United States Department of Agriculture BE 04-14-03

Biological Evaluation United States Department of Agriculture BE 04-14-03

Forest Service Southern Pine Beetle Suppression in Wilderness Areas

National Forests & Grasslands in Texas

January 2014

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this proposal is to take suppression action against Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestations in wilderness areas should they threaten endangered species habitat on National Forest land or pine forest on private land. The proposed activities will help to accomplish the objectives in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (Forest Plan; USFS 1996).

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

Objectives

The objectives of this biological evaluation are to:

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

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

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

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

Area Description

This proposal covers all five wilderness areas in Texas: Little Lake Creek, Big Slough, Turkey Hill, Indian Mounds, and Upland Island. The proposed treatment areas are the areas within each wilderness within ¼ mile of the wilderness borders where there is RCW habitat or private land immediately adjacent to the wilderness.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 1

The Forest Service proposes to treat SPB infestations using cut-and-leave inside the five wilderness areas. Only infestations within ¼ mile of wilderness boundaries would be treated, and only if they are forecast to impact limited foraging habitat for essential RCW clusters, or pine forest on private lands, within 30 days.

EXPECTED LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS

It is difficult to predict the number of acres that might be affected by the proposed control actions, or where these impacts might occur, because beetle infestations do not occur on a regular or annual basis. In recent years they have not occurred even on a regular cycle.

Acres directly affected by the actions proposed under this project would be devoid of standing pines. Hardwoods would remain standing, except where they were broken off or felled by falling pines. There would be a significant accumulation of downed pines on the ground, which would decay over time. Hardwood saplings and shrubs would sprout, along with vines and other understory species, and create dense thickets in many of these areas.

SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED

The species considered in this document are categorized into the following groups: A) federally listed species which appear on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county list; and B) those species listed for the DCNF as Sensitive, on the Regional Forester (R8) approved list, updated Jan. 2010. Those species or their habitat(s) that may be affected by the proposed project are evaluated in this BE (See Appendix I for a listing of those species that were considered, but eliminated from detailed evaluation and the rationale for elimination).

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

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

EVALUATED SPECIES SURVEY INFORMATION

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 2

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

EFFECTS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATIONS

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

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

2. Review of the following documents:

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

3. Review of National Forest TES species records.

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

This proposal encompasses the five wilderness areas on the National Forests in Texas. All compartments adjacent to these wilderness areas are within Management Area (MA)-2, Red- Cockaded Woodpecker Emphasis, except for those adjacent to Indian Mounds on the Sabine;; those compartments are in MA-1 (Upland Forest Ecosystems). A goal of MA-2 is to “provide the best possible habitat for the recovery of RCW populations and sub-populations” (USFS 1996, p.102).

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 3

Management in MA-2 is directed toward developing future conditions consisting of “open pine forests mixed with some hardwood species” (USFS 1996, p.98). This includes a frequent fire regime that would create an “open, grass-like understory.” Protecting limited RCW foraging habitat from loss is an integral part of recovering the species.

The five wilderness areas are in MA-7 (Wilderness). A goal of MA-7 is to maintain a natural condition by allowing physical and biological processes to operate without human intervention.

An overstory of loblolly and shortleaf pine dominates most of the stands in these compartments. Longleaf pine predominates in Upland Island. Hardwood tree species occurring in the overstory and midstory include post oak, southern red oak, sweetgum, and hickory. Understories range from dense thickets of yaupon, wax myrtle, and various small hardwoods to more open in nature, with grasses present in some areas.

Riparian areas of various sizes occur in these wildernesses. Hardwoods dominate along some streams, while pines prevail along others. Larger riparian areas are generally dominated by hardwoods with some pines mixed in the overstory. In general, snags are more common in these riparian areas. Dead pines, killed by the 2011 drought, are scattered throughout portions of the five areas.

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

EVALUATION OF EFFECTS

A. Threatened & Endangered Species

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

Birds - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

Environmental Baseline The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has high potential to occur on drier ridgetops in open- canopy, fire-maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods (Hovis and Labisky 1985; Jackson 1994; Conner et al. 2001; Walters et al. 2002; USFWS 2003). It also occurs in pine-dominated stands that contain more numerous hardwoods, although this is not high potential habitat. The RCW excavates cavities in live pines, using old trees infected with red heart fungus (Phellinus pini), thin sapwood and a large diameter of heartwood (Conner et al. 1994; Conner et al. 2001). Generally, pine trees ≥60 years old are needed for cavity excavation (Rudolph and Conner 1991; USFWS 2003). Threats to this species include conversion of mature forest to short-rotation plantations or non-forested areas, hardwood proliferation resulting from fire exclusion, lack of forest management to develop and maintain open stand conditions, and habitat fragmentation that affects population demographics.

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 4

This species does not have high potential to occupy potential treatment areas (pine-dominated stands in the five wilderness areas) because it has been documented that all wilderness clusters have become inactive or have been lost to prior beetle infestations. However, there are numerous active clusters immediately outside one or more of the wilderness areas.

The RCW populations on the four National Forests represent three populations. The Sam Houston and the Angelina-Sabine populations are designated primary core populations by the USFWS, and the Davy Crockett population is designated a secondary core population (USFWS 2003, p. 155). The RCW population trend is presently increasing on the National Forests in Texas (Fig.1; USFS 2012, Appendix A, p. 20).

Active Clusters 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Fig. 1 National Forests in Texas-wide RCW population trend 1988-2011 (USFS 2012, Appendix A, p. 20).

Available Inventories Known RCW clusters in wilderness areas were monitored until they went inactive, and for a number of years after they were abandoned due to midstory encroachment. Because of the dense hardwood midstory present throughout the five wilderness areas on the Texas national Forests, it is highly unlikely that RCWs would colonize wilderness areas, given the far more suitable habitat available outside the wilderness boundaries.

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

The cumulative effects analysis area for this species consists of the five wilderness areas and surrounding national forest compartments.

Control actions would be initiated on beetle infestations in wilderness areas that were within ¼ mile of wilderness boundaries and moving toward those boundaries if suitable host were present on adjacent private land or limited foraging habitat for essential clusters was present adjacent to wilderness boundaries. Essential clusters, as defined by the SPB Record of Decision (USFS 1987, p. 12, 17), are those clusters that are active or were active the previous breeding season; are not at the periphery of the species’ range (no Texas clusters are considered at the periphery); and are

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 5 located where viable population levels have not been met according to the RCW Recovery Plan (no Texas population has met Recovery plan population goals).

Foraging analyses were completed for active RCW clusters and inactive/recruitment clusters within ½ mile of wilderness boundaries to identify those with limited foraging habitat. Inactive/recruitment clusters were included because RCW populations are increasing. It is hoped and planned than many or all of these inactive/recruitment clusters will be occupied in coming years. At that time they will be considered essential.

Most of the clusters adjacent to wilderness are located on the Sam Houston National Forest. Thirty RCW clusters (24 active, six inactive/recruitment) have foraging habitat immediately adjacent to the boundary of Little Lake Creek Wilderness (see map). Of the 24 active clusters, foraging is limited for 19. Foraging is limited for five of the six inactive/recruitment clusters. Table 1 displays cluster status, foraging availability (limited/not limited), and actual acreage of foraging habitat available to each of the clusters.

Table 1. Status and foraging availability of RCW clusters adjacent to Little lake Creek Wilderness on the Sam Houston National Forest. Cluster Status Foraging For. Acres 7-2 ACTIVE LIMITED 87.6 7-3 ACTIVE not lim. 141.1 7-5 ACTIVE LIMITED 70.3 9-4 ACTIVE LIMITED 68.8 10-9 ACTIVE LIMITED 68.6 11-1 ACTIVE LIMITED 41.5 11-4 ACTIVE LIMITED 61.0 11-5 inactive LIMITED 30.1 11-7 ACTIVE LIMITED 12.5 11-8 ACTIVE LIMITED 81.5 11-9 inactive not lim. 135.6 11-11 ACTIVE not lim. 143.0 11-12 ACTIVE LIMITED 63.4 12-3 ACTIVE not lim. 142.1 12-4 ACTIVE LIMITED 75.3 14-1 ACTIVE not lim. 120.7 14-2 ACTIVE not lim. 142.3 14-3 Inactive LIMITED 94.3 15-2 inactive LIMITED 35.0 15-3 ACTIVE LIMITED 35.4 15-7 ACTIVE LIMITED 55.8 15-9 ACTIVE LIMITED 38.3 15-13 ACTIVE LIMITED 57.3 15-15 ACTIVE LIMITED 106.4 31-4 ACTIVE LIMITED 83.8

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 6

Cluster Status Foraging For. Acres 31-5 ACTIVE LIMITED 105.2 32-2 Inactive LIMITED 33.3 32-6 inactive LIMITED 10.0 32-9 ACTIVE LIMITED 48.1 32-11 ACTIVE LIMITED 67.4

Those clusters that are both active (or were active the previous breeding season) and have limited foraging habitat meet the criteria for having control measures taken against beetle infestations approaching their foraging habitat from within the wilderness.

A similar foraging analysis was completed for clusters adjacent to the Big Slough wilderness on the Davy Crockett National Forest see map) and the Turkey Hill Wilderness on the Angelina National Forest (see map). Three clusters have foraging habitat adjacent to those wilderness areas (Table 2).

Table 2. Status and foraging availability of RCW clusters adjacent Big Slough and Turkey Hill Wildernesses on the Davy Crockett and Angelina National Forests, respectively. Cluster Status Foraging For. Acres 22-1 (DCNF) inactive LIMITED 66.7

11-6 (ANF) ACTIVE not lim. 229 RC (ANF) inactive not lim. 189 DCNF = Davy Crockett; ANF = Angelina NF

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed cut-and-leave control inside the wilderness would have no direct effects on the RCW because there are no active RCW clusters in any of the five wilderness areas.

Indirect effects would benefit the RCW. This proposal would allow control action to be taken against beetle infestations that threaten limited RCW foraging early in their formation, before they become larger and more difficult to control. This would decrease the potential for large acreages of limited RCW foraging habitat to be destroyed if or when infestations exited wilderness areas. Some infestations might be controlled completely before exiting the wilderness, while others might still exit the wilderness but would already be slowed, or much smaller when they did so than if no action had been taken against them.

This would be especially important on the Sam Houston NF, where numerous clusters with severely limited foraging habitat border the wilderness. Loss of even a portion of the foraging for some of these clusters could be enough to lead to their extirpation, hampering the ability of the population to continue its growth and ultimately its ability to reach its recovery goal.

Cumulative Effects

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 7

As previously noted, private lands offer few options for RCW habitat, since most is either in young forest, cleared for pasture or other uses, or is otherwise not managed to provide the open, older stands needed by the species. Thus, federal lands assume great importance for recovery of the species. Beetle infestations initiating outside of wilderness areas that threatened RCW clusters and/or foraging habitat would be controlled promptly.

This proposal would not only protect limited foraging habitat for clusters adjacent to wilderness areas, but would, in the process, reduce the potential for those beetle infestations to continue moving farther and impacting additional RCW habitat and affecting the ability of RCW populations to grow and recover.

Plants - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) There are known occurrences for Neches River Rose Mallow within the project area and/or adjacent to areas of designated wilderness and suitable habitat for this species does exist in and around the Big Slough Wilderness area on the Davy Crockett National Forest. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by eliminating the impact to this species from fallen trees. As such, there will be no effect to this federally listed plant species due to the proposed action.

Neches River Rose Mallow is a Texas endemic that was federally declared a Candidate species on May 4, 2004. The known range of this species is limited to the Davy Crockett NF (DCNF) on the NFGT, but suitable habitat may occur elsewhere. It is generally found to occur within openings in shrub swamps or along the margins of riparian woodlands in seasonally wet soils (often found near standing water). Sites are typically flooded during late winter and early spring, but the surface soils are often quite dry by late summer. In 2004, it was known from only six sites in three east Texas counties. All of the occurrences are subject to genetic swamping by more common Hibiscus species that are perhaps better adapted to human-disturbed conditions. The Global Status of this species is classified as G1-Critically Imperiled, and S1-Critically Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006). The viability of this species is considered to be at high risk of failing.

All known occurrences of Neches River Rose Mallow on the NFGT are located on the Davy Crockett NF. Records of surveys are somewhat spotty, but four occurrences had been documented by the early 2000’s. These four occurrences were relocated by Philipps in 2005, and have been subsequently monitored in 2006 and 2007. An expedition by Loos down the Neches River from Neches Bluff past the Big Slough Wilderness area in 2010 and 2012 resulted in the documentation of four locations for this species, however two of the occurrences appeared to be hybrids and the one seemingly genetically pure occurrence occurred within a private inholding.

All four known sites were visited in 2011 by a group including Singhurst, Poole, Philipps, Loos, and several representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of an evaluation process for possible listing of this species under the Endangered Species Act. Viable plants were found at all four sites. Occurrences seemed healthy despite being somewhat stunted due to the drought and visible predation from animals and insects. Past flowering with seed production was observed in all sites. Chinese tallow was observed in all locations. Philipps and Loos also surveyed several other

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 8 areas of suitable habitat within Compartments 54 and 49 without success. Later, Loos surveyed areas around Slay Creek and Barton Branch within Compartments 118, 120, and 121 again without success.

This species does not generally occur in bottomland streamside habitat but rather on or near the edges of small lakes, sloughs, and seasonally wet buttonbush swamps. It does tend to hybridize with other members of this genus, thereby making identification sometimes difficult. It has limited distribution on the NFGT. Past re-stocking efforts have proven to have mixed results.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is adequate for this species. Resource protection measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees.

Individual NFGT Units Species NFGT Is Determination Common Scientific Species Distribution Suitable Name Name Known To and Habitat Habitat Occur Present Davy Yes Yes NE Crockett Neches river Hibiscus NF in rose dasycalyx sloughs mallow and marshes White Lesquerella Weches NE bladderpod pallida formation Earthfruit Geocarpon Saline glades NE Not on any NFGT units minimum and barrens Texas prairie Hymenoxys Saline glades NE dawn texana and barrens Navasota NE Spiranthes Catahoula Angelina ladies’- No parksii pine barrens NF tresses

B. Sensitive Species (non-plant)

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Mammals Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Insects Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Fish Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae) Freshwater Mussels Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii) Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus)

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 9

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi) Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana) Crayfish Black-belted Crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) Neches Crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) Sabine Fencing Crayfish (Faxonella beyeri)

Mammals – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) and Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius)

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

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

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

Research on habitat associations for both species in eastern Texas indicates that these two species of bats have high potential to occur within mature bottomland hardwood communities containing large diameter, hollow hardwoods, often of the genus Nyssa, within one kilometer (0.6 mile) of water (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). This research found that both species of bats preferred to roost in these large, hollow hardwoods. Lance et al. (2001) found big-eared bats, and occasionally southeastern myotis, roosting under concrete bridges as well as in large hollow Nyssa in Louisiana. Bridges used by these bats were always associated with a higher percentage of surrounding mature hardwood forest than were unused bridges. A similar affinity for hardwood-dominated roosts near water was found for big-eared bats in South Carolina (Bunch et al. 1998). Thus, two important components of high potential habitat across the range of the two species are mature bottomland hardwood forest and the close proximity of water.

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

Both species of bats, particularly the big-eared bat, have been known to occasionally forage in upland areas adjacent to their preferred bottomland foraging habitat, although such upland areas represent more marginal habitat.

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 10

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

Both species are experiencing population declines across their ranges. The greatest threat facing the big-eared bat is loss of bottomland forest roost habitat (Bunch et al 1998; NatureServe 2005), particularly the large hollow trees needed for maternity roosts. The myotis is similarly threatened by loss of maternity roost habitat.

The Big Slough wilderness on the Davy Crockett NF has the greatest potential for containing high potential habitat for these species (large diameter hollow hardwoods in floodplains) of all the five wilderness areas. However, this habitat is located in the eastern portion of the wilderness, along the Neches River and its floodplain. Beetle infestations occur in pine-dominated stands, so would not affect this habitat. However, bats could conceivably forage occasionally westward toward private lands or toward limited RCW foraging outside the wilderness.

These two species of bats do not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described above.

The cumulative effects analysis area for these bats consists of the five wilderness areas and the adjacent compartments.

Available Inventories No inventories were conducted for these species, because high potential habitat does not occur in the proposed treatment areas and the species does not have high potential to occur in the treatment areas. Any use of the potential treatment areas (upland, pine-dominated sites) by these bat species would be rare, and would occur only occasionally during foraging. Thus, it was determined that no inventories were needed.

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed cut and leave control could displace or harm individuals, should they be roosting in or near infestations being controlled. However, these species have a preference for roosting in large floodplain hardwood communities, where beetle infestations would not all occur. Thus, there is little chance of direct effects to these bats.

Indirect effects would be beneficial, by reducing the size of beetle infestations and thus preserving more acreage of pine-dominated and mixed pine/hardwood forest. This would ensure a more continuous supply of snags for temporary roost sites on more acres. The areas where infested trees and treatment buffers were cut would initially re-sprout into dense thickets, unusable by bats. Eventually, however, these areas would mature into hardwood or hardwood-pine stands, and would again be potential foraging areas, particularly if they were near water.

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 11

Cumulative Effects Adjacent private land uses generally do not promote the preservation or development of high potential roosting or maternity habitat. Hardwood bottomlands contain the best quality habitat for these species. However, the probability of this habitat type persisting is unknown, as many large bottomlands are, or have been, cut for lumber. Human structures (abandoned buildings, bridges, etc.) may also provide some roosting habitat, but specific environmental conditions must exist.

Bottomland habitat and hardwood stands on national forest land would remain unchanged, and continue to contain high potential roost and maternity habitat. High potential habitat on national forest land would not be impacted by beetle infestations due to the lack of pines, or the low number of pines.

Few, if any, other projects on national forest land impact high potential habitat for this species. Thinning projects concentrate on upland, pine-dominated stands. Prescribed burns are allowed to back into bottomlands and naturally extinguish themselves. The potential control of beetle infestations would similarly not impact high potential maternity habitat for these bats. Only potential temporary roost sites in upland areas, which are numerous, would be affected.

Insects - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Texas Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita)

Environmental Baseline The Texas emerald dragonfly has a potential range that may exceed 10,000 square miles in southeastern Texas, including all four national forests in Texas (Price et al. 1989). This species was originally described from the Sam Houston National Forest (Price et al. 1989). High potential habitat for larvae is associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2013). Adults are generalists, foraging for insects at canopy level in mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings. Because of its specific needs, the larval stage of this species is considered to be the critical life stage.

Threats to this species include clearing of large areas of mature forest for conversion to agricultural land or similar use, which would displace adults, and particularly sedimentation of larval habitat (Price et al. 1989; NatureServe 2013).

This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described above for larvae. Treatment areas are delineated to exclude streams (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) and their associated protection zones (MA- 4).

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 12

Direct and Indirect Effects Because the adult Texas emerald dragonfly is highly mobile, negative direct effects of cut-and- leave treatments are not anticipated.

Dragonfly larvae are susceptible to management actions that impact stream habitats. Cut-and-leave treatment of beetle infestations in the wildernesses would have little or no impact on streams and water quality, since there would be no skidding or hauling of trees and no vehicles would be used in the wilderness areas. Control of infestations in the wildernesses would minimize loss of mature forest once infestations exited wilderness areas. This would also reduce the potential for impacts to aquatic habitats from other control methods outside the wildernesses.

Cumulative Effects Some private lands adjacent to the five wildernesses have pine-dominated forest. Management actions on these lands may affect water quality by contributing sediment to streams. These actions are not anticipated to change. Control of beetle infestations in the wilderness areas before they affect private lands could reduce the potential for potentially insensitive control actions on private lands.

Fish and Freshwater Mussels - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences While specific habitat requirements for the fish and mussels differ, they are all impacted by sediment and debris deposition. Therefore, they are considered together in the effects analysis.

Fish Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae)

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

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

Freshwater Mussels Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura)

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 13

Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii) Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi) Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana)

Environmental Baseline Freshwater mussels may inhabit a variety of water-body types including large and small rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, canals, and reservoirs (Howells et al. 1996). These three sensitive mussel species have high potential to occur in mud, sand, or gravel substrates in streams and small rivers. They do not occur in deep shifting sands or deep soft silt (Howells 1996; Howells et al. 1996), which can contribute to smothering. Mussels filter feed on algae, detritus, and small particles in the water, and may be able to absorb some organic material in solution (Howells 1996).

Impoundment of river systems is believed to be the most significant threat facing freshwater bivalves (Neck 1982). Impoundment alters flow regimes, increases sediment accumulation, and may impede movement of fish hosts. Impoundments of streams, such as dams, alter flow and temperature regimes; disrupt the timing of reproduction and associated behavior of fish and mussels (Healy and Gelwick undated). Pollution, over harvest, reduced spring and river flows, introduction of exotic species, and sedimentation are other probable causes of decline (Neck 1982; Howells 1996; Howells et al. 1996; Watters 2000). In addition, any impacts to fish may negatively affect mussels, which use certain fish as hosts for larval development (Howells et al. 1996).

Available Inventories Howells et al. (1996) summarized surveys completed for these species in Texas. Only two live specimens of the Texas heelsplitter have been found in the past 15 years, and none of the other two species have been located. Texas freshwater mussel communities have declined greatly, and have disappeared from the majority of sites from which they once were found. Surveys from a study conducted from 1999-2000 on the Sam Houston NF, which included a large number of streams throughout the forest, did not result in the detection of these sensitive mussel species (Healy and Gelwick undated). In addition, live mussels were rarely collected in streams on the SHNF during this study. Evidence of mussels was found at 8 of 18 sites (17 streams), at which three of these sites only dead individuals or valve fragments were collected (Healy and Gelwick undated). Additional surveys on the other forests are summarized in the appended Aquatic Species Specialist Report (Peterson 2013).

Crayfish Black-belted Crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) Neches Crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) Sabine Fencing Crayfish (Faxonella beyeri)

Environmental Baseline Crayfish can be divided into two groups: 1) those that live in lentic habitats (still waters such as lakes, ponds, and swamps) and 2) those that live in lotic habitats (actively moving water such as streams and rivers). The Neches crayfish and Sabine fencing crayfish primarily inhabit lentic habitats and will be addressed separately. The blackbelted crayfish lives primarily in lotic environments, and will be addressed along with other stream dwelling species.

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 14

The blackbelted crayfish has high potential to occur among debris in streams with sandy or rocky bottoms, and is known from only five locations range-wide, all in the Neches River basin, in Angelina and Jasper counties (Hobbs 1990, p.581; Natureserve 2013). Activities that negatively impact water quality have the potential to impact this species.

The Neches crayfish has high potential to occur in simple burrows in temporary or semi-permanent pools in roadside ditches (Hobbs 1990, p.593, Natureserve 2013). This species is associated with the Neches River Basin (Hobbs 1990, p.595). The Sabine fencing crayfish has high potential to occur in roadside ditches that are intermittently filled (Natureserve 2013). Limiting factors for these crayfish include land development or alterations, agricultural runoff, and competition with other crayfish (Natureserve 2013). Heavy equipment used during timber operations has the potential to entomb crayfish in burrows, compact the soil, and affect hydrology through rutting.

Effects Analysis – Fish, Freshwater Mussels, and Crayfish

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

Cut-and-leave operations produce much less woody debris and detritus into streams because the skidding, lopping, bucking and loading procedures don’t exist. These practices typically introduce woody debris into streams causing shifts favoring detritus-loving species such as madtoms for up to five years. Additionally, SPB outbreaks likely occur in mature pine stands uncharacteristic of intermittent and perennial stream bottoms, so physical impact to habitat in the forms of canopy loss and channel damage are remote. See Peterson (2013; appended) for additional detail.

Cumulative Effects Downstream effects to aquatic habitats are of concern. However, adverse effects downstream of the analysis area are not anticipated due to the minimal soil disturbance associated with this project.

C. Sensitive Species (plants)

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species - Plants Panicled indigobush (Amorpha paniculata) Incised agrimony (Agrimonia incise) Texas bartonia (Bartonia texana) Warner’s hawthorn (Crataegus warneri) Mohlenbrock’s umbrella sedge (Cyperus grayoides) Southern ladies’-slipper (Cypripedium kentuckiense) Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum) Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis) Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) Barbed rattlesnake root (Prenanthes barbata) Large beakrush (Rhynchospora macra) Sabine coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia) Texas sunnybells (Schoenolirion wrightii) Scarlet catchfly (Silene subciliata) Clasping twistflower (Streptanthus maculatus) Texas trillium (Trillium texanum) Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii)

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 15

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species - Plants Harper’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia)

Effects Analysis – Plants

Effects analyses for Region 8 sensitive plants were completed by forest botanist Tom Philipps. These analyses (and the botanical portion of the sensitive species list) are presented in Appendix III (Philipps 2103).

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

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

Table 2. Determinations of effect for species analyzed.

Determination Species Scientific Name Rationale Of Effect

Federally

Listed/Proposed No RCW occur in wilderness areas; proposed actions will Red-cockaded Not likely to adversely Picoides borealis protect limited foraging habitat Woodpecker affect outside of wilderness for active clusters. Resource protection measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project Neches River Rose Hibiscus dasycalyx No effect activities where this species may Mallow occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by eliminating the impact to this species from fallen trees.

R8 Sensitive Species

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 16

Determination Species Scientific Name Rationale Of Effect May impact individuals Stream protection measures but is not likely to Texas Emerald Somatochlora (USFS 1996 and project design cause a trend to federal Dragonfly margarita criteria) would minimize listing or a loss of sedimentation. viability. May impact individuals Stream protections measures (in but is not likely to USFS 1996 and project design Sabine Shiner Notropis sabinae cause a trend to federal criteria) would minimize listing or a loss of sedimentation. viability. Lampsilis satura Sandbank Pocketbook May impact individuals Pleuobema ridellii Stream protections measures (in Louisiana Pigtoe but is not likely to Potamilus USFS 1996 and project design Texas Heelsplitter cause a trend to federal amphichaenus criteria) would minimize Texas Pigtoe listing or a loss of Fusconaia askewi sedimentation. Southern Hickorynut viability. Obovaria jacksoniana

May impact individuals Black-belted Crayfish Procambarus Stream protections measures (in but is not likely to Neches Crayfish nigrocinctus USFS 1996 and project design cause a trend to federal Procambarus nechesae criteria) would minimize Sabine Fencing listing or a loss of sedimentation. Crayfish Faxonella beyeri viability. Proposed actions would reduce Mohlenbrock’s Will have beneficial Cyperus grayoides shading and woody competition umbrella sedge impacts through removal of pines. Panicled indigobush Amorpha paniculata Southern ladies’- Cypripedium slipper kentuckiense Pineland bogbutton Lachnocaulon digynum Slender gayfeather Liatris tenuis Yellow fringeless Platanthera integra orchid May impact individuals Barbed rattlesnake Prenanthes barbata but is not likely to root Rhynchospora macra cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of Large beakrush Rudbeckia scabrifolia viability. Sabine coneflower Trillium texanum Texas trillium Xyris drummondii Drummond’s yellow- Xyris scabrifolia eyed grass Harper’s yellow-eyed grass

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 17

Determination Species Scientific Name Rationale Of Effect Incised agrimony Agrimonia incise Texas bartonia Bartonia texana Warner’s hawthorn Crataegus warneri Will have no impact on these R8 sensitive plant Texas sunnybells Schoenolirion wrightii species Scarlet catchfly Silene subciliata Clasping twistflower Streptanthus maculatus

A. Threatened and Endangered Species

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

B. Sensitive Species

The proposed project will have a beneficial impact, may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or will have no impact on R8 Sensitive species evaluated (see above table).

MITIGATION MEASURES

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

PREPARED BY:

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

/s/ Dawn K. Carrie 27 January 2014 Dawn K. Carrie Date Wildlife Biologist Sam Houston National Forest

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 18

LITERATURE CITED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 19

Jackson, J. A. 1994. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis). In The Birds of North America, No. 85 (A. Poole and F. Gil, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. 20 p.

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

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

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

Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. 867 p.

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

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

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

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

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

Peterson, D. W. 2013. Wilderness SPB control specialist report (aquatic). April 2013. 3p.

Philipps, T. 2013. Botany report for threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, and management indicator species. March 2013. 20p.

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

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

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

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 20

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

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

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1987. Record of decision, suppression of the Southern pine beetle. USDA Forest Service, Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 43pp.

______. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forests in the Southern Region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 21

Appendix I SPB Control in Wilderness Areas Project Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive (TES) Species Consideration National Forests in Texas

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) species considered and selected for, or eliminated from, further consideration.

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area This species does not have high Open, fire-maintained, mature pine stands potential to occupy proposed Red-cockaded with forb and/or grass dominated ground Yes – management actions may treatment areas because past Woodpecker E cover and a midstory relatively devoid of Yes impact habitat marginally used for inventories of all high potential and (Picoides borealis) hardwoods (Jackson 1994; Conner et al. foraging. marginal habitat in the project area 2001; USFWS 2003). failed to detect this species. Coastal areas, and around large bodies of This species does not have high No – This species is not considered Bald Eagle water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers potential to occupy proposed further in this analysis because it is (Haliaeetus S (USFWS 1995). Nests and associated pilot No treatment areas because these areas not expected to occur within the area leucocephalus) trees are typically located in large trees do not include high potential habitat affected by the project. Therefore, within two miles of open water. as described. this project will not affect this species. This species does not have high No – This species is not considered Open, frequently burned pine forests with a potential to occupy proposed further in this analysis because it is Bachman’s Sparrow dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal S No treatment areas because these areas not expected to occur within the area (Aimophila aestivalis) woody understory (Hamel 1992; Burt and do not include high potential habitat affected by the project. Therefore, Allen 2004). as described. this project will not affect this species. This species does not have high No – This species is not considered Migrant Loggerhead Open grassland areas with widely scattered potential to occupy proposed further in this analysis because it is Shrike trees or shrubs. Species is generally absent S No treatment areas because these areas not expected to occur within the area (Lanius ludovicianus from closed canopy forests, and grasslands do not include high potential habitat affected by the project. Therefore, migrans) without trees or shrubs (USFWS 2000). as described. this project will not affect this species. This species does not have high No – This species is not considered Louisiana Black Bear Extensive tracts of bottomland hardwood potential to occupy proposed further in this analysis because it is (Ursus americanus T forest with low road density or otherwise No treatment areas because these areas not expected to occur within the area luteolus) remote/inaccessible to human disturbance do not include high potential habitat affected by the project. Therefore, as described. this project will not affect this species

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 i

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area Roosts within mature bottomland hardwood This species does not have high Rafinesque’s Big-eared communities within 1 km of water, showing Yes – Temporary roost sites and potential to occupy proposed Bat a preference for large, hollow black gum marginal foraging habitat in upland S No treatment areas because these areas (Corynorhinus trees with large triangular basal openings. areas may be affected by management do not include high potential habitat rafinesquii) May also use abandoned buildings actions. as described. (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). Associated with aquatic habitats, such as ponds and streams (BCI 2001). Roosts This species does not have high Yes – Temporary roost sites and Southeastern Myotis within mature bottomland hardwood potential to occupy proposed marginal foraging habitat in upland (Myotis S communities within 1 km of water, showing No treatment areas because these areas areas may be affected by management austroriparius) a preference for large, hollow black gum do not include high potential habitat actions. trees with large triangular basal openings as described. (Mirowsky and Horner 1997). This species does not have high No – This species is not considered Fire-maintained upland longleaf-bluestem potential to occupy proposed further in this analysis because it is Louisiana Pine Snake C habitat with healthy pocket gopher No treatment areas because these areas not expected to occur within the area (Pituophis ruthveni) populations and a very sparse shrub layer. do not include high potential habitat affected by the project. Therefore, as described. this project will not affect this species. This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may Closely restricted to a substrate of fine, silt- potential to occupy proposed indirectly affect this species’ habitat. Sabine Shiner free sand in smaller streams and rivers treatment areas because numerous Yes - Management actions may S No (Notropis sabinae) having slight to moderate current (Lee et al. inventories of high potential habitat indirectly affect this species’ habitat. 1980). across the forest have failed to Addressed in aquatic resources detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy- bottomed streams and boggy seeps within This species (larvae) does not have Texas Emerald loblolly and longleaf pine stands high potential to occupy proposed Dragonfly Yes - Management actions may S (NatureServe 2013). Adults forage for No (larvae) treatment areas because these areas (Somatochlora indirectly affect larval habitat insects at canopy level over mature forest do not include high potential habitat margarita) and over gravel roads and small openings as described. (Price et al. 1989).

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 ii

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes - Management actions may Black-belted Crayfish Occurs among debris in streams with sandy treatment areas because numerous indirectly affect this species’ habitat. (Procambarus S Yes or rocky bottoms (Hobbs 1990). inventories of high potential habitat Addressed in aquatic resources nigrocinctus) across the forest have failed to specialist report (Peterson 2013) detect this species. This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes - Management actions may Neches Crayfish Streams and simple burrows in temporary or treatment areas because numerous indirectly affect this species’ habitat. (Procambarus S semi-permanent pools in roadside ditches Yes inventories of high potential habitat Addressed in aquatic resources nechesae) (Hobbs 1990; NatureServe 2013). across the forest have failed to specialist report (Peterson 2013) detect this species. This species has a high potential to Yes - Management actions may Sabine Fencing Crayfish Intermittently inundated oadside ditches occupy proposed treatment areas indirectly affect this species’ habitat. S Yes (Faxonella beyeri) (Hobbs 1990; NatureServe 2013) because it has been previously Addressed in aquatic resources documented within these areas. specialist report (Peterson 2013) This species does not have high Streams with mixed mud, sand, and fine Yes - Management actions may potential to occupy proposed Texas Pigtoe gravel in protected areas associated with indirectly affect this species’ habitat. S No treatment areas previous inventories (Fusconaia askewi) fallen trees or other structures (Howells et al. Addressed in aquatic resources of high potential habitat have failed 1996). to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may potential to occupy proposed Triangle Pigtoe Mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in streams indirectly affect this species’ habitat. S No treatment areas previous inventories (Fusconaia lananensis) (Howells et al. 1996). Addressed in aquatic resources of high potential habitat have failed to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may potential to occupy proposed Louisiana Pigtoe indirectly affect this species’ habitat. S Found in streams (Howells et al. 1996). No treatment areas previous inventories (Pleurobema riddellii) Addressed in aquatic resources of high potential habitat have failed to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may Small to large rivers with moderate flows on potential to occupy proposed Sandbank Pocketbook indirectly affect this species’ habitat. S gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms No treatment areas previous inventories (Lampsilis satura) Addressed in aquatic resources (Howells et al. 1996). of high potential habitat have failed to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 iii

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area

This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may Texas Heelsplitter potential to occupy proposed Found in quiet waters in sand and mud indirectly affect this species’ habitat. (Potamilus S No treatment areas previous inventories (Howells et al. 1996). Addressed in aquatic resources amphichaenus) of high potential habitat have failed to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) This species does not have high Yes - Management actions may Southern Hickorynut potential to occupy proposed Rivers and creeks with moderate current, indirectly affect this species’ habitat. (Obovaria S No treatment areas previous inventories often over gravel. Addressed in aquatic resources jacksoniana) of high potential habitat have failed to detect this species. specialist report (Peterson 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Texas Prairie Dawn E Saline glades and barrens No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Hymenopsis texana) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is Navasota Ladies’ potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Tresses E Catahoula pine barrens No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Spiranthes parksii) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area White Bladderpod E Weches formation No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Physaria pallida) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013)

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 iv

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – management actions may occur Neches River Rose treatment areas because surveys of in high potential habitat in which At seasonally flooded edges of sloughs and Mallow T Yes numerous areas of high potential undiscovered populations may occur. marshes on the Davy Crockett NF (Hibiscus dasycalyx) habitat throughout the DCNF have Addressed in botany resources resulted in discovery of few new specialist report (Philipps 2013) populations. This species has a high potential to Yes – management actions may occur occupy proposed treatment areas in high potential habitat in which Panicled Indogobush In bogs and baygalls on the Angelina, S Yes because it has been previously undiscovered populations may occur. (Amorpha paniculata) Sabine, and Davy Crockett NFs documented within or near one or Addressed in botany resources more of these areas. specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Incised Agrimony S Sandy longleaf savanna on the Angelina NF No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Agrimonia incisa) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is Wet seepage areas, stream edges, sphagnum potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Texas Bartonia S bogs; baygalls. On Sam Houston and No treatment areas high potential affected by the project. Therefore, (Bartonia texana) Angelina NFs. habitat does not occur in or near the this project will not affect this species. treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Warner’s Hawthorn S Deep sandy soils on Davy Crockett NF. No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Crataegus warneri) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013)

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 v

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – management actions may occur Mohlenbrock’s treatment areas because surveys of in high potential habitat in which Xeric sandylands on Angelina and Sabine Umbrella Sedge S Yes numerous areas of high potential undiscovered populations may occur. NF. (Cyperus grayoides) habitat throughout the ANF and Addressed in botany resources SNF have resulted in discovery of specialist report (Philipps 2013) few new populations. This species has a high potential to Yes – management actions may occur Southern Ladies-Slipper occupy proposed treatment areas in high potential habitat in which In beech-white oak ravines on Angelina and (Cypripedium S Yes because it has been previously undiscovered populations may occur. Sabine NFs. kentuckiense) documented within or near one or Addressed in botany resources more of these areas. specialist report (Philipps 2013) This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – management actions may occur Pineland Bogbutton treatment areas because surveys of in high potential habitat in which Hillside seepage slope bogs on Angelina and (Lachnocaulon S Yes numerous areas of high potential undiscovered populations may occur. Sabine NFs. digynum) habitat throughout the ANF and Addressed in botany resources SNF have resulted in discovery of specialist report (Philipps 2013) few new populations. This species has a high potential to Yes – management actions may occur occupy proposed treatment areas in high potential habitat in which Slender Gayfeather Sandy longleaf pine savanna on Angelina S Yes because it has been previously undiscovered populations may occur. (Liatris tenuis) and Sabine NFs. documented within or near one or Addressed in botany resources more of these areas. specialist report (Philipps 2013) This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – management actions may occur Yellow Fringeless treatment areas because surveys of in high potential habitat in which Orchid S Hillside seepage slope bogs on Angelina NF. Yes numerous areas of high potential undiscovered populations may occur. (Platanthera integra) habitat throughout the ANF and Addressed in botany resources SNF have resulted in discovery of specialist report (Philipps 2013) few new populations.

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 vi

Habitat 1 Habitat Requirements Present in Potential for Species to Occur in Species Effects Analysis Needed? For High Potential Habitat Treatment Treatment Area Status Area This species has a high potential to Yes – management actions may occur occupy proposed treatment areas in high potential habitat in which Barbed Rattlesnakeroot In beech-white oak ravines on Angelina and S Yes because it has been previously undiscovered populations may occur. (Prenanthes barbata) Sabine NFs. documented within or near one or Addressed in botany resources more of these areas. specialist report (Philipps 2013) This species does not have high potential to occupy proposed Yes – management actions may occur Large Beakrush treatment areas because surveys of in high potential habitat in which (Rhynchospora S Hillside seepage slope bogs on Angelina NF. Yes numerous areas of high potential undiscovered populations may occur. macra) habitat throughout the ANF and Addressed in botany resources SNF have resulted in discovery of specialist report (Philipps 2013) few new populations. This species has a high potential to Yes – management actions may occur Sabine Coneflower occupy proposed treatment areas in high potential habitat in which Hillside seepage slope bogs and baygalls on (Rudbeckia S Yes because it has been previously undiscovered populations may occur. Angelina and Sabine NFs. scabrifolia) documented within or near one or Addressed in botany resources more of these areas. specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is Texas Sunnybells potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area (Schoenolirion S Catahoula pine barrens on Angelina NF No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, wrightii) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013) No – This species is not considered This species does not have high further in this analysis because it is potential to occupy proposed not expected to occur within the area Scarlet Catchfly S Sandy post oak hillsides on Sabine NF No treatment areas because high affected by the project. Therefore, (Silene subciliata) potential habitat does not occur in this project will not affect this species. or near the treatment areas. Addressed in botany resources specialist report (Philipps 2013)

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 vii

Appendix I Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 viii

Appendix II Aquatic Specialist’s Report

WILDERNESS SPB CONTROL SPECIALIST REPORT Dave Peterson April 2013 Affected Environment (What is there.) The current condition of aquatic resources in the NFGT Wilderness areas are fairly well known other than Little Lake Creek on the Sam Houston, which has not been sampled. Crayfish researcher, Dan Johnson, has sampled many sites in East Texas and described three new species (Johnson 2010) and has indicated that our three Sensitive species are not truly rare, but under-sampled. “I consider Orconectes palmeri longimanus to be threatened though. It is being displaced by O. cyanodigitus. I’ve found P.nechesae at 95 sites, P nigorcinctus at 100 and Faxonella beyeri at 86 sites, densely distributed in San Augustine, Sabine, Shelby and Panola Counties (Johnson pers. comm.).” O. p. longimanus is primarily found on the Sam Houston. We have no occurrence records on the Angelina. The crayfish species are likely to be heavily edited for the NFGTs in the next round of R8 Sensitive species revisions. We also have new developments in the realm of mussels. A recent TPWD commissioned report revealed the presumed extinct triangle pigtoe in the Angelina River at US 59 just upstream from the ANF (Karatayev and Burlakova, 2007), along with the R8 Sensitive Louisiana pigtoe and sandbank pocketbook. Another triangle pigtoe was found in the Attoyac Bayou at FM 138, well north of the forest near Garrison. However, this correlates with the presumed last population in Sandy Creek on private land just north and across the reservoir from the project area. This site was said to have been destroyed by a bulldozer (Howells, pers. comm.). Our recently completed FERC study (Arnold 2112) revealed the R8 Sensitive southern hickorynut in Big Sandy Creek, just south of Indian Mounds Wilderness on the Sabine National Forest.

REGION 8 SENSITIVE SPECIES (RFSS)

Table 1: Aquatic TES (Endangered in bold; all others Sensitive) Species in and/or adjacent to the NFGT

Individual NFGT Units Habitat Requirements for Common Name Scientific Name Group High Potential Habitat Species known Is suitable to occur habitat present

Backwater tributaries of the Red River near Lamar Co. with clean or vegetated Ouachita Rock Arkansia Mollusk sand/gravel/cobble bars. CNG Yes Pocketbook wheeleri Shallow waters/pools on sand or mud with little or no current (NatureServe). Texas Pigtoe Fusconaia askewi Mollusk SNF, SHNF Yes In or near Attoyac Bayou over Fusconaia Triangle PIgtoe Mollusk mud, sand and fine gravel (ANF) Invalid Taxonomy lananensis (Howells et al, 1996). Streams to moderate rivers in Pleurobema Louisiana Pigtoe Mollusk flow over mud, sand or ANF Yes riddellii gravel – rare. Sandbank Small to large rivers over Lampsilis satura Mollusk ANF, SNF Yes Pocketbook sand/gravel bottom – rare.

Appendix II Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 i

Individual NFGT Units Habitat Requirements for Common Name Scientific Name Group High Potential Habitat Species known Is suitable to occur habitat present

Rivers and creeks with Southern Obovaria moderate current, often over ANF, DCNF, Mollusk Yes Hickorynut jacksoniana gravel (Oesch, 1984). Just SNF found in Big Sandy Cr, SNF Small to medium rivers and ANF, DCNF, Potamilus Texas Heelsplitter Mollusk reservoirs over sand or mud SHNF, SNF, Yes amphichaenus (Howells, 1996) LBJ, CNG Black-belted Procambarus Streams with sandy or rocky Crayfish ANF, DCNF Yes Crayfish nigrocinctus bottoms amongst debris. Procambarus Simple burrows in roadside Neches Crayfish Crayfish ANF, DCNF Yes nechesae pools or stream backwaters. Sabine Fencing Intermittently inundated Faxonella beyeri Crayfish ANF, DCNF Yes Crayfish roadside ditches. Sabine Burrowing Fallicambarus Southern Sabine and San Crayfish ANF, SNF Yes Crayfish wallsi Augustine Counties Varying stream habitats. Minimum 13 mi unimpeded ANF, DCNF, Sabine Shiner Notropis sabinae Fish migration necessary for Yes SHNF, SNF annual life cycle (Williams, 2003)

Table 2: TPWD mussels listed as state-threatened Nov. 5, 2009.

1. Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema ridellii) — ranged from eastern Texas drainages into Louisiana, but has been exceptionally rare in recent decades. Since the mid-1990s, small numbers of living specimens have been found in the Neches River and some of its tributaries and the Angelina River.

2. Sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura) — known from southern portions of the Mississippi interior basin and western Gulf drainages of Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, considered rare in all states from which it has been recorded.

3. Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana) — considered rare and a species of conservation concern in seven states. If the species still occurs in Texas at all, it may only persist on Village Creek.

4. Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) — restricted to the Sabine, Neches, and Trinity rivers of Texas.

5. Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi — a regional endemic limited to a relatively small area in Texas and Louisiana, including the Trinity River above Lake Livingston, a tributary of the West Branch San Jacinto River, and the Sabine River above Toledo Bend Reservoir.

6. Triangle pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis) — endemic to the Neches and San Jacinto Rivers and Village Creek in eastern Texas, but extant populations are limited and the ecological security of most occupied sites is marginal. Note: Red text denotes species that will be removed from the R8 Senstive Species list, likely effective Appendix II Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 ii

2013. Blue text indicates species to be added to new R8 List for 2013.

Sabine shiner has not been documented in or near any Wilderness area, although they have been found within 10 miles of both Turkey Hill, Indian Mounds and Big Slough and Little Lake Creek. Moving up to 13 miles a year (Williams 2003), they have the potential to appear anywhere.

Environmental Consequences (What effects will the proposed actions have on what is there.)

Cut-and-leave operations produce much less woody debris and detritus into streams because the skidding, lopping, bucking and loading procedures don’t exist. These practices typically introduce woody debris into streams causing shifts favoring detritus-loving species such as madtoms for up to five years (McLean 1992). Additionally, SPB outbreaks likely occur in mature pine stands uncharacteristic of intermittent and perennial stream bottoms, so physical impact to habitat in the forms of canopy loss and channel damage are remote.

Conclusion

The proposed action is not expected to impact TES aquatic species.

Appendix II Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 iii

Appendix III Botany Specialist’s Report

BOTANY REPORT FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, SENSITIVE SPECIES, and MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

Includes Biological Evaluation and Management Indicator Species Reports

National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Southern Pine Beetle Suppression Environmental Assessment

ANGELINA, JASPER, NACOGDOCHES, SHELBY, SABINE, NEWTON, SAN AUGUSTINE, TRINITY, HOUSTON, WALKER, SAN JACINTO, AND MONTGOMERY COUNTIES, TEXAS

January 2014

___/s/ Thomas Philipps______Prepared by Thomas Philipps Forest Botanist National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Supervisor’s Office

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 i

INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSED ACTION

I have reviewed the proposed project designed to approve treatments in areas that may be impacted by Southern Pine Beetle infestations. This botany report will serve as the Biological Evaluation for endangered, threatened sensitive, and management indicator plant species for this project.

Purpose and Need

The southern pine beetle (SPB), Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, is a native insect pest of pines in the southeast United States. Large, unsuppressed infestations are capable of killing vast acreages of pines. The current Forest Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas incorporates the guidance developed in the 1987 FEIS for the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle. Suppression treatments can only be applied in wilderness to protect adjacent lands or endangered species habitat. For the former, suppression can be implemented when:

1. The infestation is within ¼ mile of the wilderness boundary; 2. Tree resources on adjacent private land or high value federal land are threatened; 3. An onsite evaluation by a forest entomologist predicts the infestation will impact pines on adjacent private or high value federal land; and 4. The entomologist assesses that the suppression treatment has a reasonable chance of successfully protecting the adjacent lands.

In addition, before suppression methods can be used in wilderness for the protection of adjacent private property, the adjacent landowners must consent to the treatment and also express a willingness to suppress southern pine beetle on their land.

Though large acreages in wildernesses were killed in the 1990s, substantial areas with susceptible host type still remain. SPB populations have remained at undetectable levels in Texas for the past 15 years, but another outbreak is expected based on historical patterns. An analysis of the potential effects of SPB in wilderness and a strategic plan for suppressing infestations to prevent the potential spread to adjacent private lands must be in place before the next SPB outbreak.

Proposed Action

The purpose of this proposal is to take suppression action against Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestations in wilderness areas should they threaten endangered species habitat on National Forest land or pine forest on private land. Only infestations within ¼ mile of susceptible hosts on adjacent private lands or adjacent RCW clusters would be suppressed. Cut-and-leave using hand tools or chainsaws is the only suppression method to be considered.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The project will not impact any listed Threatened and Endangered plant species. I reviewed the current list of species (Table 1) for the counties within the project area. Navasota’s Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes parksii) and Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) are the only listed plant species known to occur on the NFGT. There is no suitable habitat for Navasota’s Ladies’-Tresses within the project area and/or adjacent to areas of designated wilderness. As such, there will be no effect to this federally listed plant species due to the proposed action and it will be dropped from further consideration herein. Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 ii

There are known occurrences for Neches River Rose Mallow within the project area and/or adjacent to areas of designated wilderness and suitable habitat for this species does exist in and around the Big Slough Wilderness area on the Davy Crockett National Forest. Resource protection measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by eliminating the impact to this species from fallen trees. As such, there will be no effect to this federally listed plant species due to the proposed action.

Table 1: Federally- listed plant species known to occur and/or adjacent to various units of the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT).

Neches River Rose Mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx) Neches River Rose Mallow is a Texas endemic that was federally declared a Candidate species on May 4, 2004. The known range of this species is limited to the Davy Crockett NF (DCNF) on the NFGT, but suitable habitat may occur elsewhere. It is generally found to occur within openings in shrub swamps or along the margins of riparian woodlands in seasonally wet soils (often found near standing water). Sites are typically flooded during late winter and early spring, but the surface soils are often quite dry by late summer. In 2004, it was known from only six sites in three east Texas counties. All of the occurrences are subject to genetic swamping by more common Hibiscus species that are perhaps better adapted to human-disturbed conditions. The Global Status of this species is classified as G1-Critically Imperiled, and S1-Critically Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006). The viability of this species is considered to be at high risk of failing.

Neches Bluff past the Big Slough Wilderness area in 2010 and 2012 resulted in the documentation of four locations for this species, however two of the occurrences appeared to be hybrids and the one seemingly genetically pure occurrence occurred within a private inholding.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

REGION 8 SENSITIVE SPECIES

Information on R8 sensitive species status, distribution, and ecology was derived from Texas Natural Heritage Program (TNHP) data base maps and reports, Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) habitat mapping, personal knowledge from Forest Service botanists, various scientific studies and reports, field surveys described below, and an extensive compilation of information contained in the Forest Plan (USFS 1996).

Determination of risks to occurrences of sensitive plants considers overall population size and density, occurrence, suitable habitat, location of the population, and consequences of adverse effects on the species as a whole within its range and within the project area.

I have reviewed the current list of Region 8 (R8) sensitive plant species. Based on the habitats to be affected and the habitat affinities of the R8 sensitive plant species (Table 2), the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Southern Pine Beetle Suppression Project “may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for those species that occur within the project area or could be potentially impacted from project activities. The single exception is Cyperus grayioides. The project will have “beneficial impacts” due to the positive habitat requirements that would be realized as a result of the proposed project activities. Accepted standards and guidelines, as well as project specific design criteria and mitigations will be implemented to protect riparian and wetland areas (Ma-4 streamside zones). Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 iv

Table 2. This table is “Step 1” of a Biological Evaluation, a pre-field checklist of Region 8 Sensitive Species (plants) that may occur or their habitat may be present within the UIW. Only the species that either occur or have suitable habitat within the project area will be carried through analysis. Fish, amphibians, insects, other invertebrates, and terrestrial wildlife will be covered in other reports.

Table 2: R8 Individual NFGT Sensitive Species Sensitive plant Units Determination species known to occur and/or NFGT having suitable Scientific distribution Species Is habitat on name and habitat known suitable various units of to habitat the occur present? NFGTCommon name Angelina NF in Panicled Amorpha Yes Yes MI bogs and indigobush paniculata baygalls Angelina NF in Yes Yes NI Incised Agrimonia sandy agrimony incisa longleaf savanna Angelina and Texas Bartonia Yes Yes NI Sam Houston bartonia texana NF in baygalls Davy Crockett Warner’s Crataegus Yes Yes NI NF in deep hawthorn warneri sandy soils Angelina and Mohlenbrock’s Yes Yes BI Cyperus Sabine NF in umbrella grayoides xeric sedge sandylands Angelina and Southern Yes Yes MI Cypripedium Sabine NF in ladies’- kentuckiense beech-white slipper oak ravines Angelina and Yes Yes MI Sabine NF in Pineland Lachnocaulon hillside bogbutton digynum seepage slope bogs Angelina and Yes Yes MI Sabine NF in Slender Liatris tenuis sandy gayfeather longleaf pine savanna Angelina NF in Yellow Yes Yes MI Platanthera hillside fringeless integra seepage orchid slope bogs Angelina and Barbed Yes Yes MI Prenanthes Sabine NF in rattlesnake barbata beech-white root oak ravines

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 v

Table 2: R8 Individual NFGT Sensitive Species Sensitive plant Units Determination species known to occur and/or NFGT having suitable Scientific distribution Species Is habitat on name and habitat known suitable various units of to habitat the occur present? NFGTCommon name Angelina NF in Yes Yes MI Large Rhynchospora hillside beakrush macra seepage slope bogs Angelina and Yes Yes MI Sabine NF in Sabine Rudbeckia hillside coneflower scabrifolia seepage slope bogs and baygalls Angelina NF in Texas Schoenolirion Yes Yes NI Catahoula sunnybells wrightii pine barrens Sabine NF on Scarlet Silene Yes Yes NI sandy post catchfly subciliata oak hillsides Sabine NF Yes Yes NI Clasping Streptanthus where twistflower maculatus glauconite is present Angelina NF in Trillium Yes Yes MI Texas trillium baygall texanum ecotones Angelina NF in Drummond’s Yes Yes MI Xyris hillside yellow-eyed drummondii seepage grass slope bogs Angelina and Yes Yes MI Harper’s Sabine NF in Xyris yellow-eyed hillside grass scabrifolia seepage slope bogs

MI = May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability; NI = No impact BI-Beneficial Impacts

Sensitive Plants

Records of past species occurrence reports and aerial photography was reviewed in order to determine presence/absence or areas of potential suitable habitat for these species Sensitive plant species listed in Table 2 that either are known to occur or have suitable habitat in the project area have been identified and will be incorporated in further effects analysis. The other species do not have affinities to project area habitats, do not have distributional ranges that overlap the project area, and would not be affected by the proposed action. The proposed action would have no impacts on these plant species and they are dropped from further consideration herein.

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 vi

Amorpha paniculata (Panicled False Indigo) Amorpha paniculata is assigned a rounded global rank of G2 (imperiled) and a Texas state rank of S2 (imperiled). It has a limited range in the south-central U.S. and is considered rare in most if not all of that range. It occurs in deep acid woodlands and bogs over Letney (Arenic Paleudults) soils within the Catahoula Formation. Amorpha paniculata is a stout shrub that grows in deep acid woodlands and bogs in East Texas. Most habitat occurs within streamside management zones. It is distinguished from other Amorpha species by its fuzzy leaflets with prominent raised veins underneath, and the flower panicles, which are 8 to 16 inches long and slender, held above the foliage. It flowers between May and June. Threats include shading and overstocking of pines. Also, lack of fire is a major threat but some sites are being managed with fire. Many sites are on roadsides at stream crossings.

Surveys in areas of suitable habitat were conducted for this species by Philipps in 2005 and by Bridges, Singhurst, Nilles, and Philipps in 2006. This species is known to occur within Compartments 72, 85, 87, 90 and 92 in the Angelina NF and Compartment 139 in the Sabine NF. Recently, this species was found by Walker and Philipps in Compartment 18 on the Davy Crockett NF, again at a stream crossing. Additional occurrences are expected with more survey work.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is not adequate for this species. However, resource protection measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Cyperus grayioides (Mohlenbrock’s Umbrella Sedge) This sedge has been recorded in several Midwestern and southern states, including Texas, where it has been found in 20 eastern counties (Orzell 1990). Cyperus grayioides occurs on dry, sandy barren openings in upland longleaf pine savannahs on xeric stream terrace Pleistocene sand ridges and on the Willis (Quaternary) and Catahoula (Miocene) Formations. The plant forms open colonies around the rims of blowdowns (wind formed depressions), on active dunes, and rarely in disturbed roadsides associated with dry sand prairies (Bowles et al. 1986). This species is also found in open well-drained sandy soils with little or no other vegetation present. Most sites are full sun with little shade. Suitable habitat includes early successional stages of sand prairies, and sandy barrens of xeric forests (upland longleaf pine and post oak forests). This species declines as herbs and young hardwoods invade the habitat over time. The habitat is maintained by disturbances such as grazing and fire that suppress invasion of other vegetation. Habitats may be recreated by simulating disturbances (with fire or bull-dozing small areas to disturb the seed bank and clear vegetation) where it once occurred. The lack of fire to maintain its habitat is a limiting factor for the species.

MacRoberts and MacRoberts surveyed high potential habitats for Forest Service sensitive plant species in many compartments on the Angelina in the 1990’s. They found the species in Compartments 74, 76, and 87 (Sherwood Creek). Plants were found in two locations in Compartment 76 on deep sandy hilltops. An additional three sites are located on the Sabine NF. Numerous surveys on the south Angelina by various Forest Botanists and other botanists/biologists have not recorded additional occurrences of the species until 2011 when Philipps documented this Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 vii species in Compartment 74 in the Angelina NF.

Existing population inventory information is not adequate because surveys have not identified sufficient numbers of occurrences within the National Forests. This species responds well to disturbance events and thrives in open habitat with little overstory or other competing vegetation. The application of the proposed project activities as a management tool in the project area will have “beneficial impacts” to this species since it would reduce woody competition by top-killing shrubs, reduce shading by non-selective overstory reduction, and reduce overstocking thereby allowing more sunlight to reach the lower mid-story/herbaceous layer of the forest.

Lachnocaulon digynum (Pineland Bogbutton) Lachnocaulon digynum is restricted to seasonally or semi permanently saturated substrates, usually with little or no shrub or tree cover, within hillside seepage slope bogs in the West Gulf Coastal Plain. Lachnocaulon digynum requires active management, most importantly the maintenance of its habitat through prescribed burning. In addition to prescribed burning, it is also necessary to prevent drainage of the habitat by adjacent or upslope ditching. No grazing should be allowed in the habitat, and no major disturbances of the soil surface within the population. Minor surface disturbances, however, could provide sites for establishment of new colonies. It has a rounded global conservation rank of G3 and is ranked S1 (critically imperiled) in Texas.

Numerous surveys have been conducted within areas of suitable habitat in the NFGT for this species. Surveys have been conducted by Orzell and Bridges in the late 1980’s, the MacRoberts in the mid-1990’s, Singhurst in the late 1990’s and in early 2000’s, and Philipps in the mid 2000’s for this species without a single confirmed occurrence record. However, a survey by Walker and Philipps in 2010 documented this species in a bog in Compartment 92 in the Angelina NF.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is not adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Liatris tenuis (Slender Gayfeather) This species has high potential to occur in open, fire-maintained, dry upland longleaf pine savannas on the Catahoula Formation (Orzell 1990). The species is known from over 40 locations on the ANF in the longleaf ridge area and from several locations in the southern Sabine NF, including C- 139 and C-142. The distribution of locations indicates that the species is widespread on the Forest. Threats to these species include conversion of high potential habitat to dense young pine plantations, severe soil disturbance such as from intense site preparation, and the invasion of woody understory species as a result of fire exclusion.

Orzell (1990) conducted extensive surveys for sensitive plants throughout much of the Angelina National Forest, focusing on habitats most likely to contain rare and sensitive species, including well-burned upland longleaf forest. He found this species in compartments 73, 84, 86, 88, 92, and in Upland Island Wilderness on the Angelina National Forest. MacRoberts and MacRoberts surveyed high potential habitats for Forest Service sensitive plant species, which included Liatris Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 viii tenuis, in the following 11 compartments: 31, 32, 33, 34, 60, 61, 62, 74, 75, 76, and 77 at various times during the 1990s. The species was found in compartments 61 and 76. Various botanists (1998) surveyed high potential habitats in 11 compartments on the north side of Sam Rayburn Reservoir for Forest Service sensitive species, which included Liatris tenuis. The compartments surveyed were 1-7, 11, and 13-15. A survey was conducted on October 26-27, 2004 in Compartment 139 on the Sabine NF for unrecorded occurrences of Liatris tenuis. One new population was documented in this area. No other surveys were conducted in FY 2005 specifically for this species; however, other botanical surveys in longleaf pine habitat were conducted in 2005 with no new occurrences noted. A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between 8/8/06-8/11/06 resulted in the documentation/association of Liatris tenuis in three locations in Boykin Springs on the Angelina NF and one location on the Stark Tract on the Sabine NF. In addition, a project survey conducted in C-139 on the Sabine NF following a prescribed burn revealed literally thousands of Liatris tenuis in flower across the landscape.

Additional surveys done on the Angelina in 2006 and 2007 resulted in the discovery of six more occurrences. Also, another hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey completed in July 2007 resulted in the documentation/association of this species occurring at the lower edges of these communities in another three locations within the Boykin Springs area of the Angelina NF. In 2009, Walker documented this species on the Angelina NF scattered across Compartments 91 and 92. In addition, Loos documented this species on the north end of the Angelina NF in Compartment 1 and a new location in Compartment 14, all within areas of sandy soils. Surveys by Loos in 2010 within Compartments 81, 82, and 94 did not result in finding any specimens.

2011 surveys by Elliott, Philipps, and Loos found new individuals in C-85 while surveying the Sandy Creek area. This species was also found by Philipps in Compartments 64, 73, and along a right of way within the Turkey Hill Wilderness Area while conducting project surveys. Later surveys by Philipps and Loos in Upland Island Wilderness revealed several more occurrences. It appears that this species can be found in those areas exhibiting sandy soil and are either maintained regularly by prescribed fire or found within open rights of ways that are free of competing brush and can be locally abundant in those areas.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Sufficient numbers of occurrences have been discovered on the forest so that the proposed project activities should not significantly affect its viability. Resource Protection Measures that require site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments and other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Platanthera integra (Yellow Fringeless Orchid) This orchid can be found in low, wet pine savannas, sphagnum seeps, and bogs in the southeastern United States from New Jersey, south to north-central Florida, and west to Tennessee and southeast Texas. The 1990 TNHP Report documented two small occurrences, both in bogs on the southern Angelina NF. These two sites were examined in 1998 and both were still extant. The 1996 baseline is one population. Seasonal flooding and periodic burning are the key components to the communities where this orchid is found. The Global Status of the Yellow Fringeless Orchid is classified as G3-Vulnerable, and S1-Critically Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006). Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 ix

Surveys for this species were conducted on August 24-25, September 19-21, 2005 and the following year on August 7-11 and September 5, 2006 in suitable habitat on the Angelina NF. The two known extant occurrences were not relocated nor were any new occurrences documented during any of these surveys. However, a survey conducted on August 21, 2007 following the application of a prescribed burn the preceding spring resulted in the relocation of this species once again in one of the sites documented in 1998. Philipps’ 2008 surveys of a number of Angelina bogs, the suitable habitat for this plant, did not result in finding any new occurrences of yellow fringeless orchid. . In surveys conducted in 2009 by Loos and subsequently Walker on the Angelina NF did not relocate a single specimen of this species in any of the previously documented locations. No new locations were found.

Existing population inventory information across the project is not adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Rhynchospora macra (Large Beakrush) This species is found within the Coastal Plain in hillside seepage slope bogs and pocosins from North Carolina to Texas. It is considered rare within its range and has a global conservation ranking of G3 and is ranked S1 (critically imperiled) in Texas. It is highly threatened by land-use conversion, habitat fragmentation, and forest management practices and is especially vulnerable to succession resulting from fire exclusion.

This species is known from several hillside seepage slope bogs within the Angelina NF. Recently, a hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between 8/8/06-8/11/06 resulted in the documentation/association of Rhynchospora macra in two locations in Boykin Springs on the Angelina NF. An additional survey conducted by Philipps in 2007 resulted in the documentation of additional occurrences in C-76 and C-87 of the Angelina NF. To date, there are five known element occurrence records for this species within the NFGT.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Rudbeckia scabrifolia (Sabine Coneflower) Rudbeckia scabrifolia is a narrow endemic currently known from four southeast Texas counties and 2 Louisiana parishes. All of the Texas locations are from the Catahoula Formation or near the contact of the Catahoula and Willis Formations. It is restricted to hillside seepage slope bogs and associated broadleaf semi-evergreen acid-seep forests. It is threatened by fire suppression, which causes the bogs to become shrub-invaded, and by alteration of the local hydrology by roads and fire Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 x lanes, which can cause the bogs to dry out. Other threats may include logging, and hog browsing and rooting. However, many sites are well-managed and viable. It has a global conservation rank of G3G4 and a Texas state conservation rank of G3 (vulnerable).

There are over 80 occurrences of this species documented across its range. Orzell and Bridges documented 26 occurrences of this species on both the Angelina and Sabine NFs during the 1989 surveys. Additional surveys conducted by other botanists since the 1989 baseline survey, including MacRoberts, Singhurst, and Philipps have documented additional occurrences in the majority of hillside seepage slope bogs and acid seep forests that occur within the Longleaf Ridge and Mayflower Uplands LTA. It appears to be relatively abundant within suitable habitat and is relatively secure where it exists.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Sufficient numbers of occurrences have been discovered on the forest so that the proposed project activities should not significantly affect its viability. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Trillium texanum (Texas Trillium) This species is extremely rare in low moist woods, bogs and stream banks (Correll and Johnston 1970) and in low, boggy hardwood bottoms; seep borders of ravine streams. Often in sphagnum mats (NatureServe 2005). It is known only in Compartment 76, 77, and 86 of the Angelina NF. MacRoberts and MacRoberts found the species in deep sandy soil on the ecotone between baygall/stream and upland pine/hardwoods.

Orzell (1990) conducted extensive surveys for sensitive plants throughout much of the Angelina National Forest, focusing on habitats most likely to contain rare and sensitive species, including well-burned upland longleaf forest. He reported no occurrences of Trillium texanum on the Angelina National Forest. MacRoberts and MacRoberts surveyed high potential habitats for Forest Service sensitive plant species, which included Trillium texanum, at various times during the 1990s. Their surveys in 1995-96 revealed 5 occurrences (sites) of Trillium texanum according to Angelina District records. All locations were in Compartment 76 of this project. Various botanists (1998) surveyed high potential habitats in 11 compartments on the north side of Sam Rayburn Reservoir for Forest Service sensitive species. The compartments surveyed were 1-7, 11, and 13-15. Trillium texanum was not found. Numerous other botanical surveys by Forest Botanists and other botanist have been conducted in the 1990’s to the present on the Angelina. In 2007, Trillium texanum occurrences were relocated in Compartments 76, 77, and 86 of the Angelina NF. In 2009, Philipps and Singhurst revisited the 5 known sites. These sites are generally monitored on a yearly basis.

Xyris drummondii (Drummond’s Yellow-eyed Grass) Xyris drummondii occurs in the Coastal Plain from southeast Georgia westward through northwestern Florida and south Alabama to southern Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. It is usually found in hillside seepage bogs where seepage has created exposures of wet fine sand or peaty sand. The Texas sites are exclusively on the Catahoula formation where groundwater emerges from a sandy residuum at its contact with an impervious layer of tuffaceous sandstone. It has a global conservation rank of G3 and is ranked S2 (Imperiled) in Texas.

Xyris is a difficult genus and usually requires an expert to identify. Orzell and Bridges documented nine occurrences on the Angelina NF during their 1989 baseline survey. The MacRoberts located an additional population in C-77 during a 1995 survey. Another survey conducted by Singhurst, Bridges, Nilles, and Philipps in 2006 resulted in the documentation of two more occurrences, all on the Angelina NF. Several other occurrences have been documented by Philipps between 2007 and 2011. To date, there are 14 documented sites where this species is known to occur, all of them on the Angelina NF.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects of any project activities where this species occurs, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Xyris scabrifolia (Harper’s Yellow-eyed Grass) Xyris scabrifolia occurs in the Southeastern Coastal Plain from North Carolina to Texas. In Texas, it is frequent in hillside seepage bogs on the Catahoula Formation. Within these seepage bogs, X. scabrifolia is found within open boggy areas and in partial shade of evergreen shrub thickets. The greatest threats to the Xyris scabrifolia suboccurrences include (1) habitat destruction by conversion to urban, suburban, agricultural, silvicultural, or military use, (2) alteration of hydrology as a result of habitat fragmentation, and (3) loss of herb diversity due to fire suppression. It has a rounded global conservation rank of G3. In Texas the conservation ranking is currently under review.

There are currently an estimated 144 element occurrence records for this species across its range, with 27 occurrence records located on the Angelina and Sabine NFs. Orzell and Bridges had documented 19 locations during the 1989 baseline survey, the MacRoberts documented an incidental occurrence in C-76 of the Angelina NF in 1995 while conducting a survey for another species, and Bridges, Singhurst, Nilles, and Philipps documented an additional 7 occurrences during the 2006 bog floristic inventory on the NFGT. The species appears to be relatively abundant where suitable habitat exists and seems to be secure within the NFGT.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Sufficient numbers of occurrences have been discovered on the forest so that the proposed project activities should not significantly affect its viability. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating effects of any project activities where this species may Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xii occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Cypripedium kentuckiense (Kentucky Lady’s Slipper) This species occurs on mesic beech-white oak forested slopes in east Texas. These slopes are generally only impacted by prescribed fire on a rare basis. It is distributed from the Ouachita Mountains in Arkansas east to the Cumberland Plateau in Kentucky and Tennessee, south to the east gulf coastal plain in Alabama and Mississippi, and west to Louisiana, southeastern Oklahoma and eastern Texas. The TNHP Report noted occurrences in seven counties in east Texas, including three occurrences on the Sabine NF and one on the Angelina NF. The Global Status of the Kentucky Lady’ Slipper is classified as G3-Vulnerable, and S1-Critically Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006).

Nine extant occurrences of Kentucky ladies slipper are currently known to be present on the Sabine NF. The 1990 TNHP report documented three occurrences of this orchid on the Sabine. Walker relocated one of these occurrences in 1990. Singhurst found three more occurrences and relocated three (1996). The MacRoberts found a new occurrence of the orchid in 1996. Evans and other biologists found two new occurrences in 1998. Ferguson relocated these occurrences in 2000 and 2001. Philipps relocated five occurrences in 2005. Surveys in 2006 by the Forest Service, TPWD, Azimuth Forestry, and the Pineywoods Chapter of the Texas Native Plant Society resulted in relocating several occurrences and one new occurrence. Philipps and Loos relocated five occurrences in 2007. Philipps surveyed for new occurrences in 2008. He did not find any new occurrences, but relocated two known occurrences. In 2009, Philipps and Loos again surveyed for this species. No new occurrences were discovered but all known locations were revisited and are extant. Surveys by Philipps and Loos in 2010 resulted in the relocation and of many of the known locations and the inadvertent discovery of a new occurrence totaling four plants on lands managed by the Campbell Group in the Matlock Hills area of the Sabine NF.

2011 surveys by Singhurst and Loos in and around Compartments 2-4 failed to find this species, although suitable habitat was present. Other known sites in Matlock Hills, Height Hill, Indian Mounds Wilderness, Cypress Creek, Boat Ramp, and Bourghs Creek were revisited by Loos and appeared to be stable but exhibited very few flowering specimens as compared to past years.

Occurrences of this species have been stable for more than 15 years. They are not declining but neither are they expanding. It has been suggested that the Texas individuals are part of a relict population, outliers of a much more numerically abundant group. Habitat is limited in Texas however; individuals do not seem to have been negatively impacted from hurricanes, poaching, and feral hogs.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at reducing impacts from project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xiii

Prenanthes barbata (Barbed Rattlesnake Root) Barbed rattlesnake root (Prenanthes barbata) has a Global Status of G3-Vulnerable and S3- Vulnerable for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2009). It has been found in eight states of the southeastern US—Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas. In Texas, this plant has been documented in fifteen counties, mostly in East Texas. This species has been found on the Angelina NF, the Sabine NF, and most recently on the Caddo Grasslands. Barbed rattlesnake root is found in rich, mesic hardwood forests near rivers and streams. In Texas, it has been found in beech-white oak plant communities.

Prior to 1993, four populations of barbed rattlesnake root were recorded as occurring in East Texas, one on the Sabine NF. Singhurst’s 1993 surveys for this plant resulted in relocating the Sabine NF population and finding six additional populations on the Forest, as well as another population on the Angelina NF. Surveys of NFGT sites with suitable habitat for this plant have been conducted by several botanists in the 1990’s and in the past decade. Several sites have been relocated and new sites have been discovered, mostly on the Sabine.

Existing population inventory information across the project area should be adequate for this species. Sufficient numbers of occurrences have been discovered on the forest so that the proposed project activities should not significantly affect its viability. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at mitigating project activities where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees. The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

The USFS identified Management Indicator Species (MIS) to provide a means to monitor selected issues on the Forest as required by regulation (36 CFR 219.19, 1982). MIS are those whose response to management activities can be used to predict the likely response of a larger group of species with similar habitat requirements. In addition, selected MIS should be those whose change in population would be directly attributable to the management action. Strategies and objectives found in the 1986 Forest Plan direct the Forest to provide ecological conditions that sustain viable occurrences of MIS and to demonstrate positive trends in habitat availability, quality, or other factors affecting the species.

Monitoring is conducted for each MIS on the Forest to obtain the data elements necessary to meet the intent of the regulations defining MIS. The USFS is implementing monitoring for each MIS Forest-wide within the constraints of the budget and workforce. Monitoring information will guide the Forest in determining where and how to spend scarce resources in order answer the MIS questions raised during the development of the Revised Forest Plan. Results of the annual monitoring program are included in the Forest-wide Monitoring Report. Population and habitat trends for all MIS will be reflected in this report and will guide future Forest management programs.

MIS are meant to be a Forest-wide issue. Project-level activities are evaluated in relation to how they affect Forest-wide population and habitat trends.

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xiv

Table 3 represents the management indicator species (plants) evaluated with this proposal. MIS fish, amphibians, insects, other invertebrates, and terrestrial wildlife will be covered in other reports. Table 3: Management Indicator Species (Plants)

Analyzed in Species Habitat Management Indicator Habitat this Present? Present? Species (MIS) Represented document? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Nodding Nixie Baygalls and N Y Y (Apteria aphylla) acidic woods Louisiana Squarehead Longleaf pine (Tetragonotheca Y and/or bluejack Y Y ludoviciana) oak sandhills

From the list of Forest-wide MIS above these species were identified as project MIS, based on Forest Plan selection criteria and their presence, potential occurrence, and/or their habitats within or adjacent to the proposed project area. Other MIS were not selected as project MIS because they do not occur in the project area and they and their associated habitats would not be affected by any proposed activities. Based on the habitats to be affected and the habitat affinities of the management indicator plant species (Table 3), the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Southern Pine Beetle Suppression Project “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for Tetragonotheca ludoviciana and Apteria aphylla because of potential impacts from fallen trees. Impacts will be minimal due to the project design criteria and mitigations that will be implemented to protect riparian areas (Ma-4 streamside zones). The management indicator plant species listed in Table 3 that either are known to occur or have suitable habitat in the project area have been identified and will be incorporated in further effects analysis.

Apteria aphylla (Nodding Nixie) According to the TNHP Report, Nodding Nixie occurs in damp, deeply shaded, seepage saturated forests (baygalls), often in association with mosses (Sphagnum spp.) and is generally restricted to eight counties in southeast Texas. The Global Status of Nodding Nixie is classified as G4- Apparently Secure, and S2-Imperiled for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006). These areas are typically protected during harvest treatments. Occasionally in drier years, prescribed fire may creep into these sites.

The TNHP Report noted five locations of this species on the NFGT, three on the Angelina NF and two on the Sabine NF. Additional sites have been found on the Sabine NF in the baygall west of Highway 147 in Compartment 51 and in Compartment 90. Houston Sierra Club volunteers located Nodding Nixie on six sites in three compartments (Compartments No. 90, 91, and 94) on the east side of the Sam Houston NF (all of which are confirmed by a Forest Service biologist). A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between 8/8/06-8/11/06 resulted in the inadvertent documentation of four additional occurrences of Apteria aphylla on the southern Angelina NF. In addition, species specific surveys for this plant on September 23-30, 2006 resulted in the discovery of two more new occurrences on the Angelina NF and the relocation of four occurrences on the Sam Houston NF. In 2007 this species was documented in a baygall in Compartment 79 on the Angelina NF. The Plan’s baseline is seven occurrences. There are currently 28 sites on the southern Angelina NF, with an estimated several thousand plants. Loos documented three occurrences of this species on the Angelina NF during surveys in 2009. All were in the Trout Creek area within baygall habitat. Also, Loos did find a new occurrence within C-16 on the north end of the Angelina NF, again Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xv within a baygall. In 2011 Loos conducted surveys for this species in Compartment 71 and in suitable habitat within Upland Island Wilderness without success. However, surveys conducted in a small tract of land adjacent to Upland Island Wilderness that is currently part of a proposed land exchange did result in a new occurrence. Likewise, a survey by Philipps and Marr in Compartment 76 did find a scattering of individuals. This species is usually quite common under normal conditions in relatively undisturbed baygall habitat. Surveys for this species are generally conducted in the fall.

Existing population inventory information across the project area is adequate for this species. Resource Protection Measures that require adherence to MA-4 guidelines, site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments, other project design criteria aimed at eliminating impacts where this species may occur, and other restrictions related to work in riparian areas will allow this project to be implemented by reducing the impact to this species from fallen trees The proposed project activities “may impact individuals but not cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability”.

Tetragonotheca ludoviciana (Louisiana Squarehead) Known also as the Sawtooth Nerveray, this species has been recorded in 19 east Texas counties as well as in western Louisiana and extreme southwest Arkansas (according to the TNHP report). Louisiana squarehead is restricted to sandy soils in sandhill woods and xeric sandhills in longleaf pine savannas. Known occurrences are small in number of individuals (Rob Evans personal communication), and are known to occur on Davy Crockett and Angelina NFs. Frequent fires should help maintain this species. Periodic prescribed burning would retard woody invasion, thereby maintaining open sandy areas with little competition. It is a fire-adapted species and appears to respond well to any fire intensity, as has been documented following the wildfire in C-77 of the Angelina NF where this species was seen to flourish as the result of that very intense fire. Also, the numbers of individuals found within road ROWs suggests that this species does well when there is a lack of woody competition. The Global Status of the Louisiana Squarehead is classified as G4-Apparently Secure, and S3-Vulnerable for the state of Texas (NatureServe 2006).

Surveys conducted by MacRoberts in 1995 resulted in the documentation of 5 occurrences on the Angelina NF. Inventories and monitoring following the February 10, 1998 windstorm blowdown, found an additional population on the northern Angelina NF and one population on the Sabine NF, More surveys conducted in 2005 by Philipps resulted in the relocation of several occurrences on the Davy Crockett NF and two new occurrences on the Angelina NF. The current known occurrences are estimated at 20. The short-term objective in the Plan is 20 occurrences and the long-term objective is 25. A hillside seepage slope bog floristic survey conducted between 8/8/06-8/11/06 resulted in the inadvertent documentation of one additional population of this species in C-92 of the Angelina NF. In 2007, surveys conducted on the Angelina NF in the Upland Island Wilderness located one new population. Philipps and Walker surveyed for this species in 2009 resulting in the documentation of two new occurrences, both occurring on the top of xeric bluejack oak sandhills. Philipps and Loos documented a very large occurrence in Compartment 1 in 2010. Also in 2010, Elliott discovered a new occurrence on the Sam Houston NF in a ROW within Compartment 37. In 2011, Loos documented a new occurrence within the Upland Island Wilderness. As more southern pine habitat is managed with fire and overall fire frequency is increased, potential increases in sites with this fire-dependent plant may be possible.

Existing population inventory information is adequate because surveys have identified sufficient numbers of occurrences within the NFGT and project activities “may impact individuals but not Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xvi likely cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability” despite potential impacts from fallen trees. Site-specific surveys prior to implementing treatments will mitigate many of the potential affects from project treatments.

Specific Resource Protection Measures

Plants

Any trees falling into MA-4 protected wetlands (baygalls/bogs/sloughs) must be removed manually by a chainsaw or handsaw crew. Trees must be lopped and scattered outside the baygall/bog boundaries.

Any trees fallen onto sensitive plant locations within MA-7 (Kentucky Ladies’-Slipper and Hibiscus dasycalyx sites) must be removed manually by a chainsaw or handsaw crew. Trees must be lopped and scattered outside the site boundaries.

Every area designated for treatment will be surveyed for TES plants and, if found, the area delineated. Only chainsaw/handsaw crews will be allowed within the boundaries of the delineated area and every effort must be made to avoid felling trees within the delineated area.

Appendix III Wilderness SPB EA 04-14-03 xvii