Biological Evaluation (01-11-09) for Threatened and Endangered Species Regional Forester Sensitive Species
National Forests and Grasslands of Texas Angelina National Forest Angelina County, Texas
Zavalla Thin Project
PREPARED BY:
Rick J. Baxter Wildlife Biologist USFS TEAMS Enterprise 496 W. 1430 S. Payson, UT 84651 (559) 920-4676
DATE: 5 December 2011
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 2 I. Summary ...... 3 II. Introduction ...... 3 III. Project Area...... 3 IV. Proposed Management Action ...... 3 V. Coordination History ...... 8 A. Reviewers and Collaborators ...... 9 VI. Species Reviewed ...... 9 VII. Field Survey and Results ...... 10 A. Available Inventories ...... 10 B. Field Work Conducted Specific to This Project...... 10 C. Species with Potential for Occupying Treatment Area ...... 10 VII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ...... 11 A. Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals ...... 11 VIII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species ...... 12 A. Terrestrial Animals ...... 12 B. Aquatic Animals ...... 16 C. Plants ...... 18 1. Slender gay feather (Liatris tenuis) ...... 18 Prepared by: ...... 20 References ...... 21 Appendix A. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List ...... 24 Appendix B. Zavalla thin RCW survey response from Robert Allen USFWS-Lufkin, TX...... 30
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 2 of 30 I. Summary The purpose of this project is to improve forest health and reduce susceptibility of the pine forest to potential southern pine beetle infestations. The Angelina/Sabine District Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) identified the need for the proposed action by comparing the Plan’s desired future conditions (DFC) to the existing conditions in the Zavalla project area. The proposed action would involve commercially thinning pine trees. Longleaf pine would be favored over shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine in that order. No thinning would occur in streamside management zones (50 ft on either side of the bank) nor in hardwood inclusions. Hardwood inclusions would be avoided by the logging contractors to the extent possible. Existing and temporary roads would be used to access these stands. No new permanent roads would be built. The stands would be thinned to the basal area per acre described in Table 1 below.
The effects to eighteen threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) species are addressed in this biological evaluation (1 threatened – Louisiana Black Bear, 1 endangered – red-cockaded woodpecker, and 16 sensitive animal and plant species). The determinations for the proposed action are as follows… Louisiana black bear – no effect, not considered occupied habitat Red-cockaded woodpecker – not likely to adversely affect Louisiana pine snake – no impacts Slender gayfeather – beneficial impacts The other fourteen sensitive species listed in Table 2 – may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability. The remaining T&E species and sensitive species not listed in Table 2 – no effect and no impact, respectively. II. Introduction Forest Service Manual (FSM) Section 2672.43 requires a biological evaluation (BE) and/or biological assessment (BA) for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed, or permitted programs and activities. This biological Evaluation was prepared in accordance with the Forest Service manual 2670 and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. The objectives of this BE are to: 1) ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native species or contribute to trends toward federal listing, 2) comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) so that federal agencies do not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat (as defined in ESA) of federally listed species, 3) ensure compliance with Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and 1989 Vegetation Management standards, 4) provide a process and standard to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision-making process, and 5) to consider the best available science when evaluating TES species, including peer-reviewed scientific literature, state and federal agency reports and management input, discussions with scientists and other professionals, and ground-based observations. The Angelina National Forest supports known occurrences and suitable habitat for several Regional Forester‟s sensitive species, all of which are considered in this analysis. This BE documents the analysis of potential effects of the proposed project to sensitive species and associated habitat. It also serves as biological input into the environmental analysis for project-level decision making to ensure compliance with the ESA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and National Forest Management Act (NFMA).
III. Project Area Figure 1. Project Area. The project area is on the Angelina National Forest and is located approximately 3 miles east of Zavalla, Texas. It is bordered on the east side by the Sam Rayburn Reservoir and on the south side by State Road TX-147. Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 3 of 30
IV. Proposed Management Action The purpose of this project is to improve forest health and reduce susceptibility of the pine forest to potential southern pine beetle infestations. The proposed action would involve commercially thinning approximately 8,164 acres of pine stands (in compartments 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54 and 55) on the Forest. The thinning would retain longleaf pine over shortleaf, loblolly, and slash pine, in that order as determined by on-the-ground conditions. The size of the stands in the project area ranges between 18 to 120 acres. No thinning would occur in streamside management zones nor in hardwood inclusions. These would be identified on the ground as the sales are prepared. Hardwood inclusions would be avoided by the logging contractors to the extent possible. The stands would be thinned to the basal area per acre described below (Table 1).
Table 1. Compartment and stand identification, stand age, number of acres to be thinned, Basal Area (BA) to be thinned to, tree height and SPB Hazard rating of proposed treatment on the Angelina National Forest.
Acres To Tree Height Compartment/Stand Age BA (sq. ft./ac) SPB Hazard Rating Be Thinned (ft.)
C-43 1 35 107 70 >80 Moderate 2 103 66 130 >100 High 4 39 66 100 >80 Moderate 5 103 88 100 >110 Extreme 10 105 50 130 >100 High
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 4 of 30 Acres To Tree Height Compartment/Stand Age BA (sq. ft./ac) SPB Hazard Rating Be Thinned (ft.)
C-44 1 34 52 130 >70 High 2 31 51 78 >50 Low 3 24 43 80 >50 Low 5 34 57 100 >80 Moderate 6 26 42 110 >50 Moderate 7 116 459 130 >90 High 8 39 28 95 >70 Moderate 12 86 59 150 >100 High 13 78 27 100 >100 Moderate 15 99 52 125 >100 High 18 27 44 150 >40 High 20 29 25 120 >50 High C-45
1 27 62 130 >50 High
2 31 43 145 >60 High 3 30 41 120 >50 High 4 93 24 200 >120 High 5 103 303 150 >120 High 7 68 51 140 >120 High C-46 1 28 15 100 >50 Moderate 2 26 23 95 >60 Moderate 3 42 19 95 >60 Moderate 4 28 43 130 >40 High 5 33 35 120 >70 High 6 28 52 140 >60 High 7 93 344 130 >120 High 9 120 26 150 >90 High 10 82 24 155 >100 High 11 38 73 195 >80 High 12 51 49 100 >60 Moderate 13 38 13 110 >70 Moderate 14 74 51 110 >80 Moderate 15 63 72 155 >120 High
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 5 of 30 Acres To Tree Height Compartment/Stand Age BA (sq. ft./ac) SPB Hazard Rating Be Thinned (ft.)
C-47 2 40 79 90 >70 Moderate 3 104 73 90 >90 Moderate 4 45 42 80 >70 Moderate 5 42 110 100 >60 Moderate 6 103 187 120 >100 High 7 63 23 130 >120 High 8 38 33 100 >80 Moderate 9 78 35 130 >80 High 10 68 43 130 >100 High 11 40 21 80 >60 Moderate 12 66 164 150 >80 High 13 26 30 115 >50 Moderate 14 29 53 120 >50 High 18 25 11 125 >50 High C-48 1 76 49 128 >120 High 2 21 56 138 >40 High 3 89 34 102 >100 Moderate 4 81 33 138 >100 High 5 19 57 122 >40 High 6 94 93 112 >100 Moderate 7 22 29 118 >50 Moderate 8 83 27 143 >100 High 9 71 131 131 >100 High 10 95 61 130 >100 High 11 79 54 137 >100 High 15 92 6 136 >100 High 16 89 12 143 >100 High 17 81 9 127 >100 High 18 23 30 115 >100 Moderate 19 76 24 117 >120 Moderate 20 23 65 109 >50 Moderate 21 22 3 138 >40 High C-50 1 33 10 172 >70 High 2 67 10 127 >80 High 3 19 30 113 >40 Moderate 4 87 49 121 >100 High
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 6 of 30 Acres To Tree Height Compartment/Stand Age BA (sq. ft./ac) SPB Hazard Rating Be Thinned (ft.)
C-50 (con’t.) 5 36 13 88 >80 Moderate 7 19 43 97 >40 Moderate 8 71 62 157 >100 High 9 35 130 103 >80 Moderate 11 78 88 126 >100 High 12 77 51 130 >100 High 13 96 43 137 >100 High 14 93 92 143 >100 High 15 19 46 103 >40 Moderate 19 82 97 108 >90 Moderate C-51 1 78 45 110 >80 Moderate 2 70 143 137 >90 High 3 70 65 121 >100 High 4 90 136 124 >100 High 5 71 16 126 >100 High 7 85 223 122 >100 High 8 35 111 120 >60 High 9 96 99 114 >100 Moderate 11 97 33 135 >120 High 12 19 92 100 >40 Moderate 13 65 13 109 >90 Moderate 14 72 24 111 >100 Moderate 15 96 62 99 >120 Moderate 16 20 45 95 >40 Moderate 20 29 25 150 >70 High 26 85 31 122 >100 High C-54 2 96 110 142 >100 High 3 73 27 131 >100 High 4 21 53 66 >40 Low 5 86 89 116 >100 Moderate 6 96 71 108 >100 Moderate 7 101 43 105 >100 Moderate 10 20 18 66 >40 Low
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 7 of 30 Acres To Tree Height Compartment/Stand Age BA (sq. ft./ac) SPB Hazard Rating Be Thinned (ft.)
C-55 1 71 18 121 >100 High 2 37 41 96 >80 Moderate 3 81 86 122 >100 High 4 81 84 135 >100 High 6 89 130 121 >100 High 7 81 68 128 >80 High 8 76 209 123 >100 High 11 39 106 128 >90 High 15 39 58 193 >80 High 16 65 8 137 >90 High 26 43 22 140 >90 High 29 58 87 119 >70 Moderate 30 43 10 152 >100 High
Typical logging methods following State approved Best Management Practices would be used to protect water resources. Standard practices include washing equipment before entry to the area to prevent non-native invasive species establishment.
Streamside management zones would be delineated around ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial drains following standards and guidelines in the Plan (pp. 82, 152),using a minimum of 50 ft. buffer on each side of the stream channel. No thinning would occur in streamside management zones. Forest Service representatives would establish crossings at right angles to the streamside zones if crossing is required.
Up to 32.56 miles of temporary roads could be used on the project. All temporary roads would be obliterated after use. Obliteration may involve the use of fertilizer, seeding, and blocking with a dirt mound. If the ground is extremely compacted, it may be tilled. Seeding would occur using a seed mix approved by the Forest botanist. In addition, if there is a need to cross a stream (intermittent or perennial) with a temporary road, we would put in a temporary culvert, relocate the road around the stream, or come in from another side. If the stream is ephemeral, all attempts are made to go around the top of it using a temporary road so that a stream crossing and subsequent temporary culvert are not necessary. If a temporary culvert is used, fabric mat will be placed (at the request of the fisheries biologist) in the stream bottom first, prior to placement of the culvert, to minimize stream damage.
V. Coordination History This biological evaluation is completed in accordance with Forest Service Manual 2670 direction and the 1989 Coastal Plain Record of Decision and 1996 Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. The findings of this biological evaluation are consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‟s (USFWS) March 1996 Biological Opinion of the revised Forest Plan. The USFS completed surveys for Red-cockaded woodpeckers on December 13, 2010 in and around the proposed Zavalla thin project area. April Crawley, Angelina/Sabine NF wildlife biologist, compiled these data into a report. This report was taken to a meeting with Robert Allen of the USFWS in Lufkin, TX in January 2011. He wrote on that report that because this area is outside Management Area 2 and if Red-cockaded woodpeckers were not found within the action area, that a „no effect‟ determination would be applicable.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 8 of 30 A. Reviewers and Collaborators Robert Allen (USFWS, Wildlife Biologist) Tom Philipps (USFS NFGT, Botanist) Dave Peterson (USFS NFGT, Fisheries Biologist) Jason Nolde (USFS NFGT, Forest Wildlife Biologist) Jason Engle (USFS Angelina and Sabine NFs, Wildlife Biologist) Kathy Duncan (USFS Angelina and Sabine NFs, NEPA Specialist/Silviculturalist) April Crawley (USFS Angelina and Sabine NFs, NEPA Biologist) Nathan Renick (USFS Angelina and Sabine NFs, Prescription Forester) Rick Baxter (USFS TEAMS Enterprise, Wildlife Biologist)
VI. Species Reviewed This evaluation was conducted during December 2010 through July 2011 and the evaluation is based upon: 1. Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service‟s website (http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/) for county listings of endangered, threatened, and candidate species (checked January 2011). 2. Review of current Regional Forester‟s (Region 8) sensitive species (December 2010) 3. Review of NFGT TES list updated by NFGT letter to Tom Cloud, USFWS, dated January 8, 2008. 4. Review of element occurrence records for sensitive species as maintained by National Forest and Grasslands in Texas GIS database, including the Texas Natural Heritage inventory (Orzell 1990). 5. Correspondence with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in April 2010 to obtain element occurrence records of state and federally listed species in Angelina County, Texas from the Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) (formerly known as Texas Biological and Conservation Data System). 6. Correspondence with USFS Southern Research station to obtain occurrence records for Louisiana pine snake (November 2010) 7. Review of the National Forest in Texas crayfish and fish data collected from 1995-2009 prepared by Dave Peterson, National Forest in Texas fisheries biologist. 8. Review of specialist reports for Botany (Tom Philipps 2011) and Aquatic Species (Dave Peterson 2011) for the proposed project. 9. Consult with individuals in the private and public sector who are knowledgeable about the area and its flora and/or fauna. 10. Review of sources listed in the reference portion of this report. 11. Review of the results from field surveys that have been conducted in the area. Appendix A documents all 53 TES plant and animal species currently known or expected to occur on or near National Forests and Grasslands in Texas. All TES species listed in Appendix A were considered during the analysis for this project. Most sensitive species known to occur on the Forest have unique habitat requirements, such as bogs, pine savannas, bottomland hardwood forest, wet-mesic seeps, glades and barrens. A “step down” process was followed to eliminate species from further analysis and focus on those species that may be affected by proposed project activities. Species not eliminated are then analyzed in greater detail. Results of this “step down” analysis process are displayed in the Occurrence Analysis Results (OAR) column of the table in Appendix A. First, the home range of a species was considered. Species‟ ranges on the Forest are based on current records, USFWS county listings, and NatureServe Explorer, but are refined further when additional information is available, such as more recent occurrences documented in scientific literature, field surveys, or in the Natural Heritage inventory. Many times historic range information clearly indicates a species will not occur in the project area due to the restricted geographic distribution of most sensitive species. When the project area is outside a known species range, that species is eliminated from further consideration by being coded as OAR code “1” in the Appendix A table. For the Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 9 of 30 remaining species the results from past surveys, knowledge of the project area, and potential for suitable habitat are considered.
VII. Field Survey and Results A. Available Inventories 1. Rafinesque‟s Big-eared bat and southeastern myotis: (Mirowsky 1998) 2. Crustaceans: (USDA Forest Service via Dave Peterson (list updated in 2010). 4. Incised groovebur: (MacRoberts and MacRoberts 1997) 5. Pitcher plant bog survey for listed plant species by AFS conducted September 20, 2002 and August 10, 2006. 6. Botanical Surveys specific to this project conducted by Tom Phillips (Forest Botanist) 7. Red-cockaded woodpecker: Survey of all unoccupied suitable RCW habitat in project area per 2003 RCW Recovery Plan requirements. Surveys were conducted during April and October, 2010 by permitted district personnel. 8. Bald eagle: general surveys conducted by the ANF personnel for nest activity determination (2006 data). 9. Big Thicket Emerald Dragonfly: (Price 1989). 10. Louisiana pine snake: (Rudolf et al.2006; Craig Rudolf, pers. com 2010). 11. Bachman‟s sparrow: (Cliff Shackelford, pers. com. 2010)
B. Field Work Conducted Specific to This Project. Onsite field surveys were conducted between April 2006 and December 2010. These surveys consisted of surveys for various TES species and their habitats, vegetation, soil texture, drainage patterns, tree density, general forest conditions, etc. within the proposed treatment area. A Prescription Forester for the Angelina/Sabine National Forest collected data on each of these stands and documented the basal area of the potentially affected stands, and the overstory, midstory, and understory conditions of the vegetation in the project area. A document representing the surveys conducted in 2010 for RCW and the comments received from Robert Allen of the USFWS in Lufkin, TX can be found in Appendix B.
C. Species with Potential for Occupying Treatment Area All PETS species for the NFGT have been considered, and occurrence analysis results (OAR) area documented in Appendix A. From field surveys and knowledge of the area, species were eliminated from further consideration because of: a) project located out of species known range – 13 species (OAR code 1); b) no habitat present within the area affected by the project – 23 species (OAR code 2); and c) aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment areas, but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant) – 0 species (OAR code 7). For this project, 35 species were eliminated from further consideration because of one of the above reasons. From past field surveys and knowledge of the area, and given the proposed action, those species which are analyzed and discussed further in this document are those that: a) have a high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because of observed habitats in the treatment areas, and the species has been found in similar habitats – 6 species (OAR code 5), b) have a high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because it has been documented within these areas 0 species (OAR code 6), or c) aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), and inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area – 9 species (OAR code 8). Species having moderate potential for occupying the treatment areas are those that have: a) marginal habitat present in project area, but the species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described in Appendix A – 2 species (OAR code 3); or b) habitat present in
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 10 of 30 project area, but the species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment areas because inventories are adequate enough to confirm that species are not present – 0 species (OAR code 4). Based on the occurrence analysis results the following species listed in Table 2 will be evaluated further in this BE.
Table 2. The following species or their habitat occur within or near the vicinity of the project area and are further analyzed in this document. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Birds Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Forest Service Sensitive Species Mammals Rafinesque‟s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Birds Bachman‟s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Reptiles Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni) Fish Sabine shiner (Notropis sabinae) Insects Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Crayfish Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) 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 Slender gayfeather (Liatris tenuis)
VII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species A. Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals 1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Environmental Baseline: The federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis; RCW) has a high potential to occur on drier ridge tops with open-canopies of mature pine stands with a herbaceous dominated ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods, generally fire maintained (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 pine 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 Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 11 of 30 Plan as MA 2 (the Plan, pp 96-134) and MA 6. The ANF currently supports 59of the 350 potential breeding groups objective for the Angelina-Sabine population. 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 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. Available Inventories: ANF conducted specific RCW surveys in December 2010 to assess presence or absence of RCW clusters within and adjacent to the Zavalla Thin project boundaries. The surveys were conducted according the protocol outlined in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (USDI 2003) and after multiple conversations with Robert Allen, USFWS Biologist, Lufkin, TX. In addition, further analysis of potentially suitable nesting habitat was completed using aerial photos, past habitat surveys conducted in the area, local knowledge of the project area and field visits by personnel federally permitted for RCW surveys. No RCW clusters were found near or within 0.5 miles of the proposed treatment area. The nearest active cluster is located greater than 2.5 miles southeast of the project area in compartment 67. Surveys were conducted by qualified district personnel. No RCW individuals, cavity trees, or starts were observed. Direct and Indirect Effects: Discussions with Robert Allen of the USFWS in Lufkin, TX occurred through January 2011. After looking at the methodologies used, the surveys performed, and the evidence presented Robert Allen stated the following, “As (the) project is outside MA-2, if no RCW clusters are found within the action area then a “no effect” determination may be applicable (see Appendix B).” Therefore the ANF agrees with the USFWS that because all evidence suggests that the area isn‟t suitable nesting habitat and that no individuals, clusters, cavity trees, or even starts were observed, there will be no direct or indirect negative effects to red-cockaded woodpeckers. Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects analysis area and timeframe would be the project area (delineated above) over a 10 to 30-year period. Prescribed burning, fire breaks, and other logging practices are other known actions that have occurred or will continue to occur on National Forest and private lands. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur but should not affect the 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. However, this project is one that will likely create additional long-term suitable nesting and foraging habitat for RCW. Determination: The proposed action would reduce pine beetle and fire hazard, by reducing the number of stems, especially those affecting the mid-story canopy, which would improve RCW habitat in the long-term. In the short- term, there are currently no RCW clusters in or near the project area, so there will be no negative effect on RCW. In addition there would be no additional effects beyond those described in the USFWS biological opinion (USDI 1996) and the Forest Plan (USDA 1996). Thus the propose project will have no effect on red-cockaded woodpecker or their habitat.
VIII. Effects of Proposed Management Action on Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species A. Terrestrial Animals 1. Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Environmental Baseline: Rafinesque‟s big-eared bat 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 roosts 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). Available Inventories: Rafinesque's big-eared bat has been recorded in 16 counties in eastern Texas, including San Augustine and Jasper Counties (Mirowsky et al. 2004). Surveys conducted by Dr. Comer (Stephen F. Austin State University) in 2010 located the species in Ayish Bayou in compartment 103 of ANF. The nearest known location is a roost site at the Old Aldridge Saw Mill, approximately 11.5 miles from the project area. This location was checked in May 2010, and still had bats present. Because of its proximity to Sam Rayburn Reservoir, the project area could be used as a corridor between habitats, or for limited foraging. During surveys conducted by district personnel, specific to the proposed project, no individuals were observed and no potential roost trees were located. Direct and Indirect Effects: Noise disturbance from forest management activities may force unknown populations of bats into other areas of the forest, or cause abandonment of unknown roosts sites. Noise disturbance would have the most impact on the bat, if occurring. Bats could be temporarily displaced into other areas nearby, but the
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 12 of 30 majority of the disturbance would be limited to the logging and road work associated with the project. Noise levels would increase temporarily during this time, although an increase to what level is not known or easily obtained, however, there is very little chance that individuals would be roosting in the project area, and any other use of the project area would occur during the night, when project activities would not occur. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects of project noise along with other non-connected noise (i.e. highway noise, private land activities) in the area would be temporary. No long-term negative impacts to this species or its population are expected as no activities are planned in bottomland hardwood forests. Prescribed fire and fuel reduction breaks between private and forest service lands are ongoing in this area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. Determination: Since 100ft. buffers would be put along creeks, and bottomland hardwood habitat is not abundant in the area and would be avoided, noise would be the primary disturbance for bats in the Zavalla thin project area. Also, since the treatment areas would primarily be used for foraging and/or a corridor to pass through the area, and bats forage at night, equipment would not be operating. The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
2. Southeastern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Environmental Baseline: The decline of southeaster myotis has been documented for many years due to the lack of roosting habitat. Vandalism to caves is the primary cause of this decline. The southeastern myotis reaches the western limits of its range in northeast Texas. Throughout much of the south, these bats reside in buildings, culverts, bridges and hollow trees but in the northern part of their range they roost primarily in caves (Harvey et al.1999). It typically forages low over water and prefers oak-hickory and mixed conifer- hardwood habitats. Available Inventories: Southeastern myotis has been recorded in 23 counties in eastern Texas, including San Augustine (Dr. Chris Comer, pers. com. 2010) and Jasper Counties (Mirowsky et al. 2004). Surveys conducted by Dr. Comer (Stephen F. Austin State University) in 2010 located the species in Ayish Bayou in compartment 103 of ANF, 14.1 miles from the project boundary. Because of its proximity to Sam Rayburn Reservoir, the project area could be used as a corridor between habitats, or for limited foraging. During surveys conducted by district personnel, specific to the proposed project, no individuals were observed and no potential roost trees were located. Direct and Indirect Effects: Noise disturbance would likely have the most impact on the bat. Noise disturbance from forest management activities may temporarily displace unknown populations of bats into other areas of the forest or cause abandonment of unknown roosts sites. The majority of the disturbance would be caused by the logging, road reconstruction, and midstory removal phase of the project. Noise levels would increase temporarily during this time. Currently, however, there is very little chance that individuals would be roosting in the project area, and any other use of the project area would occur during the night, when forest management activities would not occur. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects of project noise along with other already existing non-connected noise (i.e. highway noise, private land activities) in the area would be temporary. No long-term negative impacts to this species or its population are expected, because no activities are planned within 100 ft. of creek bottoms and because bats will forage at night when heavy equipment is not operating. Prescribed fire and fuel reduction breaks between private and forest service lands are ongoing in this area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. Determination: Since 100ft. buffers would be put along creeks, and bottomland hardwood habitat is not abundant in the area and would avoided, noise would be the primary disturbance for bats in the Zavalla thin project area. Also, since the treatment areas would primarily be used for foraging and/or a corridor to pass through the area, and bats forage at night, equipment would not be operating. The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
3. Bachman's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Environmental Baseline: 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 National Forest in areas that are frequently burned and maintained in an open condition. It has been reported several times during annual 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.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 13 of 30 Available Inventories: Texas Parks and Wildlife conducts breeding surveys for Bachman‟s sparrow in high quality habitat on both the Angelina and Sabine National Forests. Surveys have found species fairly common in quality habitat in the southern portions of both forests. The nearest known individuals have been located approximately 3.2 miles southeast of the project area in compartment 67 and almost 9 miles southeast of the project in compartment 91. During surveys conducted by district personnel, specific to the proposed project, no individuals were observed Direct and Indirect Effects: As no known individuals or nests have been detected in the project area, direct effects would be minimal. The effects may consist of the disruption of normal behaviors of any transient or unknown individuals that happen to be in the area during project implementation. Project noise may cause a temporary avoidance of the area. As nesting Bachman‟s sparrows have similar habitat requirements to RCW, any project related activities that improve overall forest health will likely indirectly benefit the species. An estimated 8,164 acres of habitat would be improved. By improving these areas, it is possible that Bachman‟s sparrows will start to inhabit that area post-treatment. Cumulative Effects: Positive benefits are expected as the proposed thinning perpetuates the longleaf pine, fire dominated community for the success of the RCW whose preferred habitat is very similar to that of the sparrow. The long-term positive effects include improved nesting and foraging habitat through burning and thinning. Ongoing projects on the forest; prescribed burning, and fuel breaks between private and public lands would have a cumulative potential to improve habitat for this species. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. Determination: Largely the effects of the proposed project will be beneficial to Bachman‟s sparrow, through creation of suitable habitat that Bachman‟s sparrows can inhabit. Therefore, the proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
4. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Environmental Baseline: The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is generally found in coastal areas and around large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers; which support their food sources, including fish, turtles, and waterfowl. Nests are generally located within two miles of these major water bodies. Sam Rayburn Reservoir is the main foraging habitat near the Angelina National Forest and known nests are located near the reservoir. The nesting season in Texas extends from October to May. On the Angelina National Forest, eagles usually nest in mature loblolly pines, typically using nests and associated pilot trees for many years. Nests are often constructed in the tallest pines in the area, allowing eagles an unobstructed line of sight and flight path. A combination of factors has led to the bald eagles‟ decline. These factors include habitat loss (clearing of forest land for agricultural and other uses, cutting of nest and perch trees), shooting and poisoning by humans, indirect effects of pesticide use (organochlorine bioaccumulation), and heavy metal poisoning (NatureServe 2010). With the delisting of bald eagles in 2007, we are now following the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI 2007), which recommends restrictions on activities within 660 feet of a nest. Available Inventories: Multiple eagle nests have been found in Angelina and San Augustine Counties mainly along the Sam Rayburn Resevoir shoreline. One eagle nest was located within the project boundaries inside compartment 54. Surveys conducted by helicopter along the Sam Rayburn Reservoir shoreline in 2008, documented 10 active nests on or adjacent to Angelina National Forest. The next closest active eagle nest is located in compartment 58 about 1.5 miles southeast of the project boundary. Direct and Indirect Effects: Management activities related to the proposed action, as per the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI 2007), would not occur within 660 feet of any bald eagle nest from October through May. Thereafter, thinning could occur around the nest tree, with obvious care needed not to remove the nest tree. By so doing, eagles will not be disturbed at or near the nest site during courtship, nest building, egg laying, incubation, hatching, raising young, or fledging. Transient eagles If an unknown nest is present, possible impacts to eagles may include disturbance and subsequent flushing. Eagles that may be occupying the area but may be foraging away from the nest site could be flushed from perches or foraging areas. Implementation of this project may have indirect beneficial effects to bald eagles. This action would increase viewing distances from within the stand and could increase prey availability shortly after treatment. It may also increase the amount of habitat that can be used by bald eagles. By leaving some larger trees, the possibility of new nest trees could also occur indirectly as a result of implementation of the proposed action. Cumulative Effects: National Forest lands provide most of the suitable bald eagle nesting habitat in the East Texas. There are no known bald eagle nests on any private land near the project area. Some of the privately owned forested land may provide some suitable nesting habitat, but it is doubtful that these landowners would maintain the areas in the long-term. The lack of nesting habitat on surrounding lands increases the importance of managing National Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 14 of 30 Forest lands to maintain quality habitat for the future. Prescribed fire and fuel reduction breaks between private and forest service lands are ongoing in this area. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. All activities on the NFGT are being undertaken throughout various parts of the forest with specific guidelines to protect bald eagles where applicable. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
5. Louisiana Pine Snake (Pituophis ruthveni) Environmental Baseline: The Louisiana pine snake is a Forest 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 in turn is 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 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. Through conservation measures such as the proposed management activities in compartment 64, the Louisiana pine snake may be recovered without the necessity of listing. A renewal of the CCA is currently underway. Available Inventories: While habitat is available in and around the project area for the pine snake, the nearest known location of pine snake to the project area is approximately 0.9 miles from compartment 55. Sandy soils do exist, and in some places a sparse midstory along with an herbaceous layer does occur. The U.S. Forest Service Southeastern Research Station conducts annual trapping of Louisiana pine snake in the south ANF and tracks the movement of individuals using radio-telemetry. They also keep records of any other Louisiana pine snake sightings including road killed individuals. These records show that a road killed individual was found on Hwy 63, 0.2 miles from the project area in 1993. Recent locations (2005-2010) are over 9 miles southeast of the project area in compartments 87, 90, 91, and 92. Surveys conducted by district personnel, specific to the proposed project, did not locate any individuals, nor were any pocket gopher mounds observed. The pine snake is considered extirpated from the project area (April Crawley pers. comm.. 2011). Direct and Indirect Effects: As there are no pine snakes in the area, the increased traffic during harvesting and road improvement does not put any individual snakes and/or their eggs at risk for mortality through direct contact with machinery and vehicles. If snakes were present, disturbance during forest management activities may force individuals into other areas of the forest or deeper underground. If a snake was discovered, we include an additional protective measure that prohibits any forest workers from killing, harming, or capturing any snake found within the project area. Cumulative Effects: Ongoing projects in the area include prescribed burning and fuel breaks. Prescribed burning will be suspended until the timber harvest is completed, fuel breaks will be completed before doing any prescribed burns. There may be some snake mortality associated with vehicular traffic on State Highway 147, but overall, there should be no adverse cumulative effect on the snake from the ongoing projects combined with the proposed action or modified proposed action. Determination: The proposed project will have no impact on this species.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 15 of 30 6. Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) Environmental Baseline: The Texas emerald dragonfly, also known as the Big Thicket emerald dragonfly, has been found in Anderson, Houston, Trinity, San Jacinto, Sabine, and San Augustine counties, but its potential range is thought to be 100-8,000 square miles in East Texas to Central Louisiana (NatureServe 2010), 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 2010). 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. Available Inventories: This dragonfly has been recorded at various locations throughout the Angelina National Forest (Price et al 1989; Texas Natural Diversity Database 2010). Natural Heritage records exits for the species in the Lower Angelina watershed (NatureServe 2010), which includes the project area. The nearest known location is over 12 miles to the northeast according to the Texas Natural Diversity Database (2010). Popher‟s Creek, located within the project, is slow moving, silty-bottomed and does not likely contain suitable habitat for larvae. During surveys conducted by district personnel specific to the proposed project, no individuals were observed. Direct and Indirect Effects: Project activity in possible foraging areas in mature timbered stands would take place and may force any unknown individuals to other available foraging areas away from the project/treatment area. However, because they generally forage high above the forest canopy, and over open areas, direct impacts to adult dragonflies are not expected. If present, direct effects to larvae are possible from the crossing of creeks and drains during logging. Indirect effects to larvae could occur from a temporary increase in sedimentation following logging activities, however, measures lined out in the Plan and BMP will be followed to protect stream resources, so any effects would be minimal. Cumulative Effects: Prescribed burning and fuel brakes are and will be ongoing in the area. A compounding negative effect on the dragonfly and its habitat is not expected. Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non-native invasive species) would occur but should not affect this species. Long-term impacts to the dragonfly are unknown but a permanent loss of dragonfly habitat would not occur. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
B. Aquatic Animals 1. 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) Environmental Baseline (Sabine Shiner): 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 2010). 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. Available Inventories (Sabine Shiner): Numerous surveys by Forest Service personnel have failed to locate the species on the Angelina or Sabine National Forests (Dave Peterson, pers. com. 2010). A known population inhabits Angelina River tributaries from US 59 to Etoile, some distance from the project area. Migration requirements likely limit the shiner from extensively using any of the streams within the project. Environmental Baseline (blackbelted crayfish): 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 (2010) 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. Available Inventories (blackbelted crayfish): Numerous surveys were conducted by Forest Service personnel on the ANF. Surveys were conducted in compartment 60, near the project area, in 2004, and in compartments 93 and 94 in 2008, but no individuals were encountered (Dave Peterson, pers. com. 2010). However, Dan Johnson, a crayfish researcher, found Faxonella beyeri at 86 sites, densely distributed in San Augustine, Sabine, Shelby and Panola Counties (Johnson pers. comm. 2011). Johnson believes that this species is not rare but under-sampled.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 16 of 30 Environmental Baseline (mollusk): Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), Triangle Pigtoe (Fusconaia lananensis), Sandbank Pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana), Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), Texas Heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus) 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). Available Inventories (Mollusks): Sensitive mussels have been documented in the Angelina and Neches River systems (NatureServe 2010), however none of the species have been located on ANF in many years, most likely due to construction of Sam Rayburn Reservoir (Dave Peterson, pers. com. 2010). A recent TPWD report revealed that the presumed extinct triangle pigtoe was found in the Angelina River at US 59 just upstream from the ANF, along with the R8 Sensitive Louisiana pigtoe and sandbank pocketbook. Another triangle pigtoe was found in the Attoyac Bayou at FM 138, well north of the forest near Garrison. However, this correlates with the presumed last population in Sandy Creek on private land just north and across the reservoir from the project area. This site was said to have been destroyed by a bulldozer (Howells pers. comm. 2011) Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to blackbelted crayfish, Sabine shiner, and mussels due to stream crossings are possible as these species are stream inhabiting. Crayfish that inhabit roadside pools could be directly affected (injured or killed), by road improvement activities. During harvest activities, Forest Plan measures, and project design criteria are employed for protecting stream courses (Forest Plan, p.82-83, 153-154, and 158-159) and riparian habitat. Prud‟homme and Greis (2002) found that scientific literature and monitoring results in the south demonstrate that appropriate BMPs (Best Management Practices) fully implemented as designed and adapted to a site, effectively protect water chemistry, aquatic habitat, and aquatic biota. These practices limit sediment delivery to streams, and are consistent with, or more restrictive than state BMPs for protecting aquatic habitats from sedimentation. These aquatic species are susceptible to management actions that impact stream habitats. Although timber removal would not occur within treamside management zones, associated actions still have the potential to cause sediment movement. Temporary stream crossings, in particular, may increase sediment delivery to streams for a short period. However, adverse effects to sensitive aquatic species are not anticipated. Stream crossings would be avoided and alternative routes used to access harvest units when possible. When in use, these crossings would be employed for a limited duration, and would be identified and designated in accordance with the Forest Plan. Road reconstruction and temporary road construction has the potential to increase sedimentation; however, much of this work involves improvements to existing road surfaces that would minimize erosion and sedimentation generated. Cumulative effects - The proposed thinning would decrease the potential for the loss of large acreages of mature forest to beetle infestation (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004). This would benefit aquatic species by helping to maintain forest cover in the Zavalla thin project area, which would help to reduce sediment delivery to streams. The construction of Sam Rayburn Reservoir has reduced the amount of high potential habitat for most of these species. In the vicinity of the project, the result is isolated habitat, as species intolerant of conditions created by impounded water are now restricted to the short reaches upstream. 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 and fire breaks between private and public lands would have little effect on aquatic habitat, since the Forest Plan contains measures to reduce or prevent impacts to aquatic habitats. Since activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, no cumulative effects are anticipated. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for these species.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 17 of 30
2. Lentic Habitats (Still Water) - Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) Environmental Baseline: Sabine fencing crayfish (Faxonella beyeri) lives primarily in lentic habitats (still water). This crayfish occurs in temporary and permanent pools or roadside ditches and in individual burrows. Limiting factors for this crayfish include land development, agricultural runoff, and competition with other crayfish (NatureServe 2010). Habitat for this species can be found within the Zavalla thin project area. In periods of rainfall, water pools within ditches, drier creek beds, and drainages that are otherwise unsuitable habitat during dry periods or low water flow become suitable habitat. Temporary pooling of water outside creek channels occurs when rainfall is higher. Available Inventories (sabine fencing crayfish): Numerous surveys by Forest Service personnel have been conducted throughout ANF. Surveys were conducted in compartment 60, near the project area, in 2004, but no individuals were captured. In 2008, surveys were conducted in compartments 93 and 94, within the same watershed as the project, but no individuals were captured (Dave Peterson, pers. com. 2010). However, later it was found in Angelina County (Johnson and Johnson 2008) on the Angelina NF northeast of Zavalla off state highway 147 where Sandy creek crosses the highway (Hobbs 1990). Direct and Indirect Effects: Crayfish that inhabit roadside pools could be directly affected (injured or killed) during road improvement activities and through a temporary increase in traffic on the roads during project implementation. Crossing of streams by heavy equipment for logging purposes may cause mortality for stream inhabiting crayfish if they occur in the area. 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 and numerous acres of available habitat for these species can be found throughout the ANF. Disturbance in one particular area of the forest during project implementation may temporarily displace individuals into other areas of suitable habitat. Cumulative Effects: The proposed pine thinning would decrease the potential for the loss of large acreages of mature forest to beetle infestation (Turchin et al. 1999; Boyle et al. 2004). This would benefit aquatic species by helping to maintain forest cover in compartment 64, which would help to reduce sediment delivery to streams. 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 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. Since activities associated with this project are not expected to cause any deterioration of habitat quality, no cumulative effects are anticipated. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability for this species.
C. Plants 1. Slender gay feather (Liatris tenuis) Environmental Baseline: Slender gay feather commonly occurs in frequently burned longleaf pine habitat or may be found in areas frequently mowed such as rights-of-way. Liatris tenuis responds very favorably to the effects of prescribed burning. Its numbers seem to be most numerous the season after burning and tends to drop off every year until the next scheduled fire event. It appears that Liatris tenuis is not strictly restricted to dry upland longleaf pine savanna. This species has also been documented in relation to hillside seepage slope bogs (sphagnum-beakrush series) and Catahoula pine barrens (rayless goldenrod-little bluestem series). With this expansion of suitable habitat and continued use of frequent fire as a management tool it is expected that populations for this species will continue to increase. Available Inventories: Slender gay feather is most abundant on the Angelina NF, with forty two known occurrences. Eight locations of slender gay feather were documented in the 1990 TNHP report. Singhurst (1996) reported relocating the eight locations and also finding seventeen new locations of this species. Surveys conducted by the MacRoberts (wildlife biologists – Bog Research) in 1995 resulted in finding two new occurrences. Surveys in 1998-1999 by Rob Evans, NFGT Forest Botanist, and other botanists resulted in finding four new populations of slender gay feather and relocating another population. Ron Mize (ANF wildlife biologist) found a new population in 2001. Surveys done on the Angelina in 2006 and 2007 resulted in the discovery of six additional populations. In 2009, Walker documented this species on the Angelina NF scattered across Compartments 91 and 92. In addition, Loos (wildlife biologist – contractor) documented this species on the north end of the Angelina NF in Compartment 1 and a new location in Compartment 14, all within areas of sandy soils. Also in 2009, the MacRoberts (wildlife biologists – Bog Research) documented this species along the roadside of FM 2426, which is the southern boundary
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 18 of 30 of the North Moore Plantation on the Sabine NF. Surveys conducted within the Sandy Creek area on the Angelina NF resulted in the documentation of 10 more occurrences of this species, mostly along road ROWs. During surveys conducted by district personnel specific to the proposed project, no individuals were observed, however the project area contains suitable habitat for the species. Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to individual plants could occur as a result of logging operations and use of herbicide for release of pine seedlings in stand 9. No individuals were located during surveys, so these effects would be minimal. Indirect effects to the species would be beneficial because the project will move the habitat toward more suitable conditions for the species. Cumulative Effects: Within the foreseeable future, control of NNIS (non native invasive species) and use of prescribed fire as a management tool would continue to occur and would benefit the species by reducing woody competition, decreasing shading from the mid-story and overstory, and decreasing competition with NNIS. Determination: The proposed project would have “beneficial impacts” to slender gay feather.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 19 of 30 Prepared by:
/s/ Rick Baxter Date: Dec 5, 2011
Rick J. Baxter Wildlife Biologist USFS TEAMS Enterprise Unit
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 20 of 30 References 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, Texas. Conner, R.N., Rudolf, D.G., and Walters, J.R. 2001. Cavity treein fire-maintained southern pine ecosystem. Pages 79-115 in The red-cockaded woodpecker: survival in a fire-maintained ecosystem. University of Austin Press. Austin, Texas. 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. Davis, W.D. and D.J. Schmidly. 1994. The Mammals of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Nongame and Urban Program Dept. Austin, Texas. 338pp. Dunning, J. B., Jr. 1993. Bachman‟s sparrow. Pages 1-16 in A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 38. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists‟ Union, Washington, DC. Godfrey, R.K., J.W. Wooten. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States: Monocotyledons. 1979. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 736 pp. Goff, G.F., G.A. Dawson, and J.J. Rochow. 1982. Site Examination for Threatened and Endangered Plant Species. Environmental Management, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 307-316. Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy. Southeastern Region. Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 437pp. Hardin, K.I. and G.E. Probasco. 1983. The Habitat Characteristics and Life Requirements of Bachman‟s Sparrow. Birding 15(4/5):89-197. Harvey, M.J.; Altenbach, J.S.; Best, T.L. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission. Little Rock, Arkansas. p. 54. Hobbs, H.H. Jr. 1990. On the crayfishes of the Neches River basin of eastern Texas with the Descriptions of three new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 103(3), pp. 573-597. Howells R.G., R.W. Neck, H.D. Murray. 1996. Freshwater Mussels of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 218pp. 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. Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History. 867 p. LeGrand, H. E., and K. J. Schneider. 1992. Bachman‟s sparrow, Aimophila aestivalis. Pages 299-313 in K. J. Schneider and D M. Pence, eds. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, MA. 400pp. McDougal L.A., K.M.Russell, K.N. Leftwich, eds. 2001. A Conservation Assessment of Freshwater Fauna and Habitat in the Southern National Forests. USDA Forest Service. Southern Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 141 pp. Mirowsky, K. and P. Horner. 1997. Roosting ecology of two rare vespertilionid bats, the southeastern myotis and Rafinesque‟s big-eared bat, in east Texas. 1996 Annual Report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Austin, Texas. 48pp. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2007. Version 6.1. Arlington, Virginia. USA: NatureServe. Available: http://natureserve.org/explorer. Oberholser, H. C. 1974. Bachman‟s sparrow. Pages 917-918 in The bird life of Texas, Vol. 2. Univ. Of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. 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, Texas. 526pp.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 21 of 30 Philipps, Thomas. 2007. Species descriptions for the proposed additions to the sensitive species list. On file at the Angelina Ranger District, Zavalla, Texas, 111 Walnut Ridge Road, 75980. 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. Prud‟homme, B.A., and J.G. Greis. 2002. “Chapter 22 (AQUA-4): Best Management Practices in the South.” In Southern Forests Resource Assessment, Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. Reid, Jeffrey. 2006. 2006 Bear Report. December 2006, Black Bear Task Force meeting (On file with the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas, Supervisor‟s Office, Lufkin, Texas). 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. 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). Rudolph1, D.C., S.J. Burgdorf1, R.R. Schaefer, R.N. Conner1, and R.W. Maxey. 2006. Status of Pituophis ruthveni (Louisiana Pine Snake). Southeastern Naturalist. 5(3):463-472. Richard N. Conner1, and Ricky W. Maxey3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2005. East Texas Black Bear Conservation and Management Plan. 2005-2015. Austin, Texas. 56pp. 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, Texas. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Southern Region. 2004. National Forests and Grasslands in Texas; Monitoring and Evaluation Report. (On file with the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas, Supervisor‟s Office, Lufkin, Texas). 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, Mississippi. 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. 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook. Procedures for conducting Section 7 consultations and conferences. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Loggerhead Shrike Status Assessment. Bloomington, Indiana. 101pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. Atlanta, Georgia. 296pp. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 22pp.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 22 of 30 Van Kley J.E., R.L. Turner, L.S. Smith, and R.E. Evans. 2007. Ecological classification system for the national forests and adjacent areas of the West Gulf Coastal Plain: 2nd approximation. The Nature Conservancy and Stephen F. Austin State University, Nacogdoches, Texas, USA. 379pp. 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).
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 23 of 30 Appendix A. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species List
Distribution, habitat, and project area occurrence of animal and plant species designated as Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species on the National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.
Federally Listed Threatened or OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination of Effect Endangered Code For High Potential Habitat
Birds
Piping plover * Charadrius melodus T 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
Whooping crane * Grus americana E 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
Open, fire-maintained, mature pine stands with forb and/or grass dominated No Effect, See BE above for Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E 5 ground cover and a midstory relatively devoid of hardwoods (Jackson 1994; All National Forest additional analysis Conner et al. 2001; USFWS 2003).
Least tern * Sterna antillarum E 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
Blacked-capped vireo Vireo atricapilla E 1 LBJ No Effect
Mammals
Extensive forests (at least 2500 ac.) dominated by mature hardwoods; river basin Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus T 1 bottomland hardwood forests. Needs areas with minimal human disturbance and Sabine & Angelina - Not Likely to Adversely Affect low open road density (TPWD 2005)
Amphibians
Houston toad Bufo houstonensis E 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
Insects
The American burying beetle occurs in a variety of habitats, including sandy American burying beetle Nicrophorus americanus E 1 Caddo - No Effect grassland and oak-pine woodlands.
Mollusks
Caddo - Bois D' Ark Creek Ouachita rock pocketbook Arkensia wheeleri E 1 No Effect Watershed
Plants
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 24 of 30 Federally Listed Threatened or OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination of Effect Endangered Code For High Potential Habitat
It is most often found in poorly drained depressions or at the base of mima mounds (small (usually 10-50 ft. in diameter) low (usually less than 12 inches Adjacent to the Davy Crockett - Texas prairie dawn * Hymenoxys texana E 1 high) mounds of sandier soil than the surrounding flat area) in open grassland in Comp 116, 118, 120, and 121 No Effect almost barren areas with Limnosciadium pumilum, peppergrass, little barley, and (Habitat ONLY, No Occurrences) nostoc.
Open areas associated with exposed calcareous Weches Formation outcrops that are seepy and wet most of the year. Soils are thin, poorly drained, and alkaline. In contrast, most of the surrounding soils are acidic and sandy. The surrounding White bladderpod Lesqurella pallida E 1 vegetation type is pine-oak-hickory woodland. Associated species include the rare Sabine - No Effect Texas golden glade cress (Leavenworthia texana), as well as Drummond's onion (Allium drummondii), and little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium) (NatureServe 2007).
Texas trailing phlox * Phlox nivalis ssp. Texensis E 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
American chaffseed * Schwalbea americana E 1 No Habitat, No Occurrences No Effect
Grows on forb-dominated barrens, on shallow, nutrient-poor soils from the Angelina - Post oak woodlands and Navasota ladies’-tresses Spiranthes parksii E 2 Catahoula Formation. Found under a 50% canopy of post oak and black hickory barrens over Catahoula Formation, No Effect in small openings (Orzell 1990). nearest pop. in Angelina Co.
OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES: 1 = Project located out of known species range. 2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project.
3 = Marginal habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because these areas do not include high potential habitat as
described. 4 = Habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because inventories have not located this species. 5 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because of observed habitats in the treatment area(s), and the species has been found in similar habitats. 6 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because it has been documented within these areas. 7 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment area(s), but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant). 8 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), but inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumu lative effects analysis area.
* - Listed species that have no known occurrences on National Forests and Grasslands in Texas.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 25 of 30 Distribution, habitat, and project area occurrence of animal and plant species designated as Regional Forester’s sensitive species on the National Forest and Grasslands in Texas.
Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code For High Potential Habitat
Birds
Open, frequently burned pine forests with a dense bunchgrass ground cover and minimal May Impact, not cause Bachman’s Sparrow Aimophila aestivalis S 5 All National Forest woody understory (Oberholser 1974; Hardin and Probasco 1983; Hamel 1992). trend toward Federal listing
All Forest and Grasslands. Coastal areas, and around large bodies of water such as reservoirs, lakes, and rivers Nest commonly found along San May Impact, not cause Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S 5 (USFWS 1995). Nests and associated pilot trees are typically located in large trees within Rarburn and Telodo Bend trend toward Federal listing two miles of open water. reserviors. Other sites inlcude …
Breeding habitat is varied, but must include open grassland areas with scattered trees or shrubs. Shrikes are generally absent from closed canopy forests and grasslands without Migrant loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus migrans S 2 All Forest and Grasslands. No Impact trees or shrubs. Historic habitat included open pine-grasslands; however, pastures and hayfields are considered suitable (USFWS 2000).
Mammals
Roosts within mature bottomland hardwood communities within 1 km of water, showing a preference for large, hollow black gum trees with large triangular basal openings. Commonly Rafinesque’s big-eared May Impact, not cause Corynorhinus rafinesquii S 3 use abandoned buildings in the southern parts of their range. Maternity colonies consist of a All National Forest bat trend toward Federal listing few dozen individuals and males are usually solitary (Davis and Schmidly 1994; Harvey et al. 1999).
Inhabits mature bottomland hardwood forests, associated with areas of slow moving rivers and creeks or reservoirs and lakes. In East Texas this species typically roosts in hollow gum May Impact not cause Southeastern Myotis Myotis Autroriparious S 3 All National Forests trees, but is also found in water tupelo, sweetgum, and human-made structures such as trend toward Federal listing buildings and highway culverts (Mirowsky et al. 2004).
Reptiles
Open, frequently burned pine forests with little midstory vegetation, a well-developed Louisiana pine snake Pituophis ruthveni S, C 5 understory of grasses and forbs, sandy, well-drained soils, and the presence of pocket Sabine & Angelina - No Impact gophers (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997).
Crustaceans
Sabine, Angelina, & Davy May Impact, not cause Sabine fencing crayfish Faxonella beyeri S 8 Roadside ditches that are intermittently filled (NatureServe 2005). Crockett trend toward Federal listing
Simple burrows in temporary or semi-permanent pools in roadside ditches (Hobbs 1990; Angelina - Comp 2, SFA Exp. Neches crayfish Procambarus nechesae S 1 No Impact NatureServe 2005). Forerst; & Davy Crockett
Sabine, Angelina, & Davy May Impact, not cause Blackbelted crayfish Procambarus nigrocinctus S 8 Occurs among debris in streams with sandy or rocky bottoms (Hobbs 1990). Crockett trend toward Federal listing
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 26 of 30 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code For High Potential Habitat
Insects
Larvae associated with small, clear, sandy-bottomed streams and boggy seeps within loblolly and longleaf pine stands (NatureServe 2005). Adults are generalist, and they forage May Impact, not cause Texas emerald dragonfly Somatochlora margarita S 5 All National Forest for insects at canopy level over mature forest and over gravel roads and small openings trend toward Federal listing (Price et al. 1989).
Mollusks
Streams with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas associated with fallen May Impact, not cause Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi S 8 All National Forest trees or other structures (Howells et al. 1996). trend toward Federal listing
May Impact, not cause Triangle Pigtoe Fusconaia lananensis S 8 Mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in streams (Howells et al. 1996). Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing
Small to large rivers with moderate flows on gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms May Impact, not cause Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura S 8 All National Forest (Howells et al. 1996). trend toward Federal listing
May Impact, not cause Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana S 8 Creeks and rivers with moderate current, often in gravel (Howells et al. 1996). Sabine & Angelina - trend toward Federal listing
May Impact, not cause Louisiana pigtoe Plerobema riddellii S 8 Found in streams (Howells et al. 1996). All National Forest trend toward Federal listing
May Impact, not cause Texas heelsplitter Potamilus amphiachaenus S 8 Found in quiet waters in sand and mud (Howells et al. 1996). All National Forest trend toward Federal listing
Fish
Closely restricted to a substrate of fine, silt-free sand in smaller streams and rivers having May Impact, not cause Sabine shiner Notropis sabinae S 8 All National Forest slight to moderate current (Lee et al. 1980). trend toward Federal listing
Plants
Fire-maintained longleaf pine savanna on well-drained but not xeric sandy soils (Orzell Incised groovebur Agrimonia incisa S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact 1990).
It occurs in deep acid woodlands and bogs over Letney (Arenic Paleudults) soils within Sabine & Angelina - comp 90 & Panicled indigobush * Amorpha paniculata S 2 the Catahoula Formation. Amorpha paniculata is a stout shrub that grows in deep acid No Impact 92 woodlands and bogs in East Texas (Philipps 2007).
Along wooded streams, bogs, and creek bottoms in swampy tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) Sabine, Angelina, & Sam Texas bartonia Bartonia texana S 2 forests and bay-gall (Ilex coriacea) thickets. Often on elevated clumps of sphagnum moss No Impact Houston or other organic matter (NatureServe 2007).
Open, deep sandy soils, where it is restricted to areas with periodic disturbance by fire, Warner’s hawthorn Crataegus warneri S 2 Davy Crockett - No Impact wind, and/or erosion (NatureServe 2005).
Fairly abundant where it occurs, in open areas of deep, disturbed sands. It is restricted to areas with periodic disturbance by fire, wind, and/or erosion, however, and is vulnerable Mohlenbrock’s umbrellas- Cyperus grayioides S 2 to encroachment by woody or weedy plant species. Sand prairie habitats have declined Sabine & Angelina - No Impact sedge severely as a result of agricultural and residential development, fire suppression, and grazing (NatureServe 2007).
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 27 of 30 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code For High Potential Habitat
Near wooded seepage areas, on stream floodplains, and in mesic hardwood ravines on Southern lady’s-slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact lower mesic slopes or on stream terraces (Orzell 1990).
Grasslands (e.g., Little bluestem-side oats grama prairie) or openings in post oak Commanche Peak Prairie Dalea reverchonii S 2 (Quercus stellata) woodlands on shallow calcareous clay to sandy clay soils over LBJ No Impact Clover limestone. Often among sparse vegetation in barren, exposed sites (NatureServe 2007).
Neches river rose mallow Hibiscus dasycalyx S, C 2 Open marsh, nearest population from Harrison Co. Davy Crockett - No Impact
Hillside seepage bogs, wet pine savannas, wet sphagnum bogs in pine savannas Pineland bogbutton Lachnocaulon digynum S 2 (NatureServe 2005). Pitcher plant bogs and wetland pine savanna with herbaceous Sabine & Angelina - No Impact groundcover
Leavenworthia aurea var. Restricted to small, treeless glades found on rocky outcrops of the Weches Geologic Texas golden gladecress S, C 2 Sabine No Impact texana Formation. Weches Formation outcrops, known only from San Augustine and Sabine Cos.
Open pine forests on sandy soil in eastern Texas (Orzell 1990). Habitat requirements Slender gayfeather Liatris tenuis S 5 Sabine & Angelina - Beneficial Impacts include fire maintained dry, upland longleaf pine savanna.
Frequently burned hillside seepage bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs and wet Yellow fringeless orchid Platanthera integra S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact savannas w/ herbaceous understory
Rich, mesic hardwood forests, and near rivers and streams. Mesic hardwood or riparian Barbed rattlesnake-root Prenanthes barbata S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact forests with unique associates, nearest populations in Nacogdoches and Jasper Cos.
Bogs, wet pine savannas, and wet flatwoods. Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous Large beakrush Rhynchospora macra S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact seeps
Hillside seepage bogs and associated broadleaf semi-evergreen acid seep forests Sabine coneflower Rudbeckia scabrifolia S 2 (Orzell 1990). Pitcher plant bogs or open herbaceous seeps, nearest known pop. In Sabine & Angelina - No Impact Sabine Co.
Grows on forb-dominated barrens, on shallow, nutrient-poor soils from the Catahoula Formation (Orzell 1990). In east Texas and southern Arkansas this taxon generally Texas sunnybell Schoenolirion wrightii S 2 Angelina No Impact inhabits open savannas canopied by a mixture of pine and hardwoods (NatureServe 2007).
Deep, usually well drained sands or sandy loams in partially shaded longleaf forests with an open, herbaceous understory. Grows in the ecotone between upland longleaf pine Scarlet catchfly Silene subciliata S 2 savannah and forested ravines that were historically maintained by natural low-intensity Sabine & Angelina - No Impact ground fires (Orzell 1990). Deep, sandy soils usually on transition zone from upland to streamside over Catahoula Formation
Moist, open woodlands and glauconitic outcrops (the latter are not known to occur on Clasping (Oklahoma) Streptanthus maculatus S 2 the ANF). Open calcareous glades usually on Weches Formation in Texas, nearest pop. in Sabine No Impact twistflower Sabine Co.
Low, boggy hardwood bottoms; seep borders of ravine streams. Often in sphagnum Texas trillium Trillium texanum S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact mats (NatureServe 2005).. Baygalls and forested seeps
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 28 of 30 Regional Forester's OAR Habitat Requirements Scientific Name Status Forest-wide Distribution Determination Sensitive Species Code For High Potential Habitat
Drummond’s yellow-eyed Hillside seepage bogs, in areas of exposed fine wet sand or peaty sand (Orzell 1990).. Xyris drummondii S 2 Sabine & Angelina - No Impact grass Pitcher plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps
Sabine & Angelina - comp 79 Louisiana yellow-eyed It occurs on the lower edges of hillside seepage slopes and wet claypan pine savannas Xyris louisianica S 2 (Dan Lay Bog) & comp 95 No Impact grass * (Philipps 2007). (Upland Island Wilderness)
Hillside seepage bogs, in open boggy areas and in partial shade of boggy evergreen Harper’s yellow-eyed Xyris scabrifolia S 2 shrub thickets. Often on hummocks of sphagnum moss in bogs (Orzell 1990). Pitcher Sabine & Angelina - No Impact grass plant bogs and open herbaceous seeps
OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS (OAR) CODES:
1 = Project located out of known species range. 2 = No habitat is present within the area affected by the project. 3 = Marginal habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because these areas do not include high potential habitat as described. 4 = Habitat present in project area, but species does not have high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because inventories are adequate enough to confirm that species are not present. 5 = This species has a high potential to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because of observed habitats in the treatment area(s), and the species has been found in similar habitats.
6 = This species has a high potenti al to occupy proposed treatment area(s) because it has been documented within these areas. 7 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of the treatment area(s), but outside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area (defined as point below which sediment amounts are immeasurable and insignificant). 8 = Aquatic species or habitat known or suspected downstream of treatment area(s), but inside identified geographic bounds of water resource cumulative effects analysis area.
* Species that are not Region Forester's sensitive species, but are globally and/or state imperiled and have known occurrences on the Forest.
Zavalla Thin Project Biological Evaluation Page 29 of 30 Appendix B. Zavalla thin RCW survey response from Robert Allen USFWS-Lufkin, TX
Compartment 64 Project Biological Evaluation Page 30 of 30