habitat exists. Knowing exact numbers of Rafinesque’s big eared bat within the stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as treatments would be beneficial to the species.

Northern long eared bat: No specific survey was completed for the Northern long eared bat for this project; however, suitable habitat exists. Bat surveys have been completed in the past and there are no known occurrences on or near the district. Treatments would be beneficial for this type bat species.

Bluehead shiner: No specific survey was completed for the Bluehead shiner for this project; however, suitable habitat exists. Knowing exact numbers of Bluehead shiner within the stands to be treated would not significantly change the project proposal, as treatments would be beneficial to the species.

Louisiana Black Bear: No specific survey was completed for the Louisiana black bear for this project. The species inhabits forests and swamps but its distribution in Louisiana is quite restricted. On very rare occasions an individual bear (usually displaced males) may wander through the Caney unit, but there is no resident population. Because of that, and because bears are habitat generalists, not sensitive to moderate vegetation manipulation, none of the alternatives should affect the Louisiana black bear.

Louisiana Alligator: No specific survey was completed for the Louisiana alligator. This species is usually near water, ponds swamps and rivers. Documented occurrence from several location on the forest exists. There is no known resident population. Because of that, and because alligators are habitat generalists, not sensitive to moderate vegetation manipulation, none of the alternatives should affect the Louisiana alligator.

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS ON EACH SPECIES EVALUATED:

Louisiana Slimy Salamander (Plethodon kisatchie) The Louisiana Slimy Salamander inhabits moist woodland habitats and is more 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. The species is very rare throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range, and is considered critically imperiled within Louisiana.

Alternative A Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance would be implemented. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

This alternative is required by NEPA and serves as a benchmark for other alternatives in order to analyze the effects on the environment from implementation of management activities. This alternative does not meet the desired future conditions in the Forest plan as listed in Section 1.2.

Alternative B There will be no direct effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species. There will be no indirect effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species. There will be no cumulative effects with this alternative, due to the lack suitable habitat for this species.

Alternative C-it is B above minus lake

Bachman’s Sparrow Bachman’s sparrow is a ground-nesting, herb gleaning insectivore-granivore, inhabiting open pinewoods where grasses dominate the herbaceous layer (Hamel 1992). Habitat for Bachman's sparrow consists of open pine stands with grasses and scattered shrubs in the understory. Habitat requirements include dense herbaceous cover with, or bordered by, shrubs and trees. Bachman's sparrow nests and forages on the ground, needing thick ground cover. Bachman’s sparrow abundance was stable for the short term for the Forest though mid-term declines were detected at the Forest scale. Associated with old growth southern pine woodland subject to frequent growing season fires (little/no midstory, dense understory of grasses). Potential habitat does not exist on the Caney District.

Alternative A Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance would be implemented. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

Alternative B There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species.

Alternative C-it is B above minus lake

Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) These bats roost in large hollow trees in riparian areas, under bridges, and in man-made structures such as concrete bunkers. Both species are reported to forage in or above mature forests especially in riparian areas or near bodies of water. Predominately a cave bat in that part of it ranges where suitable caves occur. But in Texas, and in most of Louisiana, it seeks roost in structures. Outside caves, it has been found in crevices between bridge timbers; in culverts and drain pipes; in boat houses, barns, and the attics of houses; and in hollow trees. The bats are usually closely associated with water and when they leave their diurnal roosts late in the evening (usually about dark), they fly to nearby ponds and streams over which they forage and from which they drink (Mammals of Texas – Online Edition).

Alternative A Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance would be implemented. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

Alternative B There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species.

Alternative C- is B above minus lake

Rafinesque’s Big eared Bat This species is an indicator of a mixed hardwood loblolly pine in a mid to late successional stage. Rafinesque’s big eared Bat requires roosting area in which it favors attics, lofts of barns and other out buildings, open cisterns, culvert, and particularly old dilapidated and abandoned houses in rural areas. This bat is seldom seen airborne during daylight hours. Females may group up to form nursery colonies in the spring. The young are mostly likely born in May and early June in Louisiana. The Rafinesque’s big eared bat is most closely associated with small stream riparian habitats that are generally associated with intermittent and smaller perennial streams with relatively narrow floodplains and including mesic sideslope habitat. One key habitat component is the presence of hollow trees, abandoned buildings and bridges can support this habitat need in some situations.

Alternative A Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance would be implemented. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

Alternative B There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species.

Alternative C- is B above minus lake

Bluehead Shiner (Notropis hubbis) Current Condition The blue head shiner is most closely associated with small riparian habitats (and oxbow lakes) that are generally associated with intermittent and smaller perennial streams with relatively narrow floodplain and include the associated mesic sideslopes habitat (FEIS, pg 3-45). These areas are embedded within all landtype associations that occur on the forest. There will be no effect to this species, due to the lack of suitable habitat for this species in the project area.

Alternative A Under this alternative, none of the proposed management activities in the Proposed Action would be implemented and the current conditions would be maintained. Current management would continue, implementing previous project decisions, such as wildfire suppression, insect infestation monitoring, and road maintenance would be implemented. Actions addressed in other decisions may also occur. If a disease or insect infestation occurs, control activities would be developed and analyzed in another document.

Alternative B There will be no direct effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species. There will be no indirect effects with this alternative, due to the lack of habitat for this species. There will be no cumulative effects with this alternative, due to the lack suitable habitat for this species.

Alternative C- is B above minus lake

Northern long eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis;NLEB):

DETERMINATION OF EFFECT AND RATIONALE:

My conclusion is 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.

Threatened Species

Northern Long eared Bat

Current Condition All of the project area could be considered as potential habitat for the NLEB.

Northern Long eared Bat: “likely to adversely affect” the NLEB the following statement should be used in the BA/E and NEPA document: “This project is likely to adversely affect the NLEB; however, there are no effects beyond those previously disclosed in the programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) dated January 5, 2016, signed by Lynn Lewis. Any taking that may occur incidental to this project is not prohibited under final 4(d) ruse (50 CFR 17.40(o)). This project is consistent with the forest plan, the description of the proposed action in the programmatic BO, and activities that do not require special exemption from taking prohibitions applicable to the northern long-eared bat: therefore, the programmatic BO satisfies the USFS’s responsibilities under ESA section 7(a)(2) relative to the NLEB for this project.” 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. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements. Habitat suitability under this alternative would not significantly change.

Alternative B This alternative proposes 4,836 acres of mechanical thinning, clearcut and group selection harvests during 1 April 2016-1 April 2020 in areas that may provide habitat for the NLEB. The proposed action of "mechanical thinning” is nested under "Thinning", which is a subcategory of "Timber Harvest", and is analyzed under Pathways 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the programmatic BO. Due to their nocturnal nature and preferred roosting habitat it is unlikely that this species would be harmed during mechanical activities such as midstory/overstory control, thinning, timber harvest related skid trails, or road maintenance. Workers and machinery in the area may temporarily disturb bats during logging, site preparation activities, release, or fire-line construction. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements.

This alternative proposes 20 miles of road maintenance and reconstruction 1 April 2016-1 April 2020 in areas that may provide habitat for NLEB. The proposed action of “temporary road construction is under “Road Construction/Reconstruction/Maintenance/Decommissioning” and analyzed under Pathway 15 of the programmatic BO. Project road maintenance and culvert replacement 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 would not significantly change.

This alternative proposes 220 acres of site prep prescribe burning 1 August 2017-1 August 2019 in areas that may provide habitat for the NLEB. The proposed action of prescribe burning for longleaf and shortleaf restoration is under “Prescribe Burning” and analyzed under Pathway 13 of the programmatic BO. This alternative does provide food, water, and roosting requirements.

Apply herbicide on Corney Lake (1,300 acres) to treat undesirable native and non-native vegetation. Currently, large colonies of American lotus (Nelumbo lutea) restrict small boat navigation, fishing, and provide habitat for mosquitoes.

Alternative C: is B above minus lake

COMPLIANCE:

Implementation of the proposed actions would include compliance with the Endangered Species Act and would follow management direction for the NLEB as outlined in the Biological Assessment for Activities Affecting Northern Long-Eared Bats on Southern Region National Forests, and the USFWS Biological Opinion – Activities Affecting the Northern Long-Eared Bat on Southern Region National Forests. Concurrence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be requested for this project. Sensitive Species

Louisiana slimy salamander: The proposed actions may impact individuals of this species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Bachman’s Sparrow: The proposed actions may impact individuals of this species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Southeastern myotis and Rafinesque’s big eared bat: The proposed actions may impact individuals of this species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

Bluehead Shiner: The proposed actions may impact individuals of this species, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.

REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES:

Black Bear Conservation Committee, 1992 First Edition. Black Bear Management Handbook for Louisiana, Mississippi and east Texas.

Johnson, J., Breeding bird surveys for the Caney Ranger District, 1998-2015. Unpublished report.

Hamel, Paul B. 1992 . Land managers guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pages.

Kisatchie National Forest. 1999. Final environmental impact statement: revised land and resource management plan. Produced by (and available from) the Kisatchie National Forest; printed by the U.S. government printing office.

Schmidly, D.J. and R.D. Bradley. 2016 7th Edition. The Mammals of Texas, Online addition.

Natureserve, The Nature Conservancy, 1999, Natural Heritage Conservation Databases. Accessed by USDA FS under Grant No. 97-CC2-230

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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1995. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi.

Prepared By:

John D. Wilcox District Wildlife Biologist Date Caney Ranger District Kisatchie National Forest

Table 1. Kisatchie National Forest Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species Compiled from the Regional Foresters January 2007 list.

Occurrence Evaluation Group Scientific Name Common Name Status Code Amphibian Plethodon kisatchie Louisiana slimy salamander Sensitive 4 Bird Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow Sensitive 6 Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Sensitive 2 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 Crustacean Procambrus kesleyi A crayfish (no common name) 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 Schoolhouse Springs leuctran Insect Leuctra szczytkoi stonefly Sensitive 2 Insect Brachycerus flavus Yellow brachycerus mayfly Sensitive 2 Mammal Urusus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear Threatened 2 Mammal Myotis austroriparious Southeastern myotis Sensitive 1 Mammal Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Sensitive 4 Mollusk Margaritifera hembeli Louisiana pearlshell Threatened 1 Mollusk Fusconaia askewi Texas pigtoe Sensitive 1 Mollusk Lampsilis hydiana Louisiana fatmucket Sensitive 2 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 Pituophis melanoleucus Reptile 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 ocurs 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.