3.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

3.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species The species addressed in this section are categorized into two groups: those listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered and those listed by the Forest Service as Regional (R8) Forester’s sensitive species (August 8, 2007) (Table 3.5).

Most of the species addressed tend to be habitat specialists, closely linked with specific habitat types, with an uneven distribution across the landscape. Individual species' habitat associations and the effects of the proposed alternatives are described in the following sections.

Table 3.5. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species or Their Habitat within the Vicinity of the Project Area and Analyzed. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Mammals Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)

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

3.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species 3.5.1.1 Mammals - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Louisiana black bear The historic range of the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) once encompassed all of Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and eastern Texas. Its current range is now limited to two subpopulations in Louisiana’s Atchafalaya and Tensas River basins (USDI 1995). Since 1977, sightings of black bears have been reported in 22 East Texas counties. It is likely that most of these bears are juvenile or sub-adult males that roamed into the region from expanding populations (reintroduced from Minnesota) in Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana (TPWD 2005). Only the Louisiana black bear is federally listed. A sighting of a mother bear with two cubs has been confirmed in Shelby County, one bear has been sighted along FS 314, which is within the project area. Other than gathering of data concerning sightings of black bears within East Texas, there has been no formal survey work done to confirm Louisiana black bear occurrence within East Texas although one is currently underway. However, for this analysis, all black bear sighting are considered to be Louisiana black bears until proven otherwise.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) endangered and threatened species account of the Louisiana black bear notes that preferred habitat is in river basin bottomland hardwood forests although the bear does roam far and wide into the pine forests. The bears also need escape cover including extensive areas of minimal human disturbance. The most suitable habitat in East Texas appears to be the Middle Neches River Corridor because not only does it have suitable food and cover, this area also had low levels of human/bear conflict zones and relatively low open road density. Frequently traveled roads are hazardous to bears and manmade structures, such as multi- lane highways, are one of the reasons that quality bear habitat has been reduced. Black bear home ranges are from 1 to 76 square acres in size. The USFWS considers good bear habitat to be remote. Remoteness should be at least ½ mile from major roads and be in blocks of at least 2,500 acres (USDI 1995).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, the unburned thick would provide cover and continued isolation from human disturbances.

Cumulative Effects: Because no actions are being proposed in this alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Therefore, there should be no cumulative effects with other actions going on in this area.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Some bottomland habitat, river basin bottomland hardwood, is found within the project area, especially in the southern portion of the UIW, near the Neches River. Forest Service Road 314, which is heavily used, bisects the southern portion of the UIW, making one half mile on either side of the road unsuitable habitat. Some areas in the central and northern portion of the project area would be considered remote by the USFWS standards mentioned earlier. The project’s activities would increase human disturbances in the interior of the wilderness, which could disturb bears if present. Prescribe burning may destroy some potential den trees. Indirect effects may result in increased soft mass production, but may negatively result in less cover and increased human disturbance. Areas previously inaccessible, because of thick understory vegetation, would become more open and easier to walk through. However, the proposed action alternatives would have minimal direct or indirect effects because very little preferred habitat is present in this project area, and large portions of riparian habitats would either be completely excluded (i.e. Graham and Cypress Creeks) or will have no direct ignitions (i.e. Big Creek). Alternatives 4 and 5 would have less direct and indirect effects because the UIW interior would remain untreated. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect black bears. If bears are present during line construction and ignitions they would probably move to the untreated portions or onto private lands. Possible long-term cumulative effects include disturbances from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. However, most of the bottomland hardwood forest in and around the UIW would remain undisturbed. Thus, this project would have minimal cumulative effects to Louisiana black bears.

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

The RCW populations in Texas are located within Habitat Management Areas (HMA), delineated around known occupied and potential RCW habitat, managed for the productivity and recovery of this species, and identified in the Plan as MA 2 (the Plan, pp 96-134) and MA 6. The ANF currently supports 42 of the 350 group objective for the Angelina-Sabine population (USDI 2003). The ANF population is comprised of two subpopulations, the northern and southern HMA’s, each managed specifically with an emphasis on RCW habitat requirements. Based on annual survey data, over the last ten years, RCW populations appear to be slightly increasing. This information is available in the annual Forest monitoring report which is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/projects/index.shtml. However, there are no active clusters within UIW. Historically the project area supported up to 6 clusters, and 2 clusters were active as of 1987 (USDI 1996). These clusters became inactive due to fire suppression and lack of midstory control. Available Inventories: Annual survey data, over the last ten years, RCW populations appear to be slightly increasing. This information is available in the annual Forest monitoring report which is available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/texas/projects/index.shtml. Much of the perimeter of the project has had cursory surveys. RCW’s were observed foraging in summer 2007 along the UIW’s northwest perimeter. These birds likely came from two active clusters in compartment 67, which are less than 2.5 miles away. Nesting habitat inside the wilderness was unsuitable because of the very dense midstory and understory; therefore, the interior was not surveys for RCW’s.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, the selection of this alternative would mean that the UIW would remain unburned; thereby leaving the habitat less than optimal. Currently none of the UIW provides good quality foraging or nesting habitat, because of the overly dense midstory. Without prescribe fire the area will have increased potential for fire catastrophic wildfires which could destroy overstory pines causing long-term remove of potential RCW habitat.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The project will have no direct effects to RCW since no RCW are expected to be within the project area. However, the project will have positive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. With continued landscape scale prescribe burning the UIW could become good quality RCW foraging habitat. After fire has been restored to this ecosystem, RCW will begin using the burned areas for foraging and may over time (2 to 5 years) create natural cavities for nesting. Alternative 2 provides the best method for conducting landscape scale prescribe burning. By using a helicopter, prescribe burns can be larger and conducted more often (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands within ½-mile of the wilderness over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect RCW. All activities on the NFGT are undertaken with strict guidelines on when and how work is performed near RCW clusters so the bird is not disturbed. The effects associated with non-federal actions could be negative, because of the loss of managed RCW habitat on surrounding private lands. Some of the sold Temple-Inland lands could be logged heavily, developed, or have no management whatsoever. Therefore, this analysis does not address private lands as potential suitable habitat. Possible long-term positive cumulative effects include improved nesting and foraging habitat from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness.

Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects will be similar to Alternative 2 except that less burning will likely occur because of the difficultly in implementing a large number of hand burns. Compared to alternative 2, this alternative will have less beneficial indirect effects, because the habitat will not improve as quickly and would likely be burned fewer times. However, this alternative would improve more habitat (12,980 acres) than Alternatives 4 (7,580 acres) and 5 (7,580 acres) (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 2.

Alternative 4 & 5 Direct and Indirect Effects: The direct and indirect effects are the same as alternative 2 and 3, except that less total acres would be improved. Alternative 4 would improve habitat greater than Alternative 5 because of helicopter ignitions over larger burn blocks, which should allow more prescribe burning opportunities (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 2.

Table 3.# Comparison Of Alternatives By The Amount RCW Habitat Improvements. Estimated Total number of Habitat Alternatives times entire Improved area burned (acres) over 10 years Alternative 1 0 0 Alternative 2 12,980 5 Alternative 3 12,980 3 Alternative 4 7,580 5 Alternative 5 7,580 3

3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species Sensitive species are taken from the Southern Region (R-8) Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (8-8-07) and are listed earlier in this chapter. Species are addressed as a group if effects from the proposed alternatives are expected to be similar due to the species’ similar life histories and habitat requirements.

3.5.2.1 Mammals – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) reaches the western limit of its range in east Texas. This species is experiencing population declines because of the loss of adequate roosting habitat. In East Texas, this bat roost in a variety of places that may include; crevices behind loose bark, hollow trees, under dry leaves, caves, wells, old mine shafts, buildings and cisterns, or other protected cavities or structures (Harvey 1999, Mirowsky et al. 2004). Preliminary research on habitat associations for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in eastern Texas indicates a strong preference for roosting within bottomland hardwood communities (Mirowsky et al. 2004).

Rafinesque's big-eared bat has been recorded from 16 counties in eastern Texas, including San Augustine and Jasper Counties (Mirowsky et al. 2004).

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Smoke and noise disturbance would have the most impact on bats. Noise disturbance from line construction and burning operations may force unknown populations of bats into other areas of the forest, or cause abandonment of unknown roosts sites. Smoke levels would increase temporarily during burning which could cause temporarily displaced into other areas nearby. However, the proposed action alternatives would have minimal direct or indirect effects because very little preferred habitat is present in this project area, and large portions of riparian habitats would either be completely excluded (i.e. Graham and Cypress Creeks) or will have no direct ignitions (i.e. Big Creek). Alternatives 4 and 5 would have less direct and indirect effects because the UIW interior would remain untreated. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. Cumulative effects of project noise along with other non-connected noise (i.e. highway noise, private land activities) in the area would be temporary. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect Rafinesque’s big- eared bat. Possible long-term cumulative effects include disturbances from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness. These activities have a cumulative potential to disturb roosting sites by the removal of trees, noise disturbances, and smoke. However, no long-term negative impacts to this species or its population are expected as minimal activities are planned in bottomland hardwood forests and numerous acres of available habitat for the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat can be found near the Neches River.

3.5.2.2 Birds – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Bachman's Sparrow The Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), a sensitive species, is an inhabitant of open pine forests with grassy understories or other open areas with thick grassy cover (Hamel 1992). This species is a permanent resident of the Angelina and Sabine National Forests in areas that are frequently burned and maintained in an open condition. It has been reported several times during annual bird point surveys. Foraging occurs on the ground; therefore an herbaceous cover is necessary. Nesting occurs from mid April to late May in areas with a high density of herbaceous cover and a low density of midstory and overstory (Dunning 2006). Decline of this species is attributed to the loss of pine forest containing a grassy understory.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, the selection of this alternative would mean that the UIW would remain unburned; thereby leaving the habitat less than optimal. Currently none of the UIW provides good quality foraging or nesting habitat, because of the overly dense midstory and lack of grass herbaceous understory. Without prescribe fire the area will have increased potential for fire catastrophic wildfires which could destroy overstory pines causing long-term remove of potential Bachman’s sparrow habitat.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: The project will have no direct effects to Bachman’s sparrow since none are expected to be within the project area. However, the project will have postive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. With continued landscape scale prescribe burning the UIW could become good quality habitat by promoting more grassy understory. Alternative 2 provides the best method for conducting landscape scale prescribe burning. By using a helicopter, prescibe burns can be larger and conducted more often (Table 3.#). Alternatives 2 and 3 would improve more habitat (12,980 acres) than Alternatives 4 (7,580 acres) and 5 (7,580 acres) (Table 3.#).

3.5.2.3 Reptiles – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Louisiana Pine Snake (Pituophis ruthveni) The Louisiana pine snake is a Regional Forester’s service sensitive species and a candidate species for federal listing. Louisiana pine snakes inhabit areas with sandy, well-drained soils in open, pine forests with minimal midstory and a well developed grassy understory (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). A primary component of the pine snake’s habitat is the presence of Baird’s pocket gophers (Geomys breviceps). Pocket gophers serve an essential role in pine snake ecology by serving as the primary source of food and by supplying shelter. Studies have shown that pine snakes utilize pocket gopher burrow systems for escape cover, nest sites, and hibernation sites (Rudolph et al 1998, Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). Pocket gopher abundance is directly related to the presence of extensive herbaceous ground cover, which is in turn related to the amount of sunlight able to reach the forest floor. Frequent low intensity fires are also responsible for maintaining the grassy, herbaceous understory required by both gophers and pine snakes. In the absence of fire, a woody midstory quickly develops, greatly reducing the habitat effectiveness of the area (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). No pine snakes have been documented or captured in areas where fire has been effectively suppressed. Because of this association, absence of fire has been proposed as the greatest current threat to Louisiana pine snake populations, by decreasing both habitat quality and quantity (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997). On November 16, 2003 the National Forests of Texas (NFGT), entered into and signed a Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA) in cooperation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service Southern Research Station, Fort Polk Military Reservation in Louisiana, and the Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana to establish a framework for conservation and management of the pine snake within the its current and potential range. This CCA was initiated in order to conserve the pine snake on Federal land by protecting known populations and habitat, reducing threats to its survival, maintaining its ecosystem and, where possible, restoring degraded habitat. A renewal of the CCA is currently underway. The project area could provide high quality habitat for the pine snakes, if fire was restored to the ecosystem. Sandy soils are prevalent, but the thick midstory and lack of herbaceous layer prevent the UIW from being suitable for pine snakes. We have documented captures of Louisiana pine snakes on the south ANF in the Longleaf Ridge Management Area, which is adjacent to the UIW. The closes capture is 2 miles from the UIW.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, without future prescribe fire the UIW will continue to provide poor quality habitat. Without prescribe fire the area will have increased potential for fire catastrophic wildfires which could destroy overstory pines causing long-term remove of potential pine snake habitat.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Dry sandy ridgetops with sparse woody vegetation may provide pockets of pine snake habitat. However, the lack of fire has resulted in the majority of UIW being poor quality habitat. Some pine snakes may be within UIW, but most are likely associated with managed, primarily prescribe burned, Forest Service lands with sandy soils adjacent to UIW. The ground disturbances associated with constructing the exterior dozer lines could have negative direct affects on pine snakes, if present. However, the project will have positive indirect effects as a result opening up the understory with prescribe fire. Alternative 2 provides the best method for conducting landscape scale prescribe burning. By using a helicopter, prescribe burns could be larger and conducted more often (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect pine snakes. The effects associated with non-federal actions could be negative, because of the loss of managed pine snake habitat on surrounding private lands. Some of the sold Temple-Inland lands could be logged heavily, developed, or have no management whatsoever. Possible long-term positive cumulative effects include improved habitat from additional prescribe burning and thinning on Forest Service lands near the wilderness.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects will be similar to Alternative 2 except that less burning will likely occur due to the difficult in implementing a large number of hand burns. Compared to alternative 2, this alternative will have less beneficial indirect effects, because the habitat will not improve as quickly and would likely be burned fewer times. However, this alternative would improve more habitat (12,980 acres) than Alternatives 4 (7,580 acres) and 5 (7,580 acres) (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 2.

Alternative 4 & 5 Direct and Indirect Effects: The direct and indirect effects are the same as alternative 2 and 3, except that less total acres would be improved, 7,580. Alternative 4 would improve habitat greater than Alternative 5 because of helicopter ignitions over larger burn blocks, which should allow more prescribe burning opportunities (Table 3.#).

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be the same as alternative 2.

Table 3.# Comparison Of Alternatives By Actives Affecting Louisiana Pine Snakes. Estimated Maximum Total number of exterior dozer Habitat Alternatives times entire lines to be Improved area burned constructed (acres) over 10 years (miles) Alternative 1 0 0 0 Alternative 2 12,980 5 17 Alternative 3 12,980 3 17 Alternative 4 7,580 5 17 Alternative 5 7,580 3 17

3.5.2.4 Insects – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) The Texas emerald dragonfly, also known as the Big Thicket emerald dragonfly, has been found in San Jacinto, Sabine, and San Augustine counties, but its potential range may exceed 10,000 square miles in southeast Texas, including all of the National Forests in Texas. Habitat requirements are poorly understood, especially for the larvae which seem to be associated with small, clear, sandy- bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2007). Larval characteristics are largely unknown, but members of the genus generally disappear when forests are cleared along with associated activities (Price et al. 1989). Adults have been observed foraging over forest openings, such as roads. This dragonfly has been recorded at various locations throughout the northern Angelina National Forest (Price et al 1989, Bocanegra 2002). Given the habitat it is believed that there is high potential for occupancy by the adults within the treatment area.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Impacts from the selection of this alternative are not expected, since forest management activities are not required in order to provide suitable habitat for this species.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Project activities could force any unknown individuals to other available foraging areas away from the area. But, because they generally forage high above the forest canopy, and over open areas, direct impacts to adult dragonflies would be minimal. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect this species of dragon fly. A compounding negative effect on the dragonfly and its habitat is not expected. Long-term impacts to the dragonfly are unknown but a permanent loss of dragonfly habitat would not occur.

3.5.2.5 Fish, Crayfish, and Mollusk – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The aquatics sensitive species having suitable habitat on the Angelina National Forest are analyzed based upon two habitat types: 1) those that live in lotic habitats (actively moving water such as streams and rivers), and 2) those that live in lentic habitats (still waters such as lakes, ponds, pools, and swamps). While specific habitat requirements for these species differ, they are primarily impacted by siltation and sedimentation. Therefore, these aquatic species are considered concurrently in the effects analysis.

Fish The Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae) lives in creeks and small to medium sized rivers with sandy bottoms. Its range extends from east Texas to the Mississippi river drainage, and north to Missouri. Spawning takes place April through September in Texas and Louisiana, and multiple clutches are likely (NatureServe 2007). It is probable that the Sabine shiner may tolerate higher turbidity waters, precluding the need for silt free sand substrates. Threats to this species include alterations to stream flow, such as culverts that block fish passage, fragmentation, and siltation.

Habitat for the Sabine shiner is available in Graham, Big, Cypress, Mill, and Oil Well Creeks within the project area. However, Sabine shiner has not been documented in any of these creeks (McCullough et al. 1980 and Geeslin 2001). Given this information it is believed that the Sabine shiner has a potential for occupancy within the project vicinity. Sabine shiner Sabine shiner lives primarily in lotic habitats, and its effects are addressed along with the blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus), which is also uses lotic habitats.

Crayfish The blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) lives primarily in lotic environments, and the Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) and Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae) live primarily in lentic habitats. Surveys were conducted in Cypress Creek in 2001, Mill Creek in 1997 and 1999; and Graham, Falls, Big and Oil Well Creeks in 2008. None of these species were captured.

Blackbelted crayfish is a lotic stream inhabiting crayfish known to occur among debris in streams with sandy bottoms. Little is known about this species. NatureServe (2007) lists land development and habitat draining or surfacing as possible threats. Generally, crayfish are most closely associated with small stream riparian habitats generally associated with intermittent streams and small perennial streams with narrow floodplains.

Sabine fencing crayfish and Neches crayfish lives primarily in lentic habitats (still water). These crayfish occurs in temporary and permanent pools or roadside ditches and in individual burrows. Limiting factors for these crayfish include land development, agricultural runoff, and competition with other crayfish (NatureServe 2007). Habitat for these species can be found within Upland Island Wilderness. Creeks and drainages throughout the project area experience pooling during periods of low water flow. Temporary pooling of water outside creek channels occurs when rainfall is higher. Roadside ditches along the exterior of the wilderness have ditches that pool water during rain events.

Mollusk Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), triangle pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphiachaenus) are freshwater mussels that may inhabit a variety of water-body types including large and small rivers and streams, lakes, ponds, canals, and reservoirs (Howells et al. 1996). These six sensitive mussel species have high potential to occur in mud, sand, or gravel substrates in streams and small rivers. They do not occur in deep shifting sands or deep soft silt (Howells et al. 1996), which can contribute to smothering. Mussels filter feed on algae, detritus, and small particles in the water, and may be able to absorb some organic material in solution (Howells et al. 1996).

Impoundment of river systems is believed to be the most significant threat facing freshwater bivalves. Impoundment alters flow regimes, increases sediment accumulation, and may impede movement of fish hosts. Impoundments of streams, such as dams, alter flow and temperature regimes; disrupt the timing of reproduction and associated behavior of fish and mussels. Pollution, over harvest, reduced spring and river flows, introduction of exotic species, and sedimentation are other probable causes of decline (Williams 1993, Howells et al. 1996, Watters 2000). In addition, any impacts to fish may negatively affect mussels, which use certain fish as hosts for larval development (Howells et al. 1996).

The Texas pigtoe, sandbank pocketbook, southern hickorynut, and Louisiana pigtoe have been documented in the Angelina County. However, the triangle pigtoe and Texas heelsplitter could possible occur in the project watersheds.

Lotic Habitats (Moving Water) Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae), blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus), Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), Triangle Pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), Sandbank Pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), and Texas Heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus)

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Equipment crossing streams when doing fire line construction and during implementation may have some direct impacts on blackbelted crayfish, Sabine shiner, and mussels, if present at the crossing. However, equipment will only cross when necessary, usually upstream and on level ground so as to avoid resource damage and to keep from getting stuck. Indirect effects could result from burned areas being more susceptible to erosion. Runoff could temporarily increase siltation and phosphate levels. However, lines would be constructed with water control structures (i.e. water bars) to minimize erosion. There would be no long-term adverse direct or indirect effects to any of these stream species. Cumulative effects - The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect these species. The construction of Sam Rayburn and Toledo Bend Reservoirs reduced the amount of high potential habitat for most of these species. Species intolerant of conditions created by impounded water are now restricted to the short reaches upstream. In the vicinity of the project, the result is isolated habitat. The watersheds for most streams in the project vicinity are located on both private and National Forest land. There are no expected changes in management activities of adjacent private lands. High potential habitat is likely scarce on private lands, since protective measures for streams are less stringent, and are optional for landowners. Other planned Forest Service activities, such as prescribed burning thinning, and fire breaks between private and public lands would have little effect on aquatic habitat, since the Plan contains measures to reduce or prevent impacts to aquatic habitats. Activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, thus minimal cumulative effects are anticipated.

Lentic Habitats (Still Water) Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) and Neches crayfish (Procambarus nechesae)

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Crayfish that inhabit roadside pools could be directly affected (injured or killed) during line construction activities and through a temporary increase in traffic on the roads during project implementation. Interior roads will be less affected since minimal vehicle traffic is expected to be used. Long-term negative indirect effects to these species or its population are unknown but are expected to be minimal as the work is expected to occur during dry periods. Disturbance in one particular area of the forest during project implementation may temporarily displace individuals into other areas of suitable habitat. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect these species. High potential habitat is likely scarce on private lands, since protective measures are less stringent, and are optional for landowners. Other planned Forest Service activities, such as prescribed burning, thinning, and fire breaks would have little effect on aquatic habitat, since the Plan contains measures to reduce or prevent impacts to aquatic habitats. Activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, thus minimal cumulative effects are anticipated.

3.5.2.6 Plants – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The following sensitive plant species have suitable or potentially suitable habitat within the project vicinity. Several fire lines with higher potential for sensitive plants were surveyed June 14 and 15, 2007; September 7, 12, 17, 18, 2007; and July 23, 2008. However, no sensitive plants were found during these surveys. Orzell (1990) documented slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis), large beakrush (Rhynchospora macra), Sabine bog coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia), Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii), and Harper's yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia) within the UIW natural heritage area. These species are grouped based on their similar life histories and habitat requirements.

Upland inhabiting plants Incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa) Mohlenbrock’s umbrella sedge (Cyperus grayioides) Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis) Bog, Seep, and Wetland inhabiting plants Panicled indigobush (Amorpha paniculata) Texas bartonia (Bartonia texana) Pineland bogbutton (Lachnocaulon digynum) Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) Large beakrush (Rhynchospora macra) Sabine bog coneflower (Rudbeckia scabrifolia) Texas trillium (Trillium texanum) Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass (Xyris drummondii) Louisiana yellow-eyed grass (Xyris louisianica) Harper's yellow-eyed grass (Xyris scabrifolia)

Upland inhabiting plants These sensitive plant species have a high potential for occupancy within the project area due to presence of the upland longleaf and sandy habitat they are associated with. However, due to fire suppression the habitat has degraded. None of these species were found during the most recent surveys.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Plants may be directly destroyed as result of fire line construction. The dozer lines will have the greatest direct effects; however, most of these lines have been surveyed and no sensitive plants have been found. All alternatives proposed the same amount of exterior dozer lines (17 miles) which means all action alternatives would have similar direct effects. Prescribe fire would have very beneficial indirect effects to these species, as it would dramatically improve habitat for each of these species. Alternative 2 would likely result in the most burning, then alternatives 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. These plants are considered sensitive because of the loss of their habitat. Exclusion of fire, conversion to pine plantations, and loss of open space to development are all contributors. Habitat on surrounding private lands is limited. Habitat on surrounding National Forest land is of varying quality, with open forest conditions and prescribed fire frequency being the most important components for improving and maintaining habitat. Ongoing and future prescribed burning, thinning, and fuel break projects should aid in maintaining habitat for this species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect these species. The coupling of these activities on Forest Service lands is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects.

Bog, Seep, and Wetland Inhabiting Plants These sensitive plant species have a high potential for occupancy within UIW. Seventeen bogs have been identified and GPS mapped within UIW (ca. 50 total acres). Many others likely exist, but have not been mapped. Nearly all the bogs are in the southern portion of the wilderness, north of FS road 314. Orzell (1990) documented large beakrush, Sabine bog coneflower, Drummond’s yellow-eyed grass, and Harper's yellow-eyed grass within the bogs in southern UIW. Lower hillside seeps and wet claypan pine savannas are ideal habitat for Louisiana yellow-eyed grass. Baygalls are prevalent within the riparian areas of the large creeks in the area, thus providing habitat for Texas trillium and Texas bartonia. Side drainages and small creeks are partially vegetated with sphagnum on the banks, habitat common for Texas bartonia. Pitcher plant bogs are described by Orzell (1990), Correll and Johnston (1979), and Godfrey and Wooten (1979) as wetland communities that support pineland bogbutton, yellow-eyed grasses, large beakrush, yellow fringeless orchid, Sabine bog coneflower, Texas bartonia, and Harper's yellow-eyed grass.

Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: This alternative would have no direct or indirect effects, because no treatment activities would occur. However, selection of this alternative would mean that the bogs in the UIW would continue to be encroached by wood vegetation. Without prescribe fire undesirable species could potentially alter the hydrology and out-compete the bog species.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Hand lines would be constructed around or within any bog communities and other wet mesic areas and seeps. Dozer would not be allowed within bogs and seeps. Several bogs and seeps have been identified and would be avoided. The botanist, wildlife biologists, and other personnel would continue identify bogs and seeps during line construction to ensure these areas are avoided by heavy equipment. None-the-less, some individual plants may be destroyed due to fire line construction. However, prescribe fire would have very beneficial indirect effects to these species, as it would reduce woody encroachment. Alternative 2 would likely result in the most burning and least line construction, then alternatives 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. These plants are considered sensitive because of the loss of their habitat. Exclusion of fire, conversion to pine plantations, and loss of open space to development are all contributors. Habitat on surrounding private lands is limited. Ongoing and future prescribed burning, thinning, and fuel break projects should aid in maintaining habitat for this species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect these species. The coupling of these activities in Forest Service lands is expected to have beneficial cumulative effects.

3.6 Management Indicator Species Management Indicators are identified in the Revised Land and Management Plan for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (the Plan, p.306-307). This MIS (Management Indicator Species) effects analysis is tiered to the Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discussion of effects on wildlife and fisheries (FEIS: Appendix F, 87-110 pp). Management Indicator Species (MIS) are addressed in order to implement National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations. These species are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities. Management Indicator Species include: species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs; species commonly hunted, fished or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and plant and animal species whose population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities on other species or selected communities.

The management indicator approach is designed to function as a means to provide insight into effects of forest management on plant and animal communities. Management indicators may be used as a tool for assessing changes in specialized habitats, formulating habitat objectives, and establishing standards and guidelines to provide for a diversity of wildlife, fish, and plant habitats.

For this project, a subset of the forest-wide management indicators was selected. See Appendix D for attached list of those management indicators considered and those that were eliminated from further consideration and the rationale therein. Eighteen species or communities (red- cockaded woodpecker, slender gayfeather, incised groovebur, longleaf-bluestem series, yellow fringeless orchid, sphagnum- beakrush series, nodding nixie, Texas bartonia, sweetbay-magnolia series, Louisiana squarehead, eastern wild turkey, whitetail deer, pileated woodpecker, snags, Sabine shiner, dusky darter, scaly sand darter, and stonefly guild) were selected based upon their associations with the habitat types present in the project area (Table 3.7) and their suitability as indicators of habitat changes brought about by the proposed alternatives.

Table 3.6. Habitat Type with Representing Management Indicators. Species Habitat Type Red-cockaded woodpecker Dry-Xeric-Oak Pine forests Slender gayfeather Longleaf Pine woodland/savannah Incised groovebur Longleaf Pine woodland/savannah Longleaf-bluestem series Longleaf Pine woodland/savannah Species Habitat Type Yellow fringeless orchid Herbaceous wetlands Sphagnum – beakrush series Herbaceous wetlands Nodding Nixie Bay – Shrub Wetlands Texas Bartonia Bay – Shrub Wetlands Sweetbay – Magnolia series Bay – Shrub Wetlands Louisiana squarehead Dry-xeric oak pine forest Forest/Grassland: Early-succession (0-20 yrs) White-tailed deer Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ yrs)

Forest/Grassland: Early-succession (0-20 yrs) Eastern wild turkey Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ yrs) Forest/Grassland: Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Pileated woodpecker Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ yrs) Forest/Grassland: Mid-succession (20-50 yrs) Snags Late-succession (50-90 yrs) Old growth (90+ yrs) Sabine Shiner Aquatic – Rivers and Streams Dusky Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams Scaly Sand Darter Aquatic – Rivers and Streams Stonefly Guild Aquatic – Rivers and Streams

The effects of the alternatives on MIS and their habitats are addressed. These project-level effects should not be used to infer effects to forest-wide MIS populations. Population and habitat trends of MIS on national forest lands are best monitored and addressed at the landscape level. Data used for some of game species in the following sections has been acquired from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through a Memorandum of Understanding. They collect some of this data every other year.

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): Addressed under 3.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species.

Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis): Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Upland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Incised groovebur (Agrimonia incisa): Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Upland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Longleaf-bluestem Series Background and Current Status This community type is characterized by mainly evergreen woodlands on loamy or sandy acidic soils in southeast Texas. Longleaf pine is the dominant evergreen species, but loblolly and/or shortleaf pines may also be present. Common deciduous associates are blackjack, bluejack, and southern red oaks, as well as sweetgum. A shrub layer containing flowering dogwood, beautyberry, redbay, wax myrtle, and vaccinium is common, along with a well-developed herbaceous layer of little bluestem, panicum, switchgrass, sedges, and other species. This series is fire-dependent, requiring frequent low intensity fires to reduce and control woody mid- and understory growth and encourage a diverse grassy and herbaceous understory that supports a variety of plants and animals. High-interval burn frequency is one of the most important factors necessary to restore and maintain longleaf pine-dominated habitats (Waldrop et al. 1992; Glitszenstein and Streng 1995).

At the end of 2006, a total of 25,027 acres were shown in the FSVeg database. An additional 923 acres are in longleaf-slash, which has the potential to be converted to longleaf-bluestem. The Plan’s baseline is 21,000 acres with a short-term objective of 40,000 acres. Prescribed burning accomplishments were over 100,000 acres for three consecutive years on the NFGT (Monitoring and Evaluation Report FY 2006, USDA 2007). Most of the planned increase in acreage of this series is expected to come from restoration of areas currently occupied by off-site slash and loblolly pine, and an aggressive prescribed fire program where some longleaf overstory currently exists.

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects on this series from this alternative since no actions would occur. However, there would be a continued lack of fire which has resulted in very dense midstory vegetation and very little grassy understory.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects to this series and the species would be beneficial. Some understory vegetation could be destroyed due to fire line construction, but the restoring fire to this ecosystem will have very beneficial direct and indirect effects. Very little overstory will be effected by the fire, but midstory vegetation will be greatly reduced. This will increase solar exposure to the ground and promote a grassy herbaceous layer.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should only benefit longleaf communities. The cumulative effects of these alternatives would be overwhelmingly beneficial. Thinnings of adjacent Forest Service lands would reduce the potential for loss of large acreages of mature forest to beetle infestation (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004), and by opening the canopy more light would reach the ground causing grasses and herbaceous species to respond, which would make prescribed fire even more effective in maintaining the desired community structure. Regular prescribe burning of UIW and adjacent lands would further enhance the desired understory vegetation. Give the lack of suitable management on nearby private lands to generate and maintain this community type, appropriate management on national forest lands is needed to ensure that the longleaf-bluestem series persists in this area.

Yellow fringeless orchid (Platanthera integra) - Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Bog and Wetland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Sphagnum – beakrush Series - Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Bog, Seep, and Wetland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Nodding Nixie – Effects are the same as 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Bog, Seep, and Wetland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Texas Bartonia – Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Bog, Seep, and Wetland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Sweetbay–Magnolia series – Effects are the same as 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Bog, Seep, and Wetland Inhabiting Plants” section.

Louisiana squarehead Background and Current Status Louisiana squarehead is a Management Indicator for xeric pine and dry pine-oak communities. This plant species has been observed within UIW (Tom Phillips pers. comm.). 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. It is primarily associated with dry sandy flats with bluejack oak (Quercus incana) (Tom Phillips pers. comm.).

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no direct or indirect effects on this species from this alternative since no actions would occur. However, there would be a continued lack of fire would result in a hardwood climax as short lived pines are unable to regenerate in heavily shaded environments.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Some plants could be destroyed due to fire line construction, but the restoring fire would have very beneficial indirect effects by promoting a mix pine-oak forest community. Midstory vegetation will be greatly reduced. This will increase solar exposure to the ground and promote an herbaceous layer.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should only benefit this species. The cumulative effects of these alternatives would be beneficial. Thinnings of adjacent Forest Service lands would reduce the potential for loss of large acreages of mature forest to beetle infestation (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004), and by opening the canopy more light would reach the ground causing grasses and herbaceous species to respond, which would make prescribed fire even more effective in maintaining the desired community structure. Regular prescribe burning of UIW and adjacent lands would further enhance dry pine-oak forest communities. Give the lack of suitable management on nearby private lands to generate and maintain this community type, this species habitat is not expected to be found on private lands.

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Background and Current Status The white-tailed deer is a highly adaptable generalist, capable of using a variety of foods and of thriving in areas where land management activities have created a diversity of vegetation, cover types, and forage (Smith and Coggin 1984). Whitetails are often considered browsers, and do consume considerable amounts of browse. However, they are opportunists, and will eat nearly any available form of plant life (Harlow 1984). Good quality whitetail habitat provides a diversity of vegetation types, successional stages, and forage.

White-tailed deer in the Coastal Plain Region feed on a variety of browse species throughout the year, including vines (greenbrier, Japanese honeysuckle, common trumpetcreeper), shrubs (American beautyberry, blueberry, strawberry bush), and trees (red maple, blackgum, redbay) (Newsom 1984; Peitz et al. 1999). They also forage heavily on both hard mast (acorns and nuts) and soft mast, such as fruits and berries. Other foods consumed include mushrooms (Cushwa et al. 1970) and grasses and forbs (Newsom 1984). Consumption of twigs from woody species is heaviest in the spring when twigs are actively growing and are soft and succulent (Cushwa et al. 1970; Newsom 1984), while leaves may be consumed during most of the year. Hard mast is consumed year around, but is particularly important during fall and winter (Newsom 1984).

The white-tailed deer was selected as a management indicator of four forest seral stage habitats: early, mid, late succession, and old growth (USDA 2007). Because the white-tailed deer is a generalist species occurring in a variety of habitats, this species is not closely associated with a specific seral stage or plant community. This species was chosen as an MIS because it is in demand by hunters. The objective is to maintain a healthy deer population on the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) monitor deer population trends and densities, in cooperation with the Forest Service, through analysis of kill data, spotlight transects, and herd modeling. The white-tailed deer population has shown a generally increasing trend in the Pineywoods Region of Texas over the past ten years or so (Fig 3.4). Estimates of deer populations on the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas and the ANF follow a similar trend (USDA 2007).

1400000

1200000

1000000

800000 Crosstimbers Oak-Prairie 600000 Pineywoods

400000

200000

0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2006

Fig. 3.4. White-tailed deer population trends in three eastern Texas Ecological regions (USDA 2007).

White-tailed deer are regularly seen within UIW. Carrying capacity for mixed hardwood-pine forests is listed as one deer per 20-40 acres and one deer per 30-50 acres for loblolly-shortleaf pine habitats (Halls 1984). Carrying capacity of homogenous pine habitats is lower than that of mixed pine-hardwood or bottomland hardwoods and streamside areas, as soil nutrients, mast, and available browse are higher in the more mesic areas (Halls 1984).

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on white- tailed deer, because no actions would take place. However, without future prescribe burning to open the canopy and increase the amount of light reaching the ground, forage availability would decline over time (Blair and Brunett 1977), and deer pressure on remaining browse would increase. However, the continued thick understory would provide good cover for deer and limit hunter access into the wilderness.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects of the proposed action alternatives would be few, and would be limited to possible disturbance or loss of young fawns, should any be present in UIW during the period that the proposed management activities were occurring. Very young fawns could be injured or killed during prescribe burns, although fawns would be vulnerable only during the first few days after birth. Adult deer could easily avoid injury from the proposed activities. Overall, direct effects on whitetails would be minimal.

The indirect effects from these alternatives on white would be both beneficial and negative. Herbaceous forage is somewhat sparse throughout most of the UIW due to the closed canopy. The proposed prescribe fire would reduce midstory vegetation, increasing light penetration and stimulating forage production (Blair and Brunett 1977; Masters et al. 1993). Prescribe burning may reduce some hard and soft mast production due to removal of midstory hardwoods, but hardwoods in the numerous riparian areas would be unaffected. The heavily burned areas would provide less escape cover, and hunters would have easier walking access into previously very thick and inaccessible areas. Alternative 2 would have the greatest direct and indirect effects, both positive and negative, then alternatives 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect white-tail deer. Large amounts of suitable habitat are dispersed across the forest and adjacent private lands. Removal of large fuels as a result of Hurricane Rita and prescribed fire, combined with activities associated with this project, benefit deer by opening up the forest floor to light and improving forage. However, due to the relatively small scale of this project relative to the amount of habitat available in the vicinity, significant cumulative effects on the deer populations are not anticipated.

Eastern Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Background and Current Status Eastern wild turkeys require a diversity of habitats in order to thrive, and use different habitats during different life cycle stages. Nesting habitat typically has dense herbaceous vegetation, with some shrubs and some type of structure concealing the nest. Nests are often placed near openings or edges such as roads, pastures, young plantations, or similar sites (Hurst 1992). Brood habitat, particularly for young broods, is especially important. Young poults forage heavily on insects, and need open areas with abundant herbaceous vegetation and associated insects (Healy 1985; Campo et al. 1989; Hurst 1992; Porter 1992). Wintering flocks make heavy use of hardwood stands, particularly bottomland areas (Sisson et al. 1990; Hurst 1992).

Openings are an important habitat component year around, and are used as strutting areas by gobblers (Hurst 1992), as bugging areas by hens with broods (Healy 1985; Campo et al. 1989; Hurst 1992), and as foraging areas by turkeys of all ages throughout the year (Hurst, 1992). A study in Louisiana found that areas with a larger percentage of acreage in openings usually had higher turkey populations (Dickson et al. 1978).

Turkeys have a varied diet. Young poults are heavily dependent on insects, transitioning to a more plant-dominated diet by four weeks of age (Healy and Nenno 1983; Healy 1985; Hurst 1992). Adult turkeys feed primarily on plant foods, including seeds, hard mast such as acorns and nuts, soft mast such as fruits and berries, and green vegetation. They also consume animal matter, primarily insects (Hurst 1992).

Over hunting extirpated turkeys from much of their original range. Successful reintroduction efforts were conducted from 1979 through 1997. Turkey populations are distributed throughout the National Forests in Texas (USDA 2007). The eastern wild turkey uses a wide range of habitats making it a suitable indicator for early, mid, late succession, and old growth, and it was selected because it is in demand by hunters. The objective is to increase turkey populations on the NFGT.

90 80 70 60 50 40 Harvest 30 20 10 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Fig. 3.5. Spring Turkey Harvest in Angelina, Houston, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, San Jacinto, Trinity, Montgomery and Walker Counties (National Forest Counties) from 1997-2006.

Annual surveys and harvest data (Figure 3.5) suggest that eastern wild turkey populations are stable and viable. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) determined in 1996 that populations were adequate to support a spring gobbler season, and limited hunting was initiated in 1997.

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Because no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no direct effects on the wild turkey. However, foraging habitat would be limited by the existence of dense pine stands, in which dense midstory conditions would restrict sunlight to the forest floor, and inhibit herbaceous vegetation.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects of the proposed action and modified proposed action alternatives would be few, and would be limited to possible disturbance or destruction of some turkey nests, should any hens be nesting in UIW during the period that the proposed management activities were occurring. The proposed prescribe burning could destroy some nests, but turkeys often renest and the small number of nests that might be impacted would not have a significant effect on overall population numbers. Further, the long-term benefit of improved habitat conditions would outweigh the possible one-time loss of a few nests. Other possible effects include the displacement of individuals or the possible death or injury of poults, although either of these is unlikely, given the mobility of the birds.

Indirect effects of this alternative would be overwhelmingly beneficial to the wild turkey. Maintaining an open midstory with prescribe fire is beneficial to turkeys. Burning has been demonstrated to increase seed production by legumes (Cushwa et al. 1970) and other seed- producing plants important to turkeys (Porter 1992), and to increase production of soft mast (Hurst 1981), all of which would benefit turkeys. Alternative 2 would have the greatest direct and indirect effects, both positive and negative, then alternatives 3, 4, and 5, respectively.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect wild turkeys. Removal of large fuels as a result of Hurricane Rita and prescribed fire, combined with activities associated with this project, benefit turkey by opening up the forest floor to light and improving forage. The combined habitat improvements from projects on surrounding forested lands and UIW could promote an increasing overall population trend on the southern Angelina National Forest.

Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Background and Current Status The pileated woodpecker is an indicator of mid and late succession, and old-growth habitats. Preferred habitat includes mature coniferous-deciduous forests or bottomland hardwood forests. Pileated woodpeckers breeding and wintering habitat are mature and extensive forest with dead snags for nesting (Hamel 1992 pg. 190; Bull 1995).

Data are available to evaluate pileated woodpecker population trends at several scales. Data from Breeding Bird Survey routes, provide information on population trends across the species’ range (Fig. 3.8; Sauer et al. 2007). These data reveal that pileated woodpecker populations have fared differently in various parts of the U.S. However, in much of Pineywoods Region of East Texas, the species has averaged an increase of 0.25% to over 1.5% per year.

Fig. 3.8. Changes in pileated woodpecker populations across the species’ range, based upon Breeding Bird Survey data (1966-2003). Map from Sauer et al. (2007).

Habitat for this species, in the form of older age class stands, is increasing across the NFGT. In 1996, suitable habitat was estimated at 280,000 acres, with suitable habitat defined as mid and late successional and old growth. Current habitat trends indicate a net increase of 22,400 acres of suitable habitat and the availability of a variety of habitats across the National Forests (USDA 2002). Point count surveys have been used on the NFGT to monitor pileated woodpecker numbers since 1996. These data suggest a stable or slightly increasing trend in pileated woodpecker numbers, until 2006 (Fig 3.9). The apparent decline will be watched closely to determine if numbers rebound in 2007. 100

60 PIWP 40

0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Fig. 3.9. Numbers of pileated woodpeckers (PIWP) found in all forest stands during point counts on the NFGT, 1998-2006 (USDA 2007).

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects: Because no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no direct effects on the pileated woodpeckers. However, without fire, fewer snags would be created which are used by pileated woodpeckers.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, & 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: The direct effects of these alternatives would be relatively minor. Some pileated woodpecker nests could be disturbed or destroyed during line construction and prescribe burning, if such activities occurred during the spring nesting season and nest snags were destroyed. The potential for nest loss is relatively minor and would not be of sufficient extent to affect woodpecker population levels.

Indirect effects are also expected to be beneficial. Prescribe fire would create more snags which could be used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the UIW and adjacent Forest Service and private lands over 10 to 20-year period. The land around the proposed project area is Forest Service and private lands. The private lands are generally managed for short rotation timber harvest or for residential uses. We constructed fire lines in the southern portion of the UIW, both exterior dozer lines and interior hand lines, as a result of a resent 40-acre wildfire in UIW, just north of FS road 314. Prescribed burning and fire breaks, outside the UIW, are the only other known actions occurring near the area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur outside the UIW but should not affect pileated woodpeckers. Removal of large fuels as a result of Hurricane Rita and prescribed fire, combined with activities associated with this project may have reduced some snags. However, due to the relatively small scale of this project relative to the amount of habitat available in the vicinity, significant cumulative effects on the pileated woodpecker populations are not anticipated.

Snags Background and Current Status Snags are a habitat component of virtually all seral stages – early, mid, late seral, and old growth. The lack of snags can be a limiting factor in maintaining or increasing populations of some species. Snags are common in the project area. Fires, weather events, insects, disease, and decay are some of the factors that influence the numbers and distribution of snags across the landscape. For example, the prescribed burning program on the NFGT influences snag distribution by both creating and removing snags from the forest. Any prescribed burn will burn with varying intensity as a result of many factors including: the amount, type, and distribution of fuels, weather conditions, and topographical features. These factors combine to result in a mosaic effect in which some areas burn intensely, while other portions burn with little intensity, or fail to burn at all. The results are that some single trees or pockets of live trees may be killed, creating new snags, while some existing snags are consumed. This creation and consumption of snags results in an uneven distribution of snags across the landscape.

Snag data is gathered as part of the vegetation sampling portion of the R8 Bird protocol. Data on snag numbers has been collected at approximately 700 survey points. A sample of approximately 70 survey points is surveyed annually. The surveys indicate that all areas have from 1 to 2 snags per acre, and the trend has remained stable to slightly increasing (Fig 3.10).

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 >20"dbh 0.6 >12" dbh 0.4 0.2 0 2000 2002 2004 2006

Figure 3.10. Average number of snags at each sample point (USDA 2007).

Effects of Alternatives Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects: Because no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no direct effects on the snags.

Alternative 2, 3, 4, & 5 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The direct effects from these alternatives would be creation of new snags and destruction of old snags as a result of fire. There would be no indirect effects. Snags densities would likely increase in the UIW as a result of multiple prescribe burns.

Sabine Shiner – Addressed under 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Lotic Habitats (Moving Water)” section.

Dusky Darter – Effects are the same as 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Lotic Habitats (Moving Water)” section.

Scaly Sand Darter – Effects are the same as 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Lotic Habitats (Moving Water)” section.

Stonefly Guild – Effects are the same as 3.5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species in the “Lotic Habitats (Moving Water)” section.

3.7 Wildlife Refugia (Scoping Issue) This section addressed effects to wildlife habitat based on the following scoping issue – “The FS should balance the logistical needs of carrying out prescribed fire with the needs of wildlife habitat. While the burning of adjacent units in close succession minimizes the chances for fire to escape … it also would result in the highest displacement of wildlife from UIW. If several weeks or longer were allowed between the burning of adjacent units, then some time would be allowed for wildlife populations to re-enter previously burned areas.”

3.7.1. Affected Environment Currently UIW provides refugia for wildlife species that benefit from thick brushy cover. However, UIW is currently a barrier to many other plant and wildlife species that depend on an open understory with herbaceous ground cover (e.g. red-cockaded woodpecker, Louisiana pine snake, upland plants spp, wild turkey, etc.). The very thick understory vegetation and shading are an impediment to population growth and dispersal into the wilderness. Most of the wildlife species described above are negatively affected by the current unburned condition in UIW.

3.7.2. Environmental Consequences Alternative 1. Direct and Indirect Effects: Because no activities would occur under this alternative, there would be no direct effects on the refugia habitat. The current condition would be maintained.

Alternative 2 and 3 – Proposed Action and Modified Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 2 would likely result in the greatest amount of prescribe burning, because of landscape burn blocks. Alternative 3 would burn the same total area as Alternative 2 except the burn blocks would be smaller. The smaller burn blocks would allow for more unburned refugia, but would also likely reduce total amount times the area could be burned. None-the-less, for all alternatives many riparian areas will remain unburned or will poorly burn. Large portions of riparian habitats would either be completely excluded (i.e. Graham and Cypress Creeks) or will have no direct ignitions (i.e. Big Creek).

Prescribe burning of UIW would fit into the ANF’s forest-wide prescribe burn program. Burn areas would be burned on a rotation, which usually creates a patch-work of burned and unburned areas. However, sometimes large burn areas would be adjacent to one another, which could provide less unburned wildlife refugia. However, the over benefits from prescribe burning out way the negatives. The longleaf ridge is a fire dependant ecosystem and most wildlife species, including turkey, deer, Neotropical migrant birds, red-cockaded woodpecker, and Louisiana pine snakes, would benefit from increased burning over the long-term.

Alternative 4 and 5 – Modified Proposed Actions Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 4 and 5 would have 5,400 acres remaining unburned compared to Alternatives 2 and 3; thus, these alternatives would provide the greatest amount of unburned wildlife refugia. However, by not burning these areas, many wildlife species would continue to avoid the area these areas. The unburned areas would be more of a wildlife barrier than refugia.

Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects would be similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, except more areas would remain unburned. References Cited Blair, R.M. and L.E. Brunett. 1977. Deer habitat potential of pine-hardwood forests in Louisiana. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, New Orleans, LA. (USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. SO-136). 11 pp. Boyle, M.F. R.L. Hedden, and T.A. Waldrop. 2004. Impact of prescribe fire and thinning on host resistance to the Southern pine beetle: preliminary results of the national fire and fire surrogate study. Pages 60-64 in Connor, Kristina F., ed. 2004. Proceedings of the 12th biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–71. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 594 pp. Bull, E. L., and J. E. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 148 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu). Campo, J.J., W.G. Swank, C.R. Hopkins. 1989. Brood habitat use by eastern wild turkeys in eastern Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 53:479-482. Conner, R.N., D.C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, R.R. Schaeffer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):728-734. Conner, R.N., Rudolf, D.G., and Walters, J.R. 2001. An introduction. Pages 1-12 in The red-cockaded woodpecker: survival in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Austin Press. Austin, TX. Conner, R.N., Rudolf, D.G., and Walters, J.R. 2001. Cavity tree in fire-maintained southern pine ecosystem. Pages 79-115 in The red-cockaded woodpecker: survival in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Austin Press. Austin, TX. Correll, D.S. and M.C. Johnston. 1979. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas, Second Printing. The University of Dallas, Richardson, Texas. p. 1210. Cushwa, C.T., Robert L. Downing, R.F. Harlow and D.F. Urbston. 1970. The importance woody twig ends to deer in the Southeast. USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experimental Station, Asheville, NC. 12 pp. Dickson, J.G., C.D. Adams, and S.H. Hanley. 1978. Response of turkey population to habitat variables in Louisiana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 6:163-166. Dunning, John B. 2006. Bachman's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) in The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/038 Eckerle, K. P., and C. F. Thompson. 2001. Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) in The Birds of North America, No. 575 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu). Geeslin, D.K. 2001. An ichthyological study of fish communities in six streams in the Angelina National Forest, TX. MS thesis, SFA, Nacogdoches. Glitzenstein, J.S. W.J. Platt, and D.R. Streng. 1995. Effects of fire regime and habitat on tree dynamics in North Florida longleaf pine savannas. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 65, No. 4. (Nov., 1995), pp. 441-476. Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. 1979. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 736 pp. Halls, L.K. 1984. Research problems and needs. Pages 783-791 in L.K Halls ed. White- tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 869 pp. Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, NC. pp. 190 and 303. Harlow, R.F. 1984. Habitat evaluation. Pages 601-646 in L.K Halls ed. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 869 pp. Harvey, M.J.; Altenbach, J.S.; Best, T.L. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. Little Rock, AR. p. 54. Healy, W.M., and E.S. Nenno. 1983. Minimal maintenance versus intensive management of clearings for wild turkey. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 11:113-120. Healy, WM. 1985. Turkey poult feeding activity, invertebrate abundance, and vegetative structure. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:466-472. Howells, R.G., R.W. Neck, H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX. pp. 53-54, 57-58, 67-68, 86-87, 91- 92, 95-96. Hurst, G.A. 1981. Effects of prescribe burning on the easten wild turkey. Pages 81-88 in G.W. Wood ed. Prescribe fire and wildlife in suthern forest. Belle W. Baruch Forestry Science Institute. Georgetown, SC. Hurst, G.A. 1992. Foods and Feeding, Chapter 6. Pages 66-83 in J.G. Dickson, editor. The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 463 pp 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. (http://bna.birds.cornell.edu). Masters, R.E., R.L. Lochmiller, and D.M. Engle. 1993. Effects of Timber Harvest and Prescribed Fire on White-Tailed Deer Forage Production. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 21(4). pp. 401-411. McCullough, J.D. et al. 1980. An ecological investigation of Graham Creek, a proposed wilderness area. National Science Foundation grant report SPI 8004098. Mirowsky, K.; P. Horner, R.W. Maxey, S.A. Smith. 2004. Distribution records and roost of southeastern and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat in East Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 49(2), pp 294-298. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2007. Version 6.1. Arlington, Virginia. USA: NatureServe. Available: http://natureserve.org/explorer. Newsom, J.D. 1984. Coastal plain. Pages 367-380 in L.K Halls ed. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 869 pp. Orzell, S.L. 1990. Texas Natural Heritage Program Inventory of National Forests and National Grasslands in Texas. Texas Natural Heritage Program. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, TX. 526pp. Peitz, D.G, P.A. Tappe, M.G. Shelton, and M.G. Sams. 1999. Deer browse response to pine-hardwood thinning regimes in Southeastern Arkansas. SJAF 23(1). 20 pp. Philipps, Thomas. 2007. Species descriptions for the proposed additions to the sensitive species list. On file at the Angelina Ranger District, Zavalla, TX, 111 Walnut Ridge Road, 75980. Porter, W.F. 1992. Habitat Requirements, Chapter 14. Pages 202-213 in J.G. Dickson, editor. The Wild Turkey, Biology and Management. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg, PA. 463 pp Price, A.H., R.L. Orr, R. Hornig, M. Vidrine, S.L. Orzell. 1989. Status Survey for the Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). Draft Report. On file at the Angelina Ranger District, Zavalla, TX, 111 Walnut Ridge Road, 75980. Rudolph, D.C. and R.N. Conner. 1991. Cavity selection by red-cockaded woodpecker in relation to tree age. Wilson Bulletin 103(3), pp 458-467. Rudolph, D.C. R.N. Conner, R.R. Schaeffer. 1995. Red-cockaded woodpecker detection of red heart infection. in Kulhavy, D.L. et al. eds. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Recovery, Ecology, and Management. Nacogdoches, Tx: Center for Applied Studies in Forestry, College of Forestry, Stephen F. Austin Univ. pp. 338-342. Rudolph, D. C. and S. J. Burgdorf. 1997. Timber rattlesnakes and Louisiana pine snakes of the west gulf coastal plain: hypothesis of decline. Texas J. Sci. 49 (3) Supp. 111-122. Rudolph, D.C., S. J. Burgdorf, J.C. Tull, M. Ealy, R.N. Conner, R.R. Schaeffer, and R.R. Fleet. 1998. Avoidance of Fire by Louisiana Pine Snakes (Pituophis melanoleucus ruthveni). Herpetological Review, 29(3). Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1996-2007. Version 2007.I. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Sisson, D.C., D.W. Speake, J.L. Landers, and J.L. Buckner. 1990. Effects of prescribe burning on wild turkey habitat preference and nest site selection in south Georgia. Proc. National Wildl Turkey Symp. 6:44-50. Smith, R.L and J.L. Coggin. 1984. Basis and role of management. Pages 571-600 in L.K Halls ed. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 869 pp. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan. 2005-2015. Austin, TX. 56 pp. Turchin, P., A. D. Taylor, J. D. Reeve. 1999. Dynamical role of predators in population cycles of a forest insect: an experimental test. Science, Vol. 285. pp. 1068-1071. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Vegetation Management in the Coastal Plain/Piedmont. Atlanta, Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker on Southern National Forests. Atlanta, Georgia. 758 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 1996. Final Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision for the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. Lufkin, TX. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 2007. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas; Monitoring and Evaluation Report for FY 2006. (On file with the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas, Supervisor’s Office, Lufkin, TX. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Southeastern states bald eagle recovery plan. Prepared by Thomas M. Murray. April 1989. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Louisiana Black Bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) Recovery Plan. Jackson, MI. 52pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Biological Opinion on the U.S. Forest Service National Forests and Grasslands in Texas Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, and Record of Decision of 1996. Prepared by Jeffrey Reid. March 1996. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 296pp. Waldrop, T.A., D.L. White, and S.M. Jones. 1992. Fire regimes for pine-grassland communities in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 4(1992), pp. 195-210. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993. Conservation Status of Freshwater Mussels of the United States and Canada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fisheries Research Center, Gainesville, FL. 18(9).